Guest_john_sheparrd_*
Nope I always have a Romance going on and I'm glad that Bioware gives us the option because not many developers do
I mean sure its not necessary for the story but it does add to the story if these heroes also have love in their lifes especially with all the constant fighting and saving the world
Doesn't everyone need a bit of love?
When playing as femshep I don't romance anyone in ME1/ME2 because no one is worth romancing. I only romance Samantha. I have done a no romance playthrough of ME3 a couple of times.
I did a no romance in DA2. I've never did a no romance in DAO
I'm sure I'll do at least one playthrough in DAI not romancing anyone.
i don't do romances. they feel cheesy and idiotic. then again i was never a fan of general hospital/james bond pickup lines/twilight/insert whatever you wish/rage over listing twilight here... they seem to be important in BW games. i don't mind their inclusion, cuz apparently some people enjoy this sort of content.
did few tho, mostly cuz of the extra dialogue/events (two different/awkward lines of dialogue per convo, meh)
btw. thanks for Javik... i still have nightmares. evil bastards
I do one every playthrough, usually with a different party member. I'd go mad slightly quicker from exhausting all the companion dialogue otherwise.
That, and I love the romances. 
You say you want someone who doesn't care about morals and ethics, and then you say not necessarily evil... That's kind of a contradiction, isn't it?
Morrigan seems to fit the bill for what you want. What was the problem with her?
Duh! Morrigan was perfect. Cant believe I forgot her 
Kinda shot myself in the foot there. The reason I excluded her was because she didnt include me on her plans at the end of the game (scorned).
As for not contradicting myself: http://en.wikipedia..../Moral_nihilism
Just because you dont believe in moral or ethics as does not mean you cant act them out (conform to moralistic standards for personal gain) or live with principles. Also because someone is absent when it comes to morals - doesent need to mean they are cruel for no reason.
As explained by the wiki on moral nihilism:
view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.
A moral nihilist living their life would be good or evil in the eyes of others while in their own belief there is only actions and consequenses. If you couple it with existensial nihilism the bottomline will always be "Any action, "evil" or "good", is equally futile and meaningless as we will all die and be forgotten anyway".
Any act of "good" and "evil" is insignificant. Goes for real life aswell. When the earth is gone (in what will be a cosmological nanosecond) noone will be left to judge. In other words, the acts and their consequenses we do on a daily basis - regardless of constructed moral code - are equally meaningless.
If a glass falls to the ground, it doesent matter if its filled with water, soda, juice, sauce, air or ice-cream.
Duh! Morrigan was perfect. Cant believe I forgot her
As for not contradicting myself: http://en.wikipedia..../Moral_nihilism
*snip*
In other words: Nothing is true. Everything is permitted? 
It's an interesting philosophy, but like most things it wouldn't work for everyone. Good and evil are usually defined on what is acceptable to the community at large, hence the shifting views on slavery, racism, sexual harrasment, etc. Good and evil are just convenient labels.
As for the glass example: that depends. Is anyone splashed by the liquid? Is it cold or hot? Is the ground tile or carpet? Because I know I would be p*ssed if somebody spilled juice on my carpet.
Looking at the big picture is easier said than done. We tend to focus on our immediate surroundings and what affects us directly. One person dying won't change the world as whole, but it will change the world for those who cared about that person.
-snip-
Interesting... so, I'm genuinely curious, but if it's not at all impertinent to ask, do you personally subscribe to this philosophy? Or is it a matter of, say, entertaining the thought without fully accepting it at all for you?
In other words: Nothing is true. Everything is permitted?
It's an interesting philosophy, but like most things it wouldn't work for everyone. Good and evil are usually defined on what is acceptable to the community at large, hence the shifting views on slavery, racism, sexual harrasment, etc. Good and evil are just convenient labels.
That is the exact problem with the philosophy. In theory it allows full freedom of action and thought without being constrained by other people's judgement. The problem is that we are a social race and labels like good or evil are placed on you based on your culture and other variables even if you dont agree on them or believe in them yourself.
The thing with morals and ethics is that even though they are an artificial construct and not a universal rule, we make them real laws, labels and our human reactions to certain actions.
