Ce sujet est fermé
Yes, I did.
I'm sorry you felt that way.
Like I said before, I don't really have an issue with them offering non-companion options per se.
I'm worried that these will be the gay-exclusive option (mainly more worried about the lesbian option here).
I don't like non-companion romances myself and if they do this, I will be limited to one option.
But eh, if the make the non-companions bisexual at least it will be fair and I'm fine with that.
Sorry. Long day.
It's alright. I mean, I know you're not for gender gating and I would be fine with NPC LIs if they hadn't done gender gating, so I don't think we really have much of a disagreement on this. I think we basically have the same ideal for this situation, to just get rid of gender gating.
Be so much simpler if they stuck with DA2's system, but no we had to go with the SSSS. Then again they'd proably not do NPC LIs then because they'd only make 4.
I hear you hun. Here, have a hug.
It's alright. I mean, I know you're not for gender gating and I would be fine with NPC LIs if they hadn't done gender gating, so I don't think we really have much of a disagreement on this. I think we basically have the same ideal for this situation, to just get rid of gender gating.
Yeah, though like I said if they didn't gender gate they'd only make 4 LIs, and with that few they'd all be companions. So I'm stuck either way.
I'm sorry you felt that way.
Like I said before, I don't really have an issue with them offering non-companion options per se.
I'm worried that these will be the gay-exclusive option (mainly more worried about the lesbian option here).
I don't like non-companion romances myself and if they do this, I will be limited to one option.
But eh, if the make the non-companions bisexual at least it will be fair and I'm fine with that.
I doubt they will. Cullen is an NPC, and they will not make him gay.
I hear you hun. Here, have a hug.
Spoiler
The picture didn't load.
Take 2!
Spoiler
Nope.
The problem may be on my side.
Grr...I was trying to get you one from your avatar, Hina. That stupid thing won't load.
I guess this one will have to do.
Grr...I was trying to get you one from your avatar, Hina. That stupid thing won't load.
I guess this one will have to do.
Aww.
And hmm, that's weirs how the other wouldn't load. Try via PM.
Aww.
And hmm, that's weirs how the other wouldn't load. Try via PM.
Here's the link to the gif I had in mind, for those that are curious: http://images6.fanpo...430-300-248.gif
This was directed at DG's comments that having a cast that was available to all genders as "wish fulfillment," when truthfully I thought a cast that was mainly ambigous about their sexuality was the most inclusive thing I've ever played. Do I think that DG feels that way about pansexuals IRL? Of course not!
You made a lengthy post and I don't want to give the impression that it's not interesting in its entirety, but I want to focus here, because you and I because you and I read David's comment differently.
Here's the bold heading David said:
I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player.
I read this as "I don't want all of the characters in the game to be romanceable." Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems that your interpretation of this is "I do not want the romanceable characters to be romanceable by all genders." As an aside, I'm pretty sure that David has also spoken in the past that choice is very important to him, and that the only way he'd be interested in doing something other than 4 bisexual romance characters is if choice is maintained. So I confess that don't see how he gives off the impression that 4 different people all being interested in the player character is pandering to the player character. In fact, whether we were to do 4 bisexual NPCs or 2/2/2, in both cases you'd have 4 different people all being interested in the player character.
He says he doesn't want to increase the romance content simply for the purpose of having any character be romanceable and to be little more than the happily ever after sense of wish fulfillment, and because of that he feels it objectifies the party members in a lot of ways. If romance content were to increase, he'd like to do more with them. He'd like to do more stuff like Thane, have tragedy, increase the chances of "failing" the romance, and simply do more and different things with the romances.
To me, it seems that that post you link is that he doesn't want to simply add romance content that is mostly samey for each of the party members simply to satisfy some individual's desire to romance a party member. And this makes sense to me given that I don't know if I agree that simply because someone wants to romance Aveline that she should be available.... I think in doing so you'd end up ripping out the entirety of her relationship with Donnic. I think it's fine for Varric to not be interested in reciprocating a romance.
