2170 réponses à ce sujet

[lady_v23]

realistic interpretations of fictional characters in order to add another dimension to the character, and therefore add some depth to the experience of romancing them.

 fair enough.  I didn't think of that

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

We should all roll peasants- roll rogues and never spend any level up points, try to pick up commoner men and women around the towns in the game. We'll call it the Romance Class.

[ladyoflate]

I resent that. It's perfectly plausible for a peasant to be a warrior. They probably just cause a lot of bar brawls.

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

I resent that. It's perfectly plausible for a peasant to be a warrior. They probably just cause a lot of bar brawls.

True. . . I was just meaning the extra "cunning" boost.

[ladyoflate]

True. . . I was just meaning the extra "cunning" boost.

 

are they cross-classed as a linguist

[LPPrince]

are they cross-classed as a linguist

 

Double the fun

[Ajna]

I want a cunning linguist!

[daveliam]

realistic interpretations of fictional characters in order to add another dimension to the character, and therefore add some depth to the experience of romancing them.

 

No one has ever explained why restricted romances are "deeper".  Particularly in the way it's being used here.

 

Really?  If Iron Bull won't romance an elf, then in my romance with him as another qunari depth is added?  I don't understand this logic in any way and I've tried and no one has explained it in a way that is even remotely satisfactory. 

 

The "realism" argument, while I don't like it, I at least understand.  The "depth" argument is completely baffling. 

[Darth Krytie]

No one has ever explained why restricted romances are "deeper".  Particularly in the way it's being used here.

 

Really?  If Iron Bull won't romance an elf, then in my romance with him as another qunari depth is added?  I don't understand this logic in any way and I've tried and no one has explained it in a way that is even remotely satisfactory. 

 

The "realism" argument, while I don't like it, I at least understand.  The "depth" argument is completely baffling. 

 

Honestly, I've wondered the same thing and this is the only answer that makes sense. A NPC character who does not want any variation of Inquisitor is showing preferences, a preference that might not include you. Ergo, depth because irl people have preferences that might not include you. That's all I can think of.

[daveliam]

Honestly, I've wondered the same thing and this is the only answer that makes sense. A NPC character who does not want any variation of Inquisitor is showing preferences, a preference that might not include you. Ergo, depth because irl people have preferences that might not include you. That's all I can think of.

 

I don't think most of the people who use "depth" really mean it.  I agree, it adds a sense of "realism", but I don't understand how it makes it "deeper".  Particularly in the way it was used in the post that I replied to in which s/he indicated that a character who has racial gating would add "depth" to a romance that they do engage in. 

 

Maybe it's the term depth.  But to me, "depth" regarding a story driven aspect of the game means that there is more details around around one aspect of the story (i.e. depth versus breadth).  So the only way that it would make sense at all would be if, for example, Iron Bull's lack of interest in elves somehow added more detail to his romance with, say, another qunari. 

 

I think what most people mean is exactly what you said, "It feels more realistic because the character shows preferences like in real life", which (again, I don't find compelling but) at least I understand where they are coming from.  I think the "depth" thing gets added in to add some additional weight to the argument, but it's almost always as an afterthought or the second adjective in a list of ways that "it would be better".

 

I'm genuinely interested, so if someone can explain, I'm all ears.

[Paraxial]

Depth in regards to story telling is a very general term. Usually when applied to an argument regarding a character or story arc, it's meant to describe when something added or used to create this piece of fiction grounds the character/story in a way that connects the player/reader/ watcher to the mythos in a very real and organic way.

'Depth' when I used it to describe the Inquisition romances was meant in this manner. It makes the characters more 'real', more relatable, and therefore makes them deeper and more well rounded examples of fictional characters (much unlike what we had to suffer through DA2 with).

Writing a character is easy, making that character feel alive is more difficult. A good character will feel like a real person. Regardless of their visual appearance, their presence should invoke a sense of individuality instead of just being a bland chess piece written in order to pander to the masses of romantic fan fiction writers.

[Abelas Forever!]

Personally I find different kinds of restrictions interesting because I believe that they can be done in a way that certain PC is not left out without a choice. That way the amount of LIs can be increased without decreasing the quality and I like this. What comes to gender restrictions there are different stories which can only be told by a character who is not bisexual. For example your LI has grown up in an enviroment where isn't potential partners available. It might be very difficult thing for that character and when that character tells you about it I think it takes the relationship into a new level. 