This is partly why I find this one of the most depressing poems of all time: https://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/island.html
That is the exact problem with the philosophy. In theory it allows full freedom of action and thought without being constrained by other people's judgement. The problem is that we are a social race and labels like good or evil are placed on you based on your culture and other variables even if you dont agree on them or believe in them yourself.
The thing with morals and ethics is that even though they are an artificial construct and not a universal rule, we make them real laws, labels and our human reactions to certain actions.
This is partly why I find this one of the most depressing poems of all time: https://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/island.html
That's why philosophers do not rule the world. 
It's the same deal with theory and practice. In theory, good and evil don't exist. In theory, actions have no long term consequences.
In practice? Well, other's people actions don't have long term consequences either, and they can do what they want too. Being on the receiving end of that mentality can be... unpleasant.
Can you survive on your own? Yes? Good for you. Stay away from the rest of us.
No? Well, we have rules, so follow them.
Funny, I don't find that poem depressing at all. If anything, I find it hopeful. You are not alone.
Interesting... so, I'm genuinely curious, but if it's not at all impertinent to ask, do you personally subscribe to this philosophy? Or is it a matter of, say, entertaining the thought without fully accepting it at all for you?
(This post is mostly off topic)
Im a moral and existential nihilist myself in what I believe to be true.
But when it comes to what I actually live by its more in the directions in the below spoiler. This is because even if I recognize life is meaningless, it doesent mean you cant enjoy it (you could argue "but then it isnt meaningless!" so Im guessing what Im trying to say is rather - its inconsequential, as life is finite). IMO the best way to enjoy life is by being good to others as it often comes back to me. In other words in real life Im a good guy with lots of humor and a giving personality. But this is mostly due to conditioning (how I was raised) and for practical reasons (atleast thats what Im telling myself).
The reason I love acting out "evil" or "immoral" is because I have a vast facination for human nature. I believe noone has a choice in being who they are (Determinism, not free will). So if two people live their lives, then go back in time, and swap souls in the cradle - they would still become the exact same people. Even as far back as in elementary school - I would come up with thought experiments as to try and put myself in other people's shoes. Empathizing with other people and imagine me being them. Ive spend lots of time trying to understand people and their motivations, and at times Ive wondered if I have an autistic gift in doing so. I have developed an uncanny skill when it comes to understanding, manipulating or persuading people IRL (Though I do not abuse that much). I can easily adapt my personality to become friends with any type of personality-archetype IRL. First you observe them. By their likes and dislikes, religious views, attitude, and personality type (alpha/beta etc), then I can easily... roleplay if you wish - act in a way that appeases them. Be a good listener and always open conversations they will approve off. Examples can be, some people consider you weak if you are submissive. Some people are intimidated by it, when talking to a strong independent person which disagrees with you on something - it is often better NOT to change your opinion - because they will value your integrity more than the differencial in opinions. Ive also read 10+ books on rhetoric and know almost every trick you can use in conversation... ehr yeah. I started rambling again, sorry. Wall of text it is.
ANYWAY. For this reason Im naturally drawn to RPG games as I love exploring other personas. So to reel this back into the thread title in relevance: Im dissatisfied with the romance options because they are seemingly not varied enough in core personality issues like morals and ethics on a complex enough scale for me to explore something new. Note: Seemingly. David Gaider and the other writers may yet surprise me.
Why do I bother with the romances? Cos why not, it adds depth to my character's story, engages me more in the experience, I find them enjoyable and Bioware's varied romance options are unique so yup I'm not passing up on this.
How did this thread turn into a philosophical debate? We need to start talking about banging again, okay?
How did this thread turn into a philosophical debate? We need to start talking about banging again, okay?
I warned that my post was off topic I'll stop now.
She actually DOES invite you along if you say, "Hey, what are you doing?"
I was just disgusted by the fact that she doesn't at any point in time, say, "hey, I'm going to have sex with other people, and I may or may not do it right in front of you."
Perhaps because you can ask her not to and she'll oblige?
Anyway, no, I don't do romanceless playthroughs. I value them as important pieces of my character arcs.
I'm strong independent sex scene who don't need no romance.
Back on topic to romances folks. Tis' not a philosophical thread after all.
