12496 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

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)

 

Yeah. Honestly more romances aren't that appealing to me. 4 is fine I'd rather have more dialogue based around my character and his/her personality/background if we have a set word count. We often don't get to have our PCs talk about themselves or if we do it's being warrior therapist to the NPC and they brush off our one line and keep talking about themselves (This was particularly facepalm inducing in the whole "Have you lost anyone" conversation with Alistair.

 

I'm one of those people who would rather lose romances than friendship paths if it's an either or scenario.

[Grieving Natashina]

Yeah. Honestly more romances aren't that appealing to me. 4 is fine I'd rather have more dialogue based around my character and his/her personality/background if we have a set word count. We often don't get to have our PCs talk about themselves or if we do it's being warrior therapist to the NPC and they brush off our one line and keep talking about themselves (This was particularly facepalm inducing in the whole "Have you lost anyone" conversation with Alistair.

 

I'm one of those people who would rather lose romances than friendship paths if it's an either or scenario.

 

That is also how I feel.  Four LI options available to all is fine for me, as long as the friendship paths were solid.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

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).

I can totally relate to what you're saying here as far as understanding the problem goes. I mean, I've never thought Bioware left out same sex options out of genuine bigotry. I understand it's not something anyone was doing until recently and I understand it's still taking a risk to do it. I'm grateful that Bioware has been progressively handling the issue thus far, between the change from DA:O to DA2 and adding m/m options in ME3. I'm glad that you guys are open to hearing our feedback on the issue and that you're willing to try to understand. Hopefully it doesn't seem the feedback I've given on the issue implies I think you or anyone else at Bioware are bad people. 

 

As for the 4 or 6 LI issue, specifically, I'm just still a little disappointed that everyone probably wont get 2 companion LIs. 

 

I mean, this isn't even really a fairness issue. To me personally, 6 gated LIs with NPCs isn't better than 4 ungated NPCs. I know you said before that it might have been 2 companions/2 NPCs, but that would be just.. equally bad? I'm not angry about it and I don't think it's necessarily a LGB issues, at least not if the demographics are evenly spread, it's just a personal preference issue. I have to say it's a disappointing concept, though, if I'm being totally honest. I understand someone will always be disappointed. So, I guess it's just something I'll have to get used to. 

[Darth Krytie]

I've discovered through reading these discussions, coming to terms with a step away from the four-bisexual options, and poking at my own head that I've narrowed down the most important things for me in terms of romances.

 

1. The availability of options. I don't necessarily need to love both my options, but I do want to have an option (meaning, more than one) suited to my Inquisitor's gender and sexuality.

2. At least one of those options ends without horrific drama. Seriously. I would like a romance that didn't end in tears and explosions and possessed babies.

3. Less raison d'etre and more connecting. I'd love something beyond "I love you, babe, but let's talk more about mages/templars."

4. It's really connected to number 2 and 3, but at least a few without tendrils of emotional manipulation...from either the LI or the PC. 

5. Cassandra being romanceable by my Inquisitor.

[Allan Schumacher]

Your probably right. I disagree with him that 2-2-2 system would provide equivalent choice to da2 as I view npc romances as deeply substandard to real companion romances & hence the system is in reality going to set up a canon romance per orientation rather than real choice as before.

 

When people are suggesting that "half their romance options are simply taken off the table" I'm going to feel somewhat compelled to point out that you're still going to have 4 options in the hypothesized 2/2/2 relationship, not 3 (regardless of how the romances are broken down).

[Allan Schumacher]

People teasing me for liking ME3 ending. 

 

Today's going to be one of those days. 

 

I liked the ME3 ending.  In fact, I preferred the original over the extended cut.

[Fiery Phoenix]

5. Cassandra being romanceable by my Inquisitor.

I wouldn't worry about this one. Give how popular she is, she has to be available as a romance.

 

Though I hope she is available to both genders, part of me doubts it. She is probably more likely to be straight.

[Darth Krytie]

I wouldn't worry about this one. Give how popular she is, she has to be available as a romance.

 

Though I hope she is available to both genders, part of doubts it. She is probably more likely to be straight.

 

My Inquisitor is a woman. I know she's an option. Just not if she's an option for my Inquisitor.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Yeah. Honestly more romances aren't that appealing to me. 4 is fine I'd rather have more dialogue based around my character and his/her personality/background if we have a set word count. We often don't get to have our PCs talk about themselves or if we do it's being warrior therapist to the NPC and they brush off our one line and keep talking about themselves (This was particularly facepalm inducing in the whole "Have you lost anyone" conversation with Alistair.

 

I'm one of those people who would rather lose romances than friendship paths if it's an either or scenario.

I always saw the PC never talking much about themselves was moe to leave them an open book for players to put themselves in their shoes easier.

[Darth Krytie]

I liked the ME3 ending.  In fact, I preferred the original over the extended cut.

 

You've got to tell me why sometime when I'm not falling asleep and tempting you into going OT.

 

 

 

One of the things that interested me most about the scant bit of info we've received (if I interpreted it correctly) is that different romances are going to have different tones...some more playful, some more deep, some more like 4evaBros...I think I'm particularly interested in that.

 

So far, most of the romances had similar tones. Not the same, but very sweet and deep in Origins. And in DA2...very clusterf*cky with tons of emotional manipulation and desperation.

[Ryzaki]

 

That is also how I feel.  Four LI options available to all is fine for me, as long as the friendship paths were solid.