 

What comes to race restrictions it might be that certain potential LI has had bad experiences about the humans because some humans have burned that character's home village. That character might hate all humans because of that and can never be good friends with humans and definitely not love a human. It's not fair that that character hates you because of what you are but that potential LI is just that way imperfect. I also like that no matter what you do you can't always influence characters and make them see that they are wrong or agree with you.

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

Personally I find different kinds of restrictions interesting because I believe that they can be done in a way that certain PC is not left out without a choice. That way the amount of LIs can be increased without decreasing the quality and I like this. What comes to gender restrictions there are different stories which can only be told by a character who is not bisexual. For example your LI has grown up in an enviroment where isn't potential partners available. It might be very difficult thing for that character and when that character tells you about it I think it takes the relationship into a new level. 

 

What comes to race restrictions it might be that certain potential LI has had bad experiences about the humans because some humans have burned that character's home village. That character might hate all humans because of that and can never be good friends with humans and definitely not love a human. It's not fair that that character hates you because of what you are but that potential LI is just that way imperfect. I also like that no matter what you do you can't always influence characters and make them see that they are wrong or agree with you.

Regardless of even the trauma/ history approach, an LI might just not like horns, or short men. Maybe they prefer the lithe elves to the larger and clumsier humans. Maybe they want their potential son or daughter to not be ostracized by their own race, or maybe their religion or status forbids marrying outside of their race (such as the Qunari or human nobles.) It certainly adds to the lore, as well as individual identity.    

]

 

[daveliam]

Depth in regards to story telling is a very general term. Usually when applied to an argument regarding a character or story arc, it's meant to describe when something added or used to create this piece of fiction grounds the character/story in a way that connects the player/reader/ watcher to the mythos in a very real and organic way.

'Depth' when I used it to describe the Inquisition romances was meant in this manner. It makes the characters more 'real', more relatable, and therefore makes them deeper and more well rounded examples of fictional characters (much unlike what we had to suffer through DA2 with).

Writing a character is easy, making that character feel alive is more difficult. A good character will feel like a real person. Regardless of their visual appearance, their presence should invoke a sense of individuality instead of just being a bland chess piece written in order to pander to the masses of romantic fan fiction writers.

 

But how does it make the IB romance with another qunari "deeper" if a completely different inquisitor played in a different playthrough who happens to be an elf can't romance him.  That's the part that I don't understand.  It's not like if, as a qunari, you initiate a romance with IB and he says, "Well, thank goodness you are a qunari and not an elf because that would be a dealbreaker.....!".  Are you saying that it's deeper because, on a metagaming level, you recognize that the romance that you are engaging in can't be accessed by other races?

 

Also, you are assuming that the writers will be writing in dialogue and story for the race-gating.  It hasn't been that way in the past.  In BG 2, there was just no option for romancing (no dialogue, no prompt, nothing) if you were a dwarf or gnome.  It's not like you could flirt with Jaheira and she said, "I'm sorry, but I'm just not into dwarves....."  The same with the gender gating in DA: O.  It's not like a male could initiate a flirt with Alistair and he would turn them down because he's straight.  There's just nothing. 

 

So that's why the "depth" argument isn't compelling to me.  It requires there to be "story" around the restriction and, historically, there never has been any.  Aveline is a great example of what I think you are talking about.  You could flirt with her and she turns you down.  That could possibly add "depth" to her character.  But Sebastian?  How does him not being able to be flirted with in any way by a male add depth to his character?  This is how I suspect it will be with race.  Just a lack of "romance flags" in the scripting so that you can't even initiate flirting with them.  I don't see depth in this example.  I just see arbitrary "gating", possibly due to animation concerns, under the guise of "depth of story". 

 

Maybe I'm being pessimistic about it, but I'm not convinced that it's going to be done in a different way.

[Abelas Forever!]

Regardless of even the trauma/ history approach, an LI might just not like horns, or short men. Maybe they prefer the lithe elves to the larger and clumsier humans. Maybe they want their potential son or daughter to not be ostracized by their own race, or maybe their religion or status forbids marrying outside of their race (such as the Qunari or human nobles.) It certainly adds to the lore, as well as individual identity.    

]

 

I agree.