The drama and baggage of it all what personally puts me off from doing in my canon playthroughs.
I mean if you were to put me in Thedas and ask me who would I personally romance, my answer would be either Bethany or Aveline. Relatively normal, relatively sane people, with next to no hidden incentives and little baggage.
The same cannot be said for our potential love interests. To put this into perspective, lets look at the love interest options we have.
Morrigan :- Tells you to kill her mother and reveals one of her motives for getting close to you which is to use your sperm.
Leliana :- Born again religious girl with a very shady past and an even shadier occupation.
Alistair :- Illegitimate son of a former King who may or may not end up being used as a political pawn.
Zevran :- An assassin who is on the run from his former guild.
Merrill :- Ends up being in over her head by dealing with demons and killing her former mentor.
Isabela :- Sexually promiscuous (its not my thing) and stole an artifact that was the cause of the Qunari war in Kirkwall.
Anders :- Possessed by a morphed spirit, blows up the Chantry, killing the only neutral party in the mage-templar affair in Kirkwall.
Fenris :- Former slave who is pursued by his master and has an innate prejudice against mages (though one cannot just blame him for that).
Sebastian :- A Chantry choir boy with whom you can have a chaste marriage.
By comparison.
Bethany :- A mage who wants to live a normal life.
Aveline :- Spousal death.
See what I mean by baggage and drama ? See what I mean by lack of normal-ness ?
It adds to the story, of that there is no doubt, but I seriously am of the opinion that someone like me, someone who is logical and is not very fond of dramas and baggages, would find these appealing.
However, this does not mean I do not romance the characters. I do it in other playthroughs. It is just that in my canon, where I put myself in the situation and make decisions as I would personally make, I would not romance them.
I warned that my post was off topic
I found it interesting as I mostly agree with you, and agreeing with someone on these matters doesn't happen all that often.
Anyway, back to the serious business of who bangs whom.
See what I mean by baggage and drama ? See what I mean by lack of normal-ness ?
To be fair, the protagonist is hardly a normal person, except maybe Hawke.
Warden: regardless of origin, you are doomed to a slow death by the taint.
Hawke: Doom magnet?
Inquisitor: Sucked into the Fade, spat out with a shiny scar on hand that can open and close tears.
What normal person would want to be involved with someone like that? The protagonists are freaks.
Any act of "good" and "evil" is insignificant. Goes for real life aswell. When the earth is gone (in what will be a cosmological nanosecond) noone will be left to judge. In other words, the acts and their consequenses we do on a daily basis - regardless of constructed moral code - are equally meaningless.
We've still got about five billion years to go, and the universe is about 13.5 billion years old, IIRC; that's significantly more than a nanosecond.
I found it interesting as I mostly agree with you, and agreeing with someone on these matters doesn't happen all that often.
Anyway, back to the serious business of who bangs whom.
Wait, you believe in determinism and the lack of importance of nurturing?
The philosophical discussion is too deep for me, so I'm going to jump back to the beginning:
So I am curious if there are any others out there who do a playthrough with no romances involved ?
I think they've released stats that only a quarter or fewer people who play the games actually do the romances, so the answer to that question is clearly a resounding "Yes". Not only are you not alone, you're part of a vast majority.
Personally, I find that anything that changes the content that you see is worthwhile if you're doing multiple playthroughs, and even given that I've done them (admittedly sometimes accidentally - I usually try to play a couple of times unspoiled, so I've ended up accidentally ending or not correctly starting the romances in a few games).
I warned that my post was off topic
I'm partly to blame since I also asked. I'll respond in length, but it'll be through PM and at a later time since I'll have to be getting to bed. But I found this intriguing, truly. I just wish I was of a better mind to reply more intelligibly.
-snip-
The thing is, a "normal" relationship would seem out of place for a world like Dragon Age, at least in my opinion. But like you said, the relationships are written in a way that is meant to be dramatic because of the characters involved. However, it'll be interesting to see them try writing a romantic relationship that's as "drama-free" as they could come in this setting, but because of how tumultuous every character's lives are (including your Warden, Hawke, and now your Inquisitor), well...
Sorry, though. Writers are sadists by nature. We nurture and build our characters up and then we love to torture them through telling their story.
