494 réponses à ce sujet

[SofaJockey]

As I've mentioned in a previous post, yes, we had two options to choose from in both Origins and DA2, but in both of those games there were only four characters that could be romanced, so having two options was fine; in Inquisition there are eight characters that can be romanced yet we still only have two options. An increase of even just one isn't too much to ask for when you consider that pretty much everyone else has had their number of romance options increased from what they were in Origins and/or DA2 except for us. If you disagree with me, fine, but please don't use the 'you've always had two options' argument as it's so bloody asinine.

 

I favour the argument: 'you've always had two options' and it's hardly asinine, it's very practical and commercial.

 

A bisexual romance takes twice as much work, voice acting / character animations, as a single-sexual (straight or LG) romance.

The 6 'core' relationships in DAI would be as much work to make as the 4 Bi relationships in DA2 because each Bi relationship counts double.

 

With the additional PC race options in DAI (a particular issue for animations, such as Iron Bull) the effort that has gone into the romances vs. DA2 is significantly more and the extra year allowed 2 gated bonus romances, from the very few characters still available where that made sense story-wise.

 

DAI offers many interesting romance options for people of different personalities and orientation.

To do as you suggest would mean cutting other content and changing DAI to be more of a dating simulator. 

 

If further romances are sought than offered by DAI may I suggest Sims as an alternative purchase.

 

 

Oh and just finishing up on the 'asinine' point.

What I do find asinine is the argument:

 

'I've always had more options that everyone else, so that should continue...!'

[Ina]

Please, for the love of God, stop using the 'you've always had two options' argument as some sort of justification for straight males not having more than two romance options. As I've mentioned in a previous post, yes, we had two options to choose from in both Origins and DA2, but in both of those games there were only four characters that could be romanced, so having two options was fine; in Inquisition there are eight characters that can be romanced yet we still only have two options. An increase of even just one isn't too much to ask for when you consider that pretty much everyone else has had their number of romance options increased from what they were in Origins and/or DA2 except for us. If you disagree with me, fine, but please don't use the 'you've always had two options' argument as it's so bloody asinine.

 

Well I believe the reason behind having more romanceable characters is so they can represent more varied sexualities/gender (not just all bi) not so that straight men can now have more options as a percentage of the whole. Do I think straight women should have four while others only get two? No. I think it would have been nicer if they had added the last two LIs as one m and one f and made them bi (heavily race gated if need be) so all sexualities have 3 options. I'd have loved that.

 

As an aside and not directing at you specifically, ME3 had issues for straight women where you literally can end up having no LI. I wonder how many straight men who complain about DAI now were up in arms about that in support for straight women...

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

As an aside and not directing at you specifically, ME3 had issues for straight women where you literally can end up having no LI. I wonder how many straight men who complain about DAI now were up in arms about that in support for straight women...

Thats what i found annoying about the complaining, the fact that when straight women were unhappy about potentially having 0 ME3 romances that weren't lesbian relationships they were told to STFU & deal with it by certain guys, but now some of the same guys are crying about straight male gamers being punished & oppressed just over a couple of extra race gated Li's as well as their straight options apparently not being "pretty enough" for them. Hell, ive seen posts by some people who are just p*ssed that LGBT players don't have less options then them

[Ina]

Thats what i found annoying about the complaining, the fact that when straight women were unhappy about potentially having 0 ME3 romances that weren't lesbian relationships they were told to STFU & deal with it by certain guys, but now some of the same guys are crying about straight male gamers being punished & oppressed just over a couple of extra race gated Li's as well as their straight options apparently not being "pretty enough" for them. Hell, ive seen posts by some people who are just p*ssed that LGBT players don't have less options then them

 

What I find worse is the justification for why LGBT should have less options saying that because LGBT make up a smaller percentage than heterosexuals in the real world, their representation and equal access to content should align perfectly with that statistical figure. I mean come on, is it really necessary to take away from others so you feel you have a bigger slice of the pie. 

[daveliam]

Oh and just finishing up on the 'asinine' point.

What I do find asinine is the argument:

 

'I've always had more options that everyone else, so that should continue...!'

 

You, sir, are quickly becoming one of my new favorite posters.  Between your penchant for data and your support of equal romance options, you are pretty damned cool.  Just sayin.

 

Well I believe the reason behind having more romanceable characters is so they can represent more varied sexualities/gender (not just all BI) not so that straight men can now have more options as a percentage of the whole. Do I think straight women should have four while others only get two? No. I think it would have been nicer if they had added the last two LIs as one m and one f and made them (heavily race gated if need need) bi so all sexualities have 3 options. I'd have loved that.

 

As an aside and not directing at you specifically, ME3 had issues for straight women where you literally can end up having no LI. I wonder how many straight men who complain about DAI now were up in arms about that in support for straight women...

 

Two fantastic points:

 

1.)  The LI distribution was uneven in the past and, when they tried to address it by having four bisexual LI's, it was poorly received.  The only other reasonable option is to increase the amount of LI's in order to "spread the wealth".  I'm not a dev, but I'm fairly certain that they didn't increase the amount of LI's with the intention of keeping the same disproportionate representation.  While they ended up just creating skew in a different direction, I can understand how they came up with the "everyone gets 2....oh look, we have time to make 'bonus' LI's now" position.

