12496 réponses à ce sujet

[Neon Rising Winter]

But they are not lesser.

 

Nobody get treated unfairly because they decided to play a dwarf or an elf in DAO or didn't romance Alistair/Morrigan (ok maybe the dwarf/romance did get treated unfairly). They still get to play through the game main plot, defeat the last boss and get an ending based on their decisions just like everyone finishing the game would. Choices exist so you can replay the game and get a totally different experience out of it. The concept of "lesser" and "main" is based on the preconceived notion of  "perfect playthrough", but the game is not designed with that concept. All playthroughs are equivalent.

Morrigan and Alistair involvements in the main plot was totally disassociated from them being romance. Morrigan still made the DR offer even if you kicked her out of the group earlier in the game. Alistair still become king, warden or a drunk even if you do not romance him.  I don't see that changing for DAI.

 

Not romancing Cassandra isn't going to change the game main plot, it's only going to change your emotional investment in her character, but it doesn't mean it's going to be a lesser emotional investment than if you romanced her...

 

I'd counter with the argument that having emotional investment in a character more strongly tied to key events of the main plot may in turn make a player feel more strongly invested in the plot itself. I'm not saying it makes or breaks enjoyment of the game, or means they cannot possibly have a bloody good game without it, just it's one of those small increments that can improve the experience.

[Ianamus]

If you are that adamant that you cannot romance a non-companion then just romance the LI who is a companion. 

 

Only romancing companions is a self-imposed restriction, not the game providing you with less choice. 

[byeshoe]

Franckly, I wish Cullen was an extra and BI, a full romance as well for gay men and straight female so we could have only companions as Lis. I wouldn't care at all if my gender had less options with female companions. Just give me several choices between companions please. 

I really do think that when they announced Cullen as a romance, they meant to announce one of the NPC romances. And when they announced Cassandra as a romance, they also announced one of the traveling companion romances. @__@ I can see why some people are worried about Cullen taking up one of the traveling companion slots but that's not the case I believe.

Mort, you mentioned 4 romances plus 2 NPC romances and I think this is what'll be in the game. It makes the most sense.

Cullen and scribbles will be on the sidelines. 1 is male, the other female. Orientation specific. While we have 4 companions who will be travelling with us as choices.

We have 9 companions in total plus our 3 advisers = 12

If we only had 9 companions not counting the NPC's I don't think there would be much guessing going around. Remember, in Orgins we also had 9 companions and only 4 romance options. Since we have 12 choices in Inquisition instead...it makes sense to have 6 romance options :] four of whom are travelling companions, while 2 will be the stay at home the keep choices. We also don't know how the people on the Dragon age team will do Npc romances. This is'nt the same group of people who designed the mass effect romance system,   I think....

[Lady Nuggins]

Because it was a npc. See mort de minuit's post further up page, it puts it much more elegantly than I can, that every facet of interaction plays into romance.

 

I assume by companion romance that becomes NPC, you're speaking of, say, Thane or Miranda?  But those don't suck because they're NPC, they suck because the characters are barely around, and you get maybe one romantic scene with them in the entire game.  Your "romance" with them is really more like the devs throwing you a bone because you romanced them in the previous game.

 

 

But they are not lesser.

 

Nobody get treated unfairly because they decided to play a dwarf or an elf in DAO or didn't romance Alistair/Morrigan (ok maybe the dwarf/romance did get treated unfairly). They still get to play through the game main plot, defeat the last boss and get an ending based on their decisions just like everyone finishing the game would. Choices exist so you can replay the game and get a totally different experience out of it. The concept of "lesser" and "main" is based on the preconceived notion of  "perfect playthrough", but the game is not designed with that concept. All playthroughs are equivalent.

Morrigan and Alistair involvements in the main plot was totally disassociated from them being romance. Morrigan still made the DR offer even if you kicked her out of the group earlier in the game. Alistair still become king, warden or a drunk even if you do not romance him.  I don't see that changing for DAI.

 

Not romancing Cassandra isn't going to change the game main plot, it's only going to change your emotional investment in her character, but it doesn't mean it's going to be a lesser emotional investment than if you romanced her...

 

Eh, yes and no.  If you romance Alistair, you can become queen (or mistress of the king).  The romance is directly intertwined with the major events of the game.  Same with Morrigan.  Certainly, you play through those major events no matter what, but if you romance Leliana or Zevran, the romance and the major plot are not really connected at all.  Those romances feel like footnotes to the main event.  And there's nothing wrong with some romances not being connected to major events at all (Leliana is my favorite of the romance options), but it's when the two that ARE related are the straight romances that it becomes an issue.