I love the romances. To me, they make the story richer and are a unique (in video games) way to further develop a character. Honestly, I don't know that I'd be such a big fan of the games if the content wasn't there, not because they'd suddenly be bad games, but because to me, being able to experience the development of character relationships as a facet of the big story of the game makes it a uniquely rich experience, particularly because I can also play as a woman. I don't begrudge anyone who wants to ignore the romance content--we all play in different ways and for different reasons--but I'm supremely grateful that it's there.
My grandmother came to the conclusion that I was trying 'live through the game cause I'm sad that I have no man in my life' when she found out that there were romances in the game, up until that point she sounded fairly interested in the setting until romances were brought up. Funny how that word get some peoples minds going and jumping to conclusions^^;
Romantic content in any medium tends to be dismissed as "unserious" because of the perception that it caters to women. I write romance professionally, an entire genre that tends to be dismissed as either poorly-written drivel by bored housewives and/or porn, so I hear this stuff all the time. Enjoying escapist entertainment featuring romantic content obviously means you sit around eating pint after pint of Ben & Jerry's yearning for some alphahole with bulging chesticles to take you away because your life is a pit of sadness and despair. Couldn't possibly mean you're just naturally wired to look at stories through the lens of the relationships that develop throughout the course of them. 
And again, this is what makes BioWare games special for me...they allow me to use romantic relationships in the development of my characters' stories if I choose.
That's just Stephanie Meyer's influence. It will pass.
Nope. And you might be surprised how many paranormal romance writers absolutely loathe those books, both for the content and for the perceptions about the genre as a whole that they reinforced. Also, the oversaturation of the market with vampire books that followed kind of killed the market for them.
So....you removed the link because it personally angered you, not because it was against the ToS or anything? Whew boy....that kind of angers ME. But whatever.
No he removed it because whoever created it is spamming the forum with it because they think their opinion is awesome when it is actually just stupidly incorrect, conflating a forums preoccupation with romance with the direction of an entire studio is what Allan has argued against. Bioware have repeatedly said romances are optional, romances are not considered the main content. But whatever.
I don't know but when I go to a conference on, say insect ecology, I don't expect them to talk about romance options in video games, but when I go to a conference on issues specifically on representation for LBGT and romance is one way to show that representation I kinda expect them to talk about it.
Anyhow, personally I don't need romance to enjoy the story but I kinda like it. Also the 'profound' nature of friendships isn't really that great - I'm looking at you Jack's writer... However it really is a YMMV thing. Some prefer romance, some don't. And guess what? You have options to do it or ignore it completely! How awesome is that?! I haven't had any non romance pt of DA games, but I have at least 2 canon Sheps with no LI.
So I am curious if there are any others out there who do a playthrough with no romances involved ? If so why did you choose to not pursue a romance ?
Above all, how important is romance to you ? Is it an optional extra for you or do you see it as a necessity for your character ?
So for me, I enjoy it very much in the games. It's not essential, but I really enjoy it. That being said, I've had many games where I haven't done any romances and that's mostly because those particular games didn't offer m/m options. For example, I never did a romance in BG2. All of my male Sheps didn't do romances in ME and ME 2. I've never done a romance in any of my SWTOR playthroughs. If there is a m/m option, then I always pick it/one of them. If not, then my male PCs stay single.
I've done a few romances with my female PCs. I tend to prefer f/f romances for them (Juhani, Silk Fox, Liara, Leliana), but I occasionally do a male romance as a female PC (Carth, Jacob). Those are really rare though.
I am a lover of love. I always do a romance in every play through. Can't help myself. I see it as an extra layer of character interaction that I don't get to see in other games. So I always take that extra step. I think the real question you should be asking is...
Would any of you buy a BioWare game without romances? I'd pay to see some responses to that question.
I would certainly buy a Bioware game without a romance, but it would depend on what the game was like. If it were an MMO in a setting that I didn't already love, then probably not. If it were not a third-person RPG, then maybe not; it would depend on the rest of the game. But if it were a "typical" Bioware game just without romance? Yeah, I'd still buy it. I'd be a bit bummed, but I wouldn't hold it against them.
Retour en haut