 

Yeah when there's a horde of romance content and little to no friendship content it irritates me. (and honestly makes me feel said romance is shallow. They'll romance my character but woe betide we become close friends? What's with that?) and of course I like romance content but not more than PC fleshing out. I'd much rather have the latter than the former. I usually end up sticking to the same 2 Lis anyway. 

 

 

I always saw the PC never talking much about themselves was moe to leave them an open book for players to put themselves in their shoes easier.

 

I don't see how allowing the PC to pick how their personality and certain events in their background doesn't do the same.

 

I.E. "I was a little hellion when I was younger, I feel I've mellowed out quite a bit." so you could see your character as someone who's diplomatic but dips into sarcasm/aggression once in a while at rather bad times out of habit. Small tidbits maybe you were a prankster and that's why you choose the artificer specialization. Maybe a necromage had a unhealthy fascination with the dead. So on.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

2. At least one of those options ends without horrific drama. Seriously. I would like a romance that didn't end in tears and explosions and possessed babies.

I actually kind of like drama and sad endings, to be honest. I feel like one of the only people that would have really liked Thane's arc, if it was available to me. I actually loved the Anders romance.

 

Not that I mind an alternative option.

[Fiery Phoenix]

My Inquisitor is a woman. I know she's an option. Just not if she's an option for my Inquisitor.

I figured that's what you might have meant.

 

Cassandra really is a tough one to speculate about at this point. I won't hold my breath for her to be a bi option, but at least we can hope.

[Darth Krytie]

I actually kind of like drama and sad endings, to be honest. I feel like one of the only people that would have really liked Thane's arc, if it was available to me. I actually loved the Anders romance.

 

Not that I mind an alternative option.

Thane's arc wasn't horrific drama. Thane said he was gonna die from the start. It was a lovely romance and I enjoyed it a lot.

 

(I also romanced Anders literally over twenty times.)

 

I just want more than just that sort of romane.

[Deviija]

 

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).

 

I appreciated listening/reading your experience and thoughts, though.  It is one of the many reasons why I started on this forums ages ago, as well as try being active in other fora (social media, emails to companies/writers, blogospheres, etc), because that type of ripple effect does matter.  Being able to trade discussions and offer minority/non-typical lived in experiences and perspectives and sundry, and have that have an actual affect on others, to actually be heard, is a really beautiful and important thing in my eyes.  

[Ryzaki]

I always got the impression Thane's arc was terrible because of the way he died. Not because he died.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I don't see how allowing the PC to pick how their personality and certain events in their background doesn't do the same.

 

I.E. "I was a little hellion when I was younger, I feel I've mellowed out quite a bit." so you could see your character as someone who's diplomatic but dips into sarcasm/aggression once in a while at rather bad times out of habit. Small tidbits maybe you were a prankster and that's why you choose the artificer specialization. Maybe a necromage had a unhealthy fascination with the dead. So on.

Because unless they write every type of variable, people will be restricted in being a type of person. 

[Ryzaki]

Because unless they write every type of variable, people will be restricted in being a type of person. 

 

Not at all there should be a "I don't want to talk about it" choice for people who don't feel the choices are fitting their character.  Or even "Let's just talk about you." choice.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Yeah when there's a horde of romance content and little to no friendship content it irritates me. (and honestly makes me feel said romance is shallow. They'll romance my character but woe betide we become close friends? What's with that?) and of course I like romance content but not more than PC fleshing out. I'd much rather have the latter than the former. I usually end up sticking to the same 2 Lis anyway. 

I don't really like trading off a ton of romances for friendships, because you can only have one romance per playthrough, anyway. That just means you've got almost a dozen other people standing around with paper thin involvement each playthrough. I'd rather have 4 LIs that gave everyone the option between 2 well developed choices than have little interaction with everyone through the whole game. Four companion romances and deep friendships with everyone else would be a really good template, I think. 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I just want more than just that sort of romance.

That's totally understandable. I just see people complain about the sad/dramatic ones a lot, so I felt like commenting. lol  

[Darth Krytie]

That's totally understandable. I just see people complain about the sad/dramatic ones a lot, so I felt like commenting. lol  

 

It's not so much about the sad, so much as emotionally manipulative stuff I dislike. It seemed in DA2, that all your potential romances were unhealthy or at least unwise. There was no one that you could definitely say was truly sincere on either your Hawke's end or theirs.

 

Maybe I was spoiled by Garrus, but sometimes you don't want to have to wonder if your LI has other reasons for being with your PC than out of love or that perhaps, you'll wake up and have to start running because your LI had maybe something to do with setting the city on fire.

[Fiery Phoenix]

That's totally understandable. I just see people complain about the sad/dramatic ones a lot, so I felt like commenting. lol  

Sadness and drama can make wonderful romances IF they fit. Thane's romance is a perfect example of how to do so. It's only when you tackle those things in that they feel cheap and consequently make the underlying romance subpar.

[AventuroLegendary]

 

I always got the impression Thane's arc was terrible because of the way he died. Not because he died.

I don't know. Being able to knock a heavily-augmented assassin on his rear just before you go seems satisfying.

[Darth Krytie]

 

 

I don't know. Being able to knock a heavily-augmented assassin on his rear just before you go seems satisfying.

 

 

I agree. I thought that Thane would have rather go out doing that instead of just wasting away. I dunno. It seemed appropriate.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I agree with the "going out with a bang" perspective. To me, that's a lot more fulfilling than just having him die in the hospital.