You do realize that I said I wanted to hear about restrictions NOT related to romance. ALL anyone seems to focus on is the romance aspect. I wanted to hear other people's thoughts on general content, which you ended up getting to when responding to someone who had responded to me. xD
You do realize that I then followed up my initial statement with a entire suggestion relating to both class and race restricted sidequests.
One area I think restricted quest content could work is with classes. Specifically, each class has to go on a unique quest in order to unlock a specialization.
For example, a mage takes a quest, and depending on the outcome of that quest they can learn either Spirit Healer or Blood Mage, but not both. I could see that adding to replayablity, even if your playing the same class.
Guest_Fandango_*
You do realize that I said I wanted to hear about restrictions NOT related to romance. ALL anyone seems to focus on is the romance aspect. I wanted to hear other people's thoughts on general content, which you ended up getting to when responding to someone who had responded to me. xD
I'm saying no such thing. Are you thick?
It's the logical extension of your argument.
You want characters to be more like 'real people', and you tell me that arises from restricting their sexual content. It follows, therefore, that actual flesh-and-blood people exist on some sort of sliding scale of 'realness', based on how available they are sexually. Or else what standard are you using for measuring the 'realness' of fictional characters.
If your yardstick for measuring 'realism' isn't based on actual reality, then what is it based on?
Guest_Fandango_*
It's the logical extension of your argument.
You want characters to be more like real people, and you tell me that arises from restricting their sexual content.
If your yardstick for measuring the realness of characters isn't based on how you perceive actual people, then what the hell is it based on?
Good grief!
Okay, so you can't answer the question.
Guest_Fandango_*
Okay, so you can't answer the question.
Aye, I'd rather we both let your own peculiar brand of shite stand for itself.
All I did was ask questions, you're the one hurling insults around.
Guest_Fandango_*
All I did was ask questions, you're the one hurling insults around.
Nope. Not that any of this is OT - or in the least bit interesting to anyone (least of all me) - but the first insult was yours and I just don't appreciate (nor will I tollerate) your trying to put words in my mouth.
I never insulted you.
If I'm 'putting words in your mouth', it's because you haven't adequately explained your position.
You said that restricting the sexual content of fictional characters makes them more 'real', and you have yet to explain why.
Guest_Fandango_*
I never insulted you.
If I'm 'putting words in your mouth', it's because you haven't adequately explained your position.
You said that restricting the sexual content of fictional characters makes them more 'real', and you have yet to explain why.
I think it would be interesting if each LI had one thing (like a moral choice) that they just won't tolerate. If you make the choice, they'll break up with you.
Only a few have so far. For instance, Anders (as far as I'm aware) won't romance someone who helps a demon possess Feynriel. Alistair breaks up with you if you recruit Loghain. Morrigan does the same if you won't do her Dark Ritual. Leliana is an iffy one with that 'hardening' business, but technically there's the Urn choice for her.
I don't think there will be any class restrictions just more of it will be easier to do one thing if you are a certain class versus another.
As back to romances I do think Morale choices should affect their feelings for you. Like for Cullen for instances, if there is a way to save the Red Templars but you don't take it and instead you go through with destroying them all. I use Templars since as far as I remember he is a Templar lol. Then for the Elf characters depending on their stance, they could dislike you if you do something thats arbitrarily against Elfs.
Guest_Puddi III_*
With the same arguments going round & round it feels like im watching the magic roundabout
It is rather magical.
I think it'd be nice for romance content to be gated in some ways at least. It doesn't seem right for the heart button to basically guarantee success. Most obvious (or safest) gates being the big moral issues. That could be approximated with approval though, now that they're ditching rivalry again.
Gender and race gates can get rather contentious. I wouldn't really have a problem with them but a lot of people would.
Don't really see the point of class restriction, at that point the requirements start to look a little overly specific.
Maybe not so much restriction as "bumps" in a relationship. I'd love to see how Cullen and Cassandra handle dating a blood mage.
You called me an idiot in your first response to me. Not that it matters - I'm a huge idiot after all!
In any case, I'll just say again that that I think that gating NPC content - or having it diverge - for reasons of story, lore and characterisation makes for more compelling characters and a more convincing world. Apparently we disagree.
The problem here is that you argue that having not all LIs be bisexual will help their characterisation, or at least that is what I get from your posts. This would automatically mean that someone being strictly gay or straight would somehow make them into better characters, thus making bisexual characters 'less than' due to their bisexuality.
