Ce sujet est fermé
No I don't man, more romance content means less general content.
You're confused on how game development and budget works. Go check out David Gaider's blog for clarification.
In short, the game is HUGE. Much bigger than the previous two games combined, and then some. Don't worry: There's PLENTY of content.
There's nothing confusing about it. The resources are taken from word budget for one, of the overall character content. They are not separate. I'm not saying there's not enough room for them, just that too many options for romance means less general character content which would be accessible to all players.
Of course, I hope no one was realistically expecting something bigger than that. Its not like every companion we have will be potential love interests.
6 allows for the heavily suggested and requested 2/2/2 of heterosexual/homosexual/available to both genders options.
I wasn't expecting anything. Six is allot better than four and I am happy with it but ofc I hope for certain characters. 
To be fair though, we don't know what the total number is.
In ME3 you had Tali, Liara, Ash, Kaidan, Garrus, Traynor, Cortez, and Allers. That's 8. If we include returning ME2 romances we include Jack, Miranda, Thane, Jacob and Kelly. That brings us to 13. If we include Citadel we include Samara, Javik, and Vega. That's now 16.
Therefore there will either be more than 8, more than 13, or more than 16 romances in DAI.
EDIT: I'm not counting the kiss you can share with Aria in the Omega DLC.
Now add to this a quote from Mark Darrah "In Dragon Age: Inquisition, there are nine followers for you to find and recruit, the most of any Dragon Age game to date." (in DAO it was 10 even without Shale) - and we get some pretty mixed up information from developers here.
Now add to this a quote from Mark Darrah "In Dragon Age: Inquisition, there are nine followers for you to find and recruit, the most of any Dragon Age game to date." (in DAO it was 10 even without Shale) - and we get some pretty mixed up information from developers here.
DAO:
Alistair, Dog, Morrigan, Sten ,Leliana, Zevran, Oghren, Wynne. That's 8.
Shale makes 9.
And I guess if you count Loghain (although really, he just occupies Alistair's slot) it goes up to 10. Still makes Mark wrong, but not as severely as you are claiming. Where do you get "10 without Shale"?
How dare you spoil the game for me ! 
I WAS WAITING FOR THE TEN YEAR ANNIVERSARY
DAO:
Alistair, Dog, Morrigan, Sten ,Leliana, Zevran, Oghren, Wynne. That's 8.
Shale makes 9.
And I guess if you count Loghain (although really, he just occupies Alistair's slot) it goes up to 10. Still makes Mark wrong, but not as severely as you are claiming. Where do you get "10 without Shale"?
Yes, I counted Logain - that's 9. However short his presence - he is still a companion. My mistake, Shale should be counted to get 10. But even with 9 only - this is still not "the most of any Dragon Age game to date" but equal to DAO.
Yes, I counted Logain - that's 9. However short his presence - he is still a companion. My mistake, Shale should be counted to get 10. But even with 9 only - this is still not "the most of any Dragon Age game to date" but equal to DAO.
Yeah. Best to take that sort of thing with a grain of salt.
Laidlaw also said there were 200 skills/talents, more than any other DA game. But DA2 had something like 250 or so. *shrug*
I don't think I was ever ON the hype train. Or at least, I got off it back when they announced gender restrictions.
No matter how good the game otherwise is, and even if I can have the exact kind of relationship in the game that I personally want to, the presence of those limitations is going to bother me.
They wouldn't be realistic without predispositions- hopefully your entire life isn't people of every gender clawing at you all the time.
No I don't man, more romance content means less general content.
There can still be plenty of content, more than DAII, regardless. An open, beautiful world. . . Romance IS a part of Bioware games, one that many enjoy. It makes sense that their content would grow proportionately to the size of the game.
They wouldn't be realistic without predispositions-
If I was even remotely concerned about "realism", I wouldn't buy fantasy games in the first place.
Does anyone who makes this garbage argument ever step back and actually look at it? It's totally fine for everyone you meet to be a goddamn superhero, capable of powerful magic and impossible feats of physicality, but if they're all "bisexual", that's crossing some invisible line for you?
Tell me, is "playersexuality" the last straw in the slow erosion of your suspension of disbelief over time? Or would your immersion be instantly shattered even if the game was set in the real world and dealt with utterly mundane events?
hopefully your entire life isn't people of every gender clawing at you all the time.
Why? You jelly?
There can still be plenty of content, more than DAII, regardless. An open, beautiful world. . . Romance IS a part of Bioware games, one that many enjoy. It makes sense that their content would grow proportionately to the size of the game.