I think that where the disconnect happens is if people believe we add romance content simply to appeal to those that want to romance particular characters. I realize we're kind of behind the 8 ball here and the absence of romance content would probably make a lot of people angry, but I think if we start saying "this character should be romanceable because people would probably like to romance them" then we probably start undermining the creation of romance content. And as David said, adding the romance content for the sole reason of simply allowing people to romance any of the companions that they want is where we've started to spend a great deal of effort on something we don't consider critical to the crit path of the game. I think that it'd be better served to do something like this if romance was deemed essential to the plot of the game. But that's not the goal of our romance content.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I fully empathize with David's assessment of The Witcher's card system. It was something that upon recognizing made me feel very, very uncomfortable. I was absolutely not cool with a mechanic that immediately made me wonder if the woman I was talking to was there for me to "conquer."
There would be companions romances to take their place. Same number of options.
Did you feel limited in other games because there was only companion options?
The same amount of options could be there, but just with companions.
Yes, as a matter of point, I did feel limited.
But my question for the fairness issue is, if it's totally fair that the "main romances" go to anyone, then why are they never gay? If NPCs are always just as good, then why are the NPCs usually the bi or gay options? I think we all know it's because everyone knows which options are more desirable among the majority of players, if we're being totally honest. I'm not asking for those options to be made homosexual, though. I don't want the content to be slanted in favor of homosexuals. I just want an equal amount. The position that, "nothing is ever going to be fair unless we just axe the content," comes across as a brush off and maybe even a little bit of a threat, to me. You're generally a reasonable individual, so I want to say that's not how you mean it to sound. It's a personal issue, to me, so I'm probably being over sensitive.
When I say I feel that the only way to truly be fair is to axe the content, I am more saying that I feel we need to accept the fact that anything we do is going to be perceived as unfair to someone, and that we'll need to make decisions without handicapping ourselves with an absolute perception of being "fair." I think areas like choices are valid and fair. I think not ostensibly biasing the amount of content to a particular orientation is important (side note: it could be argued that bisexuals will always get the most content in this regard, but like I said some "unfairness" is going to be inherent if we are to add the content). The issue is trying to determine which measurements we think are valid in terms of being fair.
To be perfectly honest, if it were up to me I wouldn't actually be fair with the choice content either. I'd deliberately be biased towards homosexual romances simply because it's overdue. Maybe it's a good thing that it's not my call because maybe that'd be bad for business. As for the "main romances not being gay." Well, they weren't in DA2 so that's something. I do think that it'd be excellent if a gay person was the "primary love interest." But frankly I'm more inclined to give all the romances some level of their relevance and I think if people can make a compelling argument that any of the characters is "a main romance" (or conversely, that none of them are), then I would consider that a huge win.
For one: Not many have asked for 9+ romances. If anything, 4-6 is the number that seems to be preferred. So I'm not sure why that was even a point. I have read several people that feel the same way I do: We aren't asking to romance all the companions, we're asking that those that are designated to be LIs be available to all genders.
In almost any thread on companions, you'll find people that want that companion to be romanceable. For any given companion, there is a chance that a fan will be disappointed because their favourite companion isn't romanceable. I've seen it with the DA companions (From what I understand it was almost violent when it was revealed that Varric was not a love interest despite having legions of fans that wanted him. I actually have seen people call us racist for not allowing it).
So while it may not be you, specifically, saying that... I do think it's an implicit assumption when people say they consider it maximizing the potential enjoyment by making all the romances bisexual that the ultimate ideal would be for ALL the characters be romanceable, since then no one is left without a party member that they want to romance.
That's the way I see it. Even if people are okay and can understand that it probably won't happen, I wouldn't be surprised if there are people that would see it as preferable if all the party members were romanceable (especially if there were assurances that the romance qualities weren't compromised in the process).
Here's the link to the gif I had in mind, for those that are curious: http://images6.fanpo...430-300-248.gif
Aww. 