The other thing is that your posts suggest that the people who oppose your view are also 'less than', because as far as you're concerned, we don't value the companions as anything other than 'vehicles for our romantic adventures'. I am actually surprised that you have not yet called us basement-dwelling, sex-starved teenagers who need to compensate for their lack of social life. Maybe you're just working up to it though.
Now, I don't know for sure whether that is what you intended with what you wrote, but that is how I understand it.
Guest_Fandango_*
The problem here is that you argue that having not all LIs be bisexual will help their characterisation, or at least that is what I get from your posts. This would automatically mean that someone being strictly gay or straight would somehow make them into better characters, thus making bisexual characters 'less than' due to their bisexuality.
The other thing is that your posts suggest that the people who oppose your view are also 'less than', because as far as you're concerned, we don't value the companions as anything other than 'vehicles for our romantic adventures'. I am actually surprised that you have not yet called us basement-dwelling, sex-starved teenagers who need to compensate for their lack of social life. Maybe you're just working up to it though.
Now, I don't know for sure whether that is what you intended with what you wrote, but that is how I understand it.
That said, I don’t mind admitting that I fail to see the value in having each and every romantic option available to a single protagonist over and above actually wanting to get to know (and believe in) them as people. You know, separate from the way I would like them to be for the purposes of a little virtual nookie?!
These two things are huge strawmen. Nobody is saying romances should be allowed to detract from the ability to get to know characters outside of romantic content. The romances themselves hardly boil down to just pixel sex. They very well may not even contain it at all, since DA2 simply did a "fade to black" approach, which nobody here is complaining about. You're exaggerating the points people are making in an attempt to make the opposition look stupid and it's extremely thinly veiled.
Would it help some of you to see restricted content as being bonus content instead?
Guest_Fandango_*
These two things are huge strawmen. Nobody is saying romances should be allowed to detract from the ability to get to know characters outside of romantic content. The romances themselves hardly boil down to just pixel sex. They very well may not even contain it at all, since DA2 simply did a "fade to black" approach, which nobody here is complaining about. You're exaggerating the points people are making in an attempt to make the opposition look stupid and it's extremely thinly veiled.
I'm not trying to make anyone look stupid and there's no straw man in my argument Mort de Minuit. I mean, how about we remove the word 'sexuality' from the conversation for a moment and talk in terms of friendship. What would you make of my demanding that Bioware make the NPC of my choice be my protagonists BFF, regardless of how I choose to play her?
You already can max out friendship with any companion, regardless of your gender, race or class, so I'd say it's been working out so far.
Guest_Fandango_*
You already can max out friendship with any companion, regardless of your gender, race or class, so I'd say it's been working out so far.
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.
against (at least in most cases - if you have a mage hating character (which would probably make me murder-knife him/her anyway) not talking to you as a mage (unless you lie to them, it should be possible, as long as the character has not seen you use spells in front of them) for example, that is ok, but then there should be content (from a mage character that does not talk to non mages or at least does not offer them certain jobs/quests) added to compensate.)
on the whole I don't like it, because I hate not seeing content because I might not play a certain class/race/gender (or a combo of the three) like say male, dwarf and warrior (It's just not for me...) is just bad (unless, as I said, if you add content for each class/race/gender - but then again: just forgett the idea, because making content some players might only see on YT is not a good idea anyway!)
greetings LAX
Class based? Seems outlandish honestly. The only time I can see that happening is if a party member had a huge aversion to mages and magic, and even that a 'rivalry' path (or significant changes in dialogue) would work much better.
Gender restricted makes sense only if there are an equal amount of m/f and m/m or f/f options available. My solution has always been to have six LIs (may or may not be companions).
Male 1- females only
Male 2- males and females
Male 3- males only
Female 1- males only
Female 2- males and females
Female 3- females only
As far as race restrictions go, again I would have to say it applies based on character. I'm in favor of it if it flavors the character's reasoning and mentality. For instance a heavily pro-Dalish elf most likely wouldn't want a shem coming onto him/her. Dwarves heavily embedded in their culture generally frown on interspecies relations and pretty much 'stick to their own'. Varric in DA2 says he's not into humans, so if he were an LI for example, having him suddenly be into a human Femquisitor would be awkward handwaving to please the masses. But as with anything that would be much harder to implement since the backlash would be tremendous.
At the very least, if an LI must be playersexual, I do like the idea of different romantic dialogue based on race/gender if/when applicable.
Retour en haut