Not saying there can't enough room for romances but you can't refute the fact that the resources allotted to romances come from overall resources allotted to characters on the whole. Romance content may be part of the game, but an optional part, not to mention they are almost never explored completely. A hetero gamer is most likely only going to stick to hetero female romances in the game and that might be 1/3 rd of the already optional content. It's not something everyone will explore every part of(in fact they explore only a small fraction of it because of their sexuality), like all other content in the game, optional or otherwise.
So who else doesn't want the game to treat the main character like a Mary Sue whom every character you meet is bending over for?
Playersexuality puts too much importance on the protagonist in the setting in ways that he or she should not be able to influence. That Alistair is interested in women is true across all playthroughs (not counting non-canon mods)
While there is nothing inherently immersion breaking in all characters being interested in the main character, it just strikes me as too contrived and reduces the characters to more of a checklist than fully fleshed out individuals
If I was even remotely concerned about "realism", I wouldn't buy fantasy games in the first place.
Does anyone who makes this garbage argument ever step back and actually look at it? It's totally fine for everyone you meet to be a goddamn superhero, capable of powerful magic and impossible feats of physicality, but if they're all "bisexual", that's crossing some invisible line for you?
Tell me, is "playersexuality" the last straw in the slow erosion of your suspension of disbelief over time? Or would your immersion be instantly shattered even if the game was set in the real world and dealt with utterly mundane events?
Why? You jelly?
Everyone we meet? There are villagers and peasants and slaves and servants and kings and, yes, mages and guys who wield swords that weigh more than they do. That's diversity. If every single character was a human mage, that'd be tiring- the same with an all bi cast. Realism matters, even in fantasy- you have to have some grounding or it loses its effect.
I'm not jelly; I just think never having to work for anything or having the ability to be let down sounds dull.
So who else doesn't want the game to treat the main character like a Mary Sue whom every character you meet is bending over for?
Playersexuality puts too much importance on the protagonist in the setting in ways that he or she should not be able to influence. That Alistair is interested in women is true across all playthroughs (not counting non-canon mods)
While there is nothing inherently immersion breaking in all characters being interested in the main character, it just strikes me as too contrived and reduces the characters to more of a checklist than fully fleshed out individuals
Can't like this, so I'll just comment. +1 immersion point
Everyone we meet? There are villagers and peasants and slaves and servants and kings and, yes, mages and guys who wield swords that weigh more than they do. That's diversity. If every single character was a human mage, that'd be tiring- the same with an all bi cast. Realism matters, even in fantasy- you have to have some grounding or it loses its effect.
If there's plenty of diversity outside of the romance options, then what harm would it do to make the characters that are romance options available to all types of PCs? Any illusion of realism is already destroyed by the fact that your number of potential partners is severely limited.
Playersexuality puts too much importance on the protagonist in the setting in ways that he or she should not be able to influence.
But being the only person in the world with the ability to seal dimensional rifts is just dandy. 
It's not as if there can't be any restrictions at all. DA2 had restrictions, they just were not based on gender. And why should they be?
But being the only person in the world with the ability to seal dimensional rifts is just dandy.
It's not as if there can't be any restrictions at all. DA2 had restrictions, they just were not based on gender. And why should they be?
There's a difference between plot given importance and everyone you meet wanting to have sex with you because you are you.
If it was up to me I'd have restrictions based on choices made in game and gender.
I don't think the characters should exist to serve as wish fulfillment, they should be there to contribute to the story's plot and themes, not there to provide Rule 34 fodder.
But being the only person in the world with the ability to seal dimensional rifts is just dandy.
It's not as if there can't be any restrictions at all. DA2 had restrictions, they just were not based on gender. And why should they be?
Because, I don't tend to go around forcing lesbians to love me.
How dare you spoil the game for me !
*hugs for play victims of five year old DAO spoilers, hahaha*
There's a difference between plot given importance and everyone you meet wanting to have sex with you because you are you.
If it was up to me I'd have restrictions based on choices made in game and gender.
I don't think the characters should exist to serve as wish fulfillment, they should be there to contribute to the story's plot and themes, not there to provide Rule 34 fodder.
These characters don't exist as personality lacking sex husks- they have their own in game histories, predispositions, and motivations driving them. Why should those be overridden because some guy or gal gets hot in the britches about them? Beings with agency don't act that way. Not everyone seems to get it. :/
Retour en haut