When I say I feel that the only way to truly be fair is to axe the content, I am more saying that I feel we need to accept the fact that anything we do is going to be perceived as unfair to someone, and that we'll need to make decisions without handicapping ourselves with an absolute perception of being "fair." I think areas like choices are valid and fair. I think not ostensibly biasing the amount of content to a particular orientation is important (side note: it could be argued that bisexuals will always get the most content in this regard, but like I said some "unfairness" is going to be inherent if we are to add the content). The issue is trying to determine which measurements we think are valid in terms of being fair.
To be perfectly honest, if it were up to me I wouldn't actually be fair with the choice content either. I'd deliberately be biased towards homosexual romances simply because it's overdue. Maybe it's a good thing that it's not my call because maybe that'd be bad for business. As for the "main romances not being gay." Well, they weren't in DA2 so that's something. I do think that it'd be excellent if a gay person was the "primary love interest." But frankly I'm more inclined to give all the romances some level of their relevance and I think if people can make a compelling argument that any of the characters is "a main romance" (or conversely, that none of them are), then I would consider that a huge win.
I appreciate your honesty here, Allan.
I'd like to think that, by now, everyone knows the whole fair versus unfair debate is an unwinnable battle. I certainly don't blame you for saying you would be deliberately biased towards homosexual content, and I do agree that it's overdue. However, I personally believe variety is the spice of life. Whatever you guys decide, as long as the companions satisfy all the different demographics, I'm pretty sure people will be happy. I can't speak for NPCs as I don't typically look at them when I think of romance, but if the primary companions aren't restricted to a certain orientation, I think it's fair to say that will be better than the alternative.
When I say I feel that the only way to truly be fair is to axe the content, I am more saying that I feel we need to accept the fact that anything we do is going to be perceived as unfair to someone, and that we'll need to make decisions without handicapping ourselves with an absolute perception of being "fair." I think areas like choices are valid and fair. I think not ostensibly biasing the amount of content to a particular orientation is important (side note: it could be argued that bisexuals will always get the most content in this regard, but like I said some "unfairness" is going to be inherent if we are to add the content). The issue is trying to determine which measurements we think are valid in terms of being fair.
To be perfectly honest, if it were up to me I wouldn't actually be fair with the choice content either. I'd deliberately be biased towards homosexual romances simply because it's overdue. Maybe it's a good thing that it's not my call because maybe that'd be bad for business. As for the "main romances not being gay." Well, they weren't in DA2 so that's something. I do think that it'd be excellent if a gay person was the "primary love interest." But frankly I'm more inclined to give all the romances some level of their relevance and I think if people can make a compelling argument that any of the characters is "a main romance" (or conversely, that none of them are), then I would consider that a huge win.
Essentially, I agree with you, I'm not in favor of their being obvious main romances. I thought DA2 improved on this. Only Fenris seemed to be lacking, in my opinion. To be honest, I feel like even Origins made up for Leliana over time. She got a DLC and she's been continuously featured in the books and games afterwards. It was just Zevran that's maybe been left behind a bit.
But I do understand there will be arguments at times which is really the "main" romance. I think it's a good sign when there's a debate about it, because it shows the content is as close in capacity that you could see it either way. You very rarely see anyone argue that Zevran or Fenris was a "main" romance, which I think is telling. I don't really expect there to be no denying that every companion got exactly the same amount of content. I just want it to be comparable, in the same general area.
I do appreciate that you would favor giving the homosexual romances priority. That means a lot, it really, really does. I hate disappointing people, so I would still try to give everyone the same options. I know it sucks getting left out, so I wouldn't do it to anyone else, if I were making the call. 
First, so I don't seem ungrateful, thanks for coming out and talking to us about this Allen. Your honest and willingness to be forthcoming is very cool and I'm glad you have the patience to do it.
Allan Schumacher, on 12 May 2014 - 9:36 PM, said:You made a lengthy post and I don't want to give the impression that it's not interesting in its entirety, but I want to focus here, because you and I because you and I read David's comment differently.Here's the bold heading David said:I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player.
That's correct, but after years of him defending the DA2 system, why the change?