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

But how does it make the IB romance with another qunari "deeper" if a completely different inquisitor played in a different playthrough who happens to be an elf can't romance him.  That's the part that I don't understand.  It's not like if, as a qunari, you initiate a romance with IB and he says, "Well, thank goodness you are a qunari and not an elf because that would be a dealbreaker.....!".  Are you saying that it's deeper because, on a metagaming level, you recognize that the romance that you are engaging in can't be accessed by other races?

 

Also, you are assuming that the writers will be writing in dialogue and story for the race-gating.  It hasn't been that way in the past.  In BG 2, there was just no option for romancing (no dialogue, no prompt, nothing) if you were a dwarf or gnome.  It's not like you could flirt with Jaheira and she said, "I'm sorry, but I'm just not into dwarves....."  The same with the gender gating in DA: O.  It's not like a male could initiate a flirt with Alistair and he would turn them down because he's straight.  There's just nothing. 

 

So that's why the "depth" argument isn't compelling to me.  It requires there to be "story" around the restriction and, historically, there never has been any.  Aveline is a great example of what I think you are talking about.  You could flirt with her and she turns you down.  That could possibly add "depth" to her character.  But Sebastian?  How does him not being able to be flirted with in any way by a male add depth to his character?  This is how I suspect it will be with race.  Just a lack of "romance flags" in the scripting so that you can't even initiate flirting with them.  I don't see depth in this example.  I just see arbitrary "gating", possibly due to animation concerns, under the guise of "depth of story". 

 

Maybe I'm being pessimistic about it, but I'm not convinced that it's going to be done in a different way.

 

I'm saying it's deeper, if addressed in game, such as Varric and Hawke, because it shows personal development. It shows preference. It shows a history and agency for their future. It's not about meta-game- it's about realizing that sometimes, no matter what you do, you can't convince or coerce someone to love you. The depth is in them acknowledging their own established lore in relationships. Alistair, I'll mostly chalk up to being kinda slow and sheltered. He has a REALLY hard time understanding Zevran, especially. There could have been more to that conversation, but  in real life you can hit on some people and them never be aware of or acknowledge that.

Aside from that, yes- the gating needs to have dialogue explaining, at least to some degree, why. That can even be "I don't think I could be with a Human" or "I don't feel like sweeping elf limbs out of my tent later." However, if you say that- even with solid, lore or backstory based reasoning, that the developers should do it because you want it, you're forgetting a key element- this is a story. Yes, you have choices in it, but ultimately, this is the developers vision of the characters, and the developer's vision is who the characters are. Censoring the game by forcing openness of all characters to a relationship with the PC does nothing but show the developers care less for the story they're crafting than people who don't want to have to play a certain race to do what they want.

That's so entitled.

[SirGladiator]

As common sense would suggest, restrictions don't add anything to the game, they only take away from it.  It's certainly unfortunate they've decided to return to them for DAI, but the fact that they've not only returned to them but expanded them is going to hopefully have a long term positive effect, because anytime you create these artificial restrictions you just create winners and losers.  By imposing such a wide range of restrictions, you're creating an unusually large number of losers, which should result in enough of a backlash to cause them to return to what worked best for everyone, the DA2 model.  So even though I don't like this new system, I like that it's going to prove just how good the other one was by comparison  .

[AkiKishi]

As common sense would suggest, restrictions don't add anything to the game, they only take away from it.  It's certainly unfortunate they've decided to return to them for DAI, but the fact that they've not only returned to them but expanded them is going to hopefully have a long term positive effect, because anytime you create these artificial restrictions you just create winners and losers.  By imposing such a wide range of restrictions, you're creating an unusually large number of losers, which should result in enough of a backlash to cause them to return to what worked best for everyone, the DA2 model.  So even though I don't like this new system, I like that it's going to prove just how good the other one was by comparison  .

 

While you may not like the restrictions, they are not artificial, quite the opposite in fact. This is already better than the DA2 model. 

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

As common sense would suggest, restrictions don't add anything to the game, they only take away from it.  It's certainly unfortunate they've decided to return to them for DAI, but the fact that they've not only returned to them but expanded them is going to hopefully have a long term positive effect, because anytime you create these artificial restrictions you just create winners and losers.  By imposing such a wide range of restrictions, you're creating an unusually large number of losers, which should result in enough of a backlash to cause them to return to what worked best for everyone, the DA2 model.  So even though I don't like this new system, I like that it's going to prove just how good the other one was by comparison  .