 

Edit: Meant to say Zevran, not Alistair, my bad.

[Fiery Phoenix]

It's kind of weird how many people seem willing to shoot down NPC romances as "inferior" or "unfair" already.

I was just talking to a friend about this and I'm going to say it has more to do with the fact that we gamers have a tendency to not take non-companions very seriously. In a game like this, no matter how much work is put into a particular character, if that character is NOT a full-fledged companion, we're just not going to care too much for them. The concern is thus valid, and I wouldn't call it fair if the only lesbian/gay option was a non-companion, despite what BioWare might say.

[jlb524]

If you are that adamant that you cannot romance a non-companion then just romance the LI who is a companion. 

 

Only romancing companions is a self-imposed restriction, not the game providing you with less choice. 

 

I liked the way DA2 did it b/c I had finally had a choice between romancing two female companions.

 

This is likely being taken away in DA:I.

 

I should be happy because?

[wright1978]

If you are that adamant that you cannot romance a non-companion then just romance the LI who is a companion. 
 
Only romancing companions is a self-imposed restriction, not the game providing you with less choice.

That only works if you like the singular companion li option that you are lumbered with whilst in the likes of da2 there was a choice of 2.

[Lady Nuggins]

If you are that adamant that you cannot romance a non-companion then just romance the LI who is a companion. 

 

Only romancing companions is a self-imposed restriction, not the game providing you with less choice. 

 

I think it's the fear that certain choices (i.e. the gay and lesbian ones) will be relegated to non-companions that has people upset.  It's a reasonable concern, given that that is how it has usually been in the past.

[Maria Caliban]

I liked the way DA2 did it b/c I had finally had a choice between romancing two female companions.
 
This is likely being taken away in DA:I.
 
I should be happy because?

No, that is not 'likely.' That is 'fan speculation.'

This was the same speculation that told us Morrigan was bisexual, Dragon Age II would have a Grey Warden PC, and DA III would be about the Mage/Templar war.

[Divine Justinia V]

If you are that adamant that you cannot romance a non-companion then just romance the LI who is a companion. 

 

Only romancing companions is a self-imposed restriction, not the game providing you with less choice. 

 

I think it's more of a matter of feeling like maybe it's a wasted LI slot, taking away companion-romance opportunities for some people, which I 800000% understand

[Mockingword]

I love the set sexualities from a character development pov. It allows for a more fully fleshed out individuals with their own wants and needs.

As opposed to DA2's method, where the characters' personalities and opinions were all completely identical? 

[jlb524]

No, that is not 'likely.' That is 'fan speculation.'

This was the same speculation that told us Morrigan was bisexual, Dragon Age II would have a Grey Warden PC, and DA III would be about the Mage/Templar war.

 

You're right that it's still just speculation at this point.

 

I guess I should say 'is possible' instead.

[Mockingword]

No, I think 'likely' is the right word.

 

I mean, one game with equal choices vs their entire catalogue of unequal choices does not speak particularly highly of our chances.

[SurelyForth]

As opposed to DA2's method, where the characters' personalities and opinions were all completely identical? 

 

DA2 only had one love interest with four heads- Fenisamerrandersillbelaris. 

[Divine Justinia V]

DA2 only had one love interest with four heads- Fenisamerrandersillbelaris. 

 

and I'd take that w no problem

[Deviija]

There is certain content that affords me more emotional investment with traveling companions over stay-at-home NPCs.  In DA2, for example, you could have your LI Anders or Merrill break Idunna's blood magic on Hawke to keep him/her from cutting their own throat.  Being able to have your LI save your PC is a more rare scenario in these type of relationships, and it does create a layer of emotional investment and relationship investment for me.  An NPC that stays at home isn't interjecting into conversations, morally objecting to your decisions as they happen in the field, or getting those chances to solve a situation or problem for you like DA2 allowed companions to do.  I like those aspects and that content when an LI companion is present.  

 

Could there be an attack on one of your keeps for plot reasons and you're there with your NPC LI, and he/she takes a bullet for you, or you get a special cutscene of the two of you fighting back to back against dozens of demons, or so on and on?  Sure.  There are many things that can be done with an NPC LI to make them feel more involved, but I am very skeptical of that line of content.  As I said before, if the DA Team can do NPC LIs really well, to where I don't feel like I'm missing out on the companion content I'd otherwise get in the field, then I'll happily change my opinion on NPC LIs.  

[N7_5P3CTR3]

As opposed to DA2's method, where the characters' personalities and opinions were all completely identical? 