 

2.)  I think that this is where alot of the resentment is coming from in multiple directions:  the idea that many straight guys were unsympathetic when they were on the receiving end of the disproportionate distribution, but are now looking for sympathy and/or making comparisons between their situation and that of gay and lesbian players.  I've been thinking about it and I have a few thoughts:

 

a.)  I think part of the issue is the fact that, as humans often do, we are painting "all" or "most" straight guys with the same brush.  If I were a straight guy who had advocated for equal options this whole time and then genuinely continued that approach now only to be told by everyone else that I "should just deal with it too", I'd be annoyed.  I can totally understand that stance.  To be an ally for equity and then to have my own concerns dismissed by that same crowd is unfair.

 

b.)  That being said, I think that those examples are rare.  I think the majority of the "straight male" posters complaining about their options were genuinely unconcerned about equitable distribution prior to DA: I.  Confounding the issue is the vaguely misogynistic tone behind the "Cass is practically a man" stance that often accompanies the complaints and it becomes harder and harder to sympathize.

 

Altogether, I think the take-away is this:  Bioware will always ****** someone off with their romance options.  I think that we should all keep this in mind when the ME 4 romances (assuming that they exist) are announced and a shitstorm erupts again.  We know that someone will be disappointed.  We should all be sympathetic to those who are disappointed about receiving less options, but at the same token, we shouldn't demand that Bioware changes/modifies options because of "reasons".  We should also remember that if/when we are on the receiving end of the "bonus" romances that, because it's turned into a kind of zero sum game, it means that others are getting less and we should remember that when making our posts. 

 

In general, I've calmed down a bit from my initial disappointment about the "bonus" romances.  I'm super disappointed and it's tainted my view on Bioware's stance just a bit (sad, but true, and it's unrealistic to pretend that it hasn't), but in general, I'm actually happier with Dorian and Iron Bull than I've ever been with any other romance options in their games and I need to keep that in mind.  Dorian, in particular, has the potential to bump Major Alenko out of the #1 spot in my opinion, so I'm really looking forward to get to know these new guys and see where the story takes me.  I think that this is the frame of mind that I'm adopting from here on out.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

What I find worse is the justification for why LGBT should have less options saying that because LGBT make up a smaller percentage than heterosexuals in the real world, their representation and equal access to content should align perfectly with that statistical figure. I mean come on, is it really necessary to take away from others so you feel you have a bigger slice of the pie.

Ugh....i hate the "realism" argument, their usually the same people who refuse to accept any bisexual characters that don't sleep around, which is understandably a big pet peeve of mine

[daveliam]

Ugh....i hate the "realism" argument, their usually the same people who refuse to accept any bisexual characters that don't sleep around, which is understandably a big pet peeve of mine

 

Please, your signature shows that you are on the Sera Love Train, yet I see no evidence in your signature of being interested in men.  You are clearly just a lesbian who doesn't want to admit it.  Either that or you will be RETCONNED if you ever do show interest in a man.  Don't you know how this works? 

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

Please, your signature shows that you are on the Sera Love Train, yet I see no evidence in your signature of being interested in men.  You are clearly just a lesbian who doesn't want to admit it.  Either that or you will be RETCONNED if you ever do show interest in a man.  Don't you know how this works? 

Yeah, my mistake. I keep forgetting that im a lesbian in denial since i don't sleep around with both sexes

[Elfyoth]

yeah thats a shame, Idc how much I want an elven female romance, but i prefer the dwarves will have at least 1 romance option at least ONE!

[Ina]

 

2.)  I think that this is where alot of the resentment is coming from in multiple directions:  the idea that many straight guys were unsympathetic when they were on the receiving end of the disproportionate distribution, but are now looking for sympathy and/or making comparisons between their situation and that of gay and lesbian players.  I've been thinking about it and I have a few thoughts:

 

a.)  I think part of the issue is the fact that, as humans often do, we are painting "all" or "most" straight guys with the same brush.  If I were a straight guy who had advocated for equal options this whole time and then genuinely continued that approach now only to be told by everyone else that I "should just deal with it too", I'd be annoyed.  I can totally understand that stance.  To be an ally for equity and then to have my own concerns dismissed by that same crowd is unfair.

 

b.)  That being said, I think that those examples are rare.  I think the majority of the "straight male" posters complaining about their options were genuinely unconcerned about equitable distribution prior to DA: I.  Confounding the issue is the vaguely misogynistic tone behind the "Cass is practically a man" stance that often accompanies the complaints and it becomes harder and harder to sympathize.

 

 

Yes, this is exactly my point. I completely sympathize with the general disappointment that straight men have less options compared to straight women. As a straight woman being on the receiving end of a bad distribution in ME3, I definitely get it even though it didn't affect any of my own playthroughs too much as I'm cool playing any gender/sexuality. I just thought from a representation and choice perspective, it was a bit unfair. Gay men and women also have less options in DAI but equal compared to DA2, but how many of the same straight men have advocated including more ss options? I don't want to paint everyone by the same brush and I know there are a lot of straight men here who want equality for all of us, it's those men I want to support.

[daveliam]

yeah thats a shame, Idc how much I want an elven female romance, but i prefer the dwarves will have at least 1 romance option at least ONE!

 

Agreed.  Dwarf love is real love too!

 

Gorim, Dagna, Sigrun, Varric.  All amazing dwarves and very popular with the fanbase.  Make it happen for DA 4 please? 

[AlexiaRevan]

Sigrun    

[BartDude52]

@SofaJockey: Where in my comment did I state, or even imply, that I want more options than everyone else? All I said was that I wanted more options than what I currently have. Is that really so hard understand? Hell, I'm actually not that bothered that straight women have more options than me, rather it's the number of options more that they have is what bothers me most. If straight women had four options while say, for example, I had three I would have been happy with that. As for