Characters can have their own sexuality or preferences in a romantic partner. It's not common sense to say that adds nothing, nor does it create winners and losers. It helps provide weight to your racial choice. It gives you MORE INCENTIVE to role play, not less; if you could play through the game exactly the same way regardless of race, class, or gender, you'd lose the entire reason for allowing the choice.

 

[dutch_gamer]

As common sense would suggest, restrictions don't add anything to the game, they only take away from it.  It's certainly unfortunate they've decided to return to them for DAI, but the fact that they've not only returned to them but expanded them is going to hopefully have a long term positive effect, because anytime you create these artificial restrictions you just create winners and losers.  By imposing such a wide range of restrictions, you're creating an unusually large number of losers, which should result in enough of a backlash to cause them to return to what worked best for everyone, the DA2 model.  So even though I don't like this new system, I like that it's going to prove just how good the other one was by comparison  .

And I have the hope most gamers will love the change to companions not automatically being into the PC as long as they can be romanced. The DA 2 model came about because of a short development cycle and I don't consider it a good system. I like companions to be more like actual individuals instead of less. In real life you don't always get everyone you want either. I hope most people will appreciate the added "realism". Posted in quotes because some make it a habit to nitpick or find insult in everything anyone says, ie the announcement of more realistic romances by Bioware.

[CronoDragoon]

Maybe I'm being pessimistic about it, but I'm not convinced that it's going to be done in a different way.

 

Well, that's fine, but I think most people in favor of the gating are favoring it with the assumption that it will be acknowledged in-game.

 

To me, there are benefits to each system. If you allow anyone to romance a character despite explicit details that would make such a romance seem contradictory to the character, then you have to acknowledge it. There are several ways to do this, one being the "I thought X about Y group of people but you've proven me wrong!". That storyline can be done very well, but I suspect it has diminishing returns. If this is done for all characters and for all races, then it becomes less about character development and more about the PC accessorizing their playthrough, which diminishes the story and the world within it.

 

The strong reactions to this are a bit premature, since the game isn't out and we don't even know anything about the race-gating other than it will exist and cause a certain amount of imbalance among the races. And I think that this is okay. I would also have been okay with no race-gating. Since both systems have pros and cons, it's really a matter of how well it's done. But I'm not going to agree with those who believe race-gating is never okay.

[LPPrince]

As common sense would suggest, restrictions don't add anything to the game, they only take away from it.  It's certainly unfortunate they've decided to return to them for DAI, but the fact that they've not only returned to them but expanded them is going to hopefully have a long term positive effect, because anytime you create these artificial restrictions you just create winners and losers.  By imposing such a wide range of restrictions, you're creating an unusually large number of losers, which should result in enough of a backlash to cause them to return to what worked best for everyone, the DA2 model.  So even though I don't like this new system, I like that it's going to prove just how good the other one was by comparison  .

 

This I absolutely disagree with. I agree with the others in that restrictions do add to the game, giving weight to decisions made and paths/opportunities taken or not taken. It adds variance, realism, and incentive to play a different way.

 

The DA2 playersexual route was not what worked best for everyone;if that were the case, it wouldn't of received such a huge amount of disapproval from people asking for what we're getting now.

 

There is no "best for everyone" option. No matter what decision Bioware makes regarding anything in their games, someone somewhere will be unhappy. Sometimes, and this was absolutely the case with DA2, a very loud, very large, very vocal group of someones somewheres will be unhappy.

 

The best Bioware can do is do what they do, be proud of it, and hope as many people like it as possible.

[StrangeStrategy]

No one has ever explained why restricted romances are "deeper".  Particularly in the way it's being used here.

 

Really?  If Iron Bull won't romance an elf, then in my romance with him as another qunari depth is added?  I don't understand this logic in any way and I've tried and no one has explained it in a way that is even remotely satisfactory. 

 

The "realism" argument, while I don't like it, I at least understand.  The "depth" argument is completely baffling. 

 

Qunari definitely have more "depth" than elves. IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN HEHEHEEHEHEEHE

[LPPrince]

I believe the word is...know what, not even gonna say it

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

I believe the word is...know what, not even gonna say it

The. . . Bird?