Where did I say anything about them being identical? Better fleshed out means more details about them as individuals regardless of them being willing to drop their panties for my PC.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Considering how much of a hard time BioWare was given for daring to include all-bi romances in one game, I personally don't see it happening again. Yes, we will have a number of bi companions, but it probably won't cover the whole party.

 

DA2's approach will always be the best in my mind. It's simple and it's fair, period.

[N7_5P3CTR3]

There is certain content that affords me more emotional investment with traveling companions over stay-at-home NPCs.  In DA2, for example, you could have your LI Anders or Merrill break Idunna's blood magic on Hawke to keep him/her from cutting their own throat.  Being able to have your LI save your PC is a more rare scenario in these type of relationships, and it does create a layer of emotional investment and relationship investment for me.  An NPC that stays at home isn't interjecting into conversations, morally objecting to your decisions as they happen in the field, or getting those chances to solve a situation or problem for you like DA2 allowed companions to do.  I like those aspects and that content with an LI companion that is present.  

 

Could there be an attack on one of your keeps for plot reasons and you're there with your NPC LI, and he/she takes a bullet for you, or you get a special cutscene of the two of you fighting back to back against dozens of demons, or so on and on?  Sure.  There are many things that can be done with an NPC LI to make them feel more involved, but I am very skeptical of that line of content.  As I said before, if the DA Team can do NPC LIs really well, to where I don't feel like I'm missing out on the companion content I'd otherwise get in the field, then I'll happily change my opinion on NPC LIs.  

 

To the bolded portion. They already said the Big Bad will attack your strong hold at some point.

[Mockingword]

Where did I say anything about them being identical? Better fleshed out means more details about them as individuals regardless of them being willing to drop their panties for my PC.

The premise of your argument is that set sexualities allow for party members to be "better fleshed out".

 

In what way did DA2's method for dealing with romances prevent the characters from being "fleshed out"?

[SurelyForth]

Where did I say anything about them being identical? Better fleshed out means more details about them as individuals regardless of them being willing to drop their panties for my PC.

 

I think the issue is that there's an assumption being made that set sexualities are going to create a wellspring of content that couldn't exist if those characters were playersexual. I don't really see how that's the case. For example, Morrigan and Alistair were both straight, but they could have easily been made playersexual without losing any content (and adding just a scoche around the Landsmeet/DR). There's nothing to their characterization that requires them to be heterosexual, nor anything that holds them  to that save for the fact that they don't flirt with, or cannot be flirted with, by Wardens of the same sex. Were they to be thus "unrestrained" their depth of character would remain in tact. 

 

Unless, of course, you think depth is defined by who a person is willing to "drop their panties for", in which case I'd say that's your problem, and not anything that BW needs to address.

[KainD]

1. No, knowing someone's sexuality doesn't tell you about their future sexual partners. A bisexual person might decide not to have sex. A straight person might have sex with someone of the same gender for money. A gay person might decide to experiment with someone of a different gender. An asexual person might decide that they'll have sex with someone they love in order to make them happy. A pansexual person could have a monogamous marriage.

 

Fair enough. 

 

 

2. Bisexuality isn’t any more of a choice than homosexuality or heterosexuality. 
 

 

I mean you choose who you have sex with right? The person. I mean, I physically can't have sex with a person of the same gender, even if I wanted to, I don't choose in this regard. I guess it would be possible if I was imagining something else with closed eyes, but that wouldn't be considered as having sex with that person right? That's having sex with a mental image, same as masturbation. 

 

A dude with a vibrator could probably get me off – this doesn’t mean I feel any romantic or sexual attraction to men.

 

I mean, you would have to have a mental image as well right? You can't be THERE and get aroused can you? 

 

3. People can have orgasms while they’re raped. Yes, rapists can try to get you off; I know more than one woman who had their attacker go down on them. Yes, rape can be sensual and pleasurable

 

Really? Mind boggling. If I would get pleasure from the act, I would automatically discredit said act from being rape. 

 

 

4. And there’s nothing wrong with talking about your own sexuality, as long as you realize that your experiences aren’t universal.

 

Oh, I can see that experiences are far from universal. 

[Divine Justinia V]

can we not talk about rape in this thread? thanks

[Hanako Ikezawa]

can we not talk about rape in this thread? thanks

Wait, what? 

[pallascedar]

The premise of your argument is that set sexualities allow for party members to be "better fleshed out".

 

In what way did DA2's method for dealing with romances prevent the characters from being "fleshed out"?

 

I don't think many people are saying bisexual characters aren't fleshed out/one can't flesh out bisexual characters.

 

However, if you don't constrain yourself by the rule of "Every love interest has to be available to everyone." it allows greater freedom in the types of character stories you develop for love interests. Which is a good thing I think.