I read this as "I don't want all of the characters in the game to be romanceable." Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems that your interpretation of this is "I do not want the romanceable characters to be romanceable by all genders." As an aside, I'm pretty sure that David has also spoken in the past that choice is very important to him, and that the only way he'd be interested in doing something other than 4 bisexual romance characters is if choice is maintained. So I confess that don't see how he gives off the impression that 4 different people all being interested in the player character is pandering to the player character. In fact, whether we were to do 4 bisexual NPCs or 2/2/2, in both cases you'd have 4 different people all being interested in the player character.
That is how I'm seeing it, in relation to Dragon Age. I've also expressed my distaste and distrust of NPC romances in later posts, but suffice to say it isn't something I personally wanted in Dragon Age. Also, why does he talk about it being "more believable" to have set sexualities in Dragon Age then? I'd be fine with just four romances and no NPC romances if they were available to all. Plus, I see a decrease in choice, and not even for the best of reasons.
He says he doesn't want to increase the romance content simply for the purpose of having any character be romanceable and to be little more than the happily ever after sense of wish fulfillment, and because of that he feels it objectifies the party members in a lot of ways. If romance content were to increase, he'd like to do more with them. He'd like to do more stuff like Thane, have tragedy, increase the chances of "failing" the romance, and simply do more and different things with the romances.
Edit: See Ryzaki's posts later in the thread. They do a much better job of explaining it than I did.
To me, it seems that that post you link is that he doesn't want to simply add romance content that is mostly samey for each of the party members simply to satisfy some individual's desire to romance a party member. And this makes sense to me given that I don't know if I agree that simply because someone wants to romance Aveline that she should be available.... I think in doing so you'd end up ripping out the entirety of her relationship with Donnic. I think it's fine for Varric to not be interested in reciprocating a romance.
I think that where the disconnect happens is if people believe we add romance content simply to appeal to those that want to romance particular characters. I realize we're kind of behind the 8 ball here and the absence of romance content would probably make a lot of people angry, but I think if we start saying "this character should be romanceable because people would probably like to romance them" then we probably start undermining the creation of romance content. And as David said, adding the romance content for the sole reason of simply allowing people to romance any of the companions that they want is where we've started to spend a great deal of effort on something we don't consider critical to the crit path of the game. I think that it'd be better served to do something like this if romance was deemed essential to the plot of the game. But that's not the goal of our romance content.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I fully empathize with David's assessment of The Witcher's card system. It was something that upon recognizing made me feel very, very uncomfortable. I was absolutely not cool with a mechanic that immediately made me wonder if the woman I was talking to was there for me to "conquer."
He said they might have, but there's really no reason they couldn't have.
If our motivation is exclusively to be fair (when looking at choice), then what motivation is there to increase the romance content?
This is similar to us deferring to heteronormative biases. There's really no reason why we couldn't have made all 4 romances in DAO bisexual. There's really no reason why we couldn't have had the "main romances" of DAO not be the bisexual ones either. But rather than some sort of nefarious plan/scheme to undermine that sort of content, it's probably a much greater likelihood that it was something that we simply didn't think of. (Not that that excuses it).
I've worked for BioWare since 2009, and it wasn't really until PAX Prime 2013 (August last year) that I felt I had a much better understanding of varying sexualities. Until then, I was much more of an advocate of "who cares it's just romance content" (disclaimer: romance content isn't something I consider necessary to my games, so that's my bias). Until I posted a question several weeks back, I still didn't really understand why romance content was so important to some people (back when I asked how people would react if there was no romance content in the game). But some excellent answers, a lot of which were from those advocating LGBTQ helped offer a different perspective that I didn't have. It's made me much, MUCH more aware of this sort of stuff (and I still make mistakes, misspeak, and all sorts of things).
I mean, if you go back to the old BSN you'll see me attempting to eloquently falling on my face in talking with people that were upset because they felt our typical depiction of lesbian relationships in our games was pretty much slap in the face offensive. I learned that it's very tricky because I'm human, and I have dozens of autonomic defense mechanisms that do their thing without my control to reaffirm to myself that "I'm not a bad person" because it's easy to conclude "That person is saying this thing we did was bad... they must be saying that we're bad! BUT I'M NOT A BAD PERSON!!! 
" I was then introduced to the concept of tone argument, which is something I often still struggle with because I know that how something is stated to me will have a greater/lesser chance of triggering some of those autonomic responses. And the last thing I want to do is possibly start dismissing a valid concern about representation simply because my brain has decided that my feelings are hurt and starts putting up walls that I don't want to put up. (For what it's worth I think I'm getting better... and in general, going back the past several years or so, I feel I am more receptive towards cognitive dissonance rather than always reflexively resisting it).
At this point I'm rambling now, but more and more I realize that there are things that I quite frankly just didn't even think about until someone called me on it (or I saw it brought up somewhere else, at least).
After Allans statement that we wouldn't get more than 4 LI's if everyone was bisexual, I now think, that we definitely won't get more than six LI's this time. If there were 8 LI's it wouldn't be a big deal to consider 5-6 LI's if everyone would have been bisexual.
What it does is bring to the forefront to not undermine choice.
Also note that I'm suggesting to people to have perspective. You've already now stated that I said there wouldn't be more than 4 LIs, which does a pretty good job of triggering my brain to start putting up walls and reevaluating how much, and in what ways, I try to interact with the fanbase. But then, I have my own bias in that I'm much more willing to assume ignorance over malevolence in a great many things (especially concerning something like video games), and that colours how I attempt to interact. But it does serve as a reminder that I need to be particularly vigilant since my status as BioWare employee fundamentally precludes me, in almost every capacity, from simply discussing a topic (woe is me and all that). Something that I'm probably still learning.
Allan Schumacher, on 12 May 2014 - 9:53 PM, said:In almost any thread on companions, you'll find people that want that companion to be romanceable. For any given companion, there is a chance that a fan will be disappointed because their favourite companion isn't romanceable. I've seen it with the DA companions (From what I understand it was almost violent when it was revealed that Varric was not a love interest despite having legions of fans that wanted him. I actually have seen people call us racist for not allowing it).
So while it may not be you, specifically, saying that... I do think it's an implicit assumption when people say they consider it maximizing the potential enjoyment by making all the romances bisexual that the ultimate ideal would be for ALL the characters be romanceable, since then no one is left without a party member that they want to romance.
That's the way I see it. Even if people are okay and can understand that it probably won't happen, I wouldn't be surprised if there are people that would see it as preferable if all the party members were romanceable (especially if there were assurances that the romance qualities weren't compromised in the process).
time to break up the long posts.... didnt really care for da 2 romance, mainly because it just didnt seem that involved... flirt with character act 1, character sleeps with hawke & becomes li, end game talk.... origins wasnt much better, but it didnt seem as broken up as da 2... would like to see a little more involvement, but if it starts taking away too much from gameplay then its ok to go back to the other style... no skin off my nose, but an upgrade would be interesting
If they have enough of a word budget for four Inquisitor voices, I imagine they've got a pretty big budget this time around
Inquisitor voices in and of itself don't really affect the word budget (I mean, it's just saying the same words with different people). There are other aspects that are guaranteed to be an issue regardless of how many voices we have (if we didn't think it'd be worth it, we'd likely not have more than a single voice).
There's the obvious things like translation and so forth, and the act of writing the words (and editing and possibly rewriting). But there's also the design aspects (which types of content is gated for plot flags? The more conversations there are the more likely these conditions end up getting created). If we've written this big scene, what sort of demands does that put on Cinematics Design and Cinematic Animation? What demands will it put on level art? How about audio (not VO)?
Writers write a lot of stuff, and their work comes earlier in the dev cycle. Where writer work gets shunted is more likely due to technical problems that show up down the line that compromise our ability to keep that content in at high quality.
I think ME3 team tried that it didn't go well for them
Also I didn't say no romance content I said limited romance content. There's a difference.
I take it more as "You are willing to concede some amount of romance content with the understanding that by not making that romance content, you will get other content elsewhere." (which is a reasonable perspective)
Retour en haut
