Ce sujet est fermé
I don't see the issue with some people having an extra option. Everyone has at least two options, which is as many as they had in the previous games, so what if some people get more?
Arguing that other people should have less content solely because you do is selfish and vindictive.
I don't see the issue with some people having an extra option. Everyone has at least two options, which is as many than they did in previous games, so what if some people get more?
Arguing that people should have less content solely because you do is selfish and vindictive.
OK, but why does it always have to be mistreated minority group?
I don't see the issue with some people having an extra option. Everyone has at least two options, which is as many as they had in previous games, so what if some people get more?
Arguing that other people should have less content solely because you do is selfish and vindictive.
...what?
I'm not saying anyone should have less content, I'm saying that if they have more content, we should also have more content.
I don't see the issue with some people having an extra option. Everyone has at least two options, which is as many than they had in previous games, so what if some people get more?
Arguing that people should have less content solely because you do is selfish and vindictive.
Nobody is arguing others have less content. What an absurd way to put it. We're saying everyone should have the same amount of content. I can't see how that can be twisted as a selfish argument.
I also don't understand this "two options and we're good" ideal. Why is the line two? It makes no sense to just pull a number out and say you shouldn't ever expect more than this. When options are even, it's fair. "2 for some, 3 for some, 5 for some", is not fair.
If the only two options are:
Which do you choose? If it's the latter you are solely arguing that some people should get less content.
OK, but why does it always have to be mistreated minority group?
It doesn't. I expect there to be at least one gender/orientation/race combination that gets more LI's than another, and I don't mind. I don't know which one it would be.
If the only two options are:
- Straight males get three romance options, everyone else gets 2
- Everyone gets two options.
Which do you choose? If it's the latter you are solely arguing that some people should get less content.
If the resources can't be stretched to fill more romances for everyone, then put the left overs into improving the existing romances. Everyone wins equally.
If the resources can't be stretched to fill more romances for everyone, then put the left overs into improving the existing romances. Everyone wins equally.
I don't think that game development works that way.
I don't think that game development works that way.
If they have more time for cinematics or words left in the budget, then put them into existing romances. I can't see how it doesn't work that way.
Guest_Danielle100_*
You know, I kind of hope Dagna isn't the mystery option... because if she was, all three LIs available to women would have a somewhat similar temperament, and that'd leave people like my girlfriend out in the cold.
It doesn't. I expect there to be at least one gender/orientation/race combination that gets an more LI's than another, and I don't mind. I don't know which one it would be.
Of course it does. Lesbians already have only 2 side characters, and only one of them is companion. Meanwhile, gay men will apparently have 2 full fledged companion romances, and straight people, two VIPs of this franchise aside of two sidekicks. And it's going to be even more unfair?
If they have more time for cinematics or words left in the budget, then put them into existing romances. I can't see how it doesn't work that way.
The writer writing a particular character may be busy with other things, while a writer writing a potential LI candidate may have more time. In that case it would make more sense to make a new LI using the candidate than change the completed romance.
I don't know. The developers have said several times that things are more complicated than they look from the outside. There may be any number of reasons why creating more Li's may be a better use of resources than adding content to existing ones.
I agree, uneven gender/sexuality distribution would definitely be an issue for me.
If the only two options are:
- Straight males get three romance options, everyone else gets 2
- Everyone gets two options.
Which do you choose? If it's the latter you are solely arguing that some people should get less content.
That is the falsest false choice in the history of falsehoods.
I don't have any desire to romance Dagna and if Vivienne is romance option I will probably be more frustrated about Cassandra not being bi but I do hope you get your wish. That is if you were talking about Vivienne if not ignore me.
I would like Vivienne to be there, yes.
Sera isn't any more side character then Dorian and the other possible bisexual male, with the info we haveOf course it does. Lesbians already have only 2 side characters, and only one of them is companion. Meanwhile, gay men will apparently have 2 full fledged companion romances, and straight people, two VIPs of this franchise aside of two sidekicks. And it's going to be even more unfair?
.
Of course it does. Lesbians already have only 2 side characters, and only one of them is companion. Meanwhile, gay men will apparently have 2 full fledged companion romances, and straight people, two VIPs of this franchise aside of two sidekicks. And it's going to be even more unfair?
What rubbish. Gay female PC's get a companion and an advisor, as do straight male players and straight female players.
Stop trying to find inequality where there isn't any.
The writer writing a particular character may be busy with other things, while a writer writing a potential LI candidate may have more time. In that case it would make more sense to make a new LI using the candidate than change the completed romance.
I don't know. The developers have said several times that things are more complicated than they look from the outside. There may be any number of reasons why creating more Li's may be a better use of resources than adding content to existing ones.
I believe fairness is worth the extra effort and, since Bioware presents itself as a progressive, inclusive company (which I trust them to act on), I have hope that they'll agree, rather than tossing more bones to the groups that have consistently gotten them just because it seems easier.
What rubbish. Gay female PC's get a companion and an advisor, as do straight male players and straight female players.
Stop trying to find inequality where there isn't any.
You cannot deny that Cassandra is far more plot-important than Sera.
Sera's a sidekick?
She can kick my side any day 
oh wait that doesn't sound very good...
You cannot deny that Cassandra is far more plot-important than Sera.
That is the falsest false choice in the history of falsehoods.
I don't see why. It's entirely possible that straight male players get an extra option. And if people complain that the numbers aren't even, but would be content with everyone having two options, then they are essentially demanding that a choice is taken away.
You cannot deny that Cassandra is far more plot-important than Sera.
I can't, because I haven't played the game yet so I have absolutely no idea either way.
If only we have the smallest clue about "NO\NO".
If they have more time for cinematics or words left in the budget, then put them into existing romances. I can't see how it doesn't work that way.
It sounds like it works that way from what devs have said in the past. The budget is what it is -- allocated to a specific feature -- and it'll just get assimilated elsewhere in the same feature. Meaning, removing an LI frees up resources/zots/monies to be put back into existing feature content. Whether that is more romance or friendship path content, who knows, but I'm certain it'd funnel back into the companions. The writers have a *word count* budget. I imagine writers would enjoy having more zots for a chance at more words to further flesh out their characters.
To be honest, I don't think we can assume who is and isn't important right now. Cassandra helps establish the Inquisition. We don't really know how important she is after that point and how important other characters become later. I think we should save these sorts of arguments until after we see the character arcs. If they turn out to be true, then I say take to the forums and complain, definitely. Let's just make sure it's true first?
That reminds me Mass Effect Romance Forum.
"Squaddie X has 5 seconds more screen time than Squaddie Y! The outrage!"
And the game is not out yet...
So Morrigan was more important for the plot than Leliana, still it didn't make me like her more.
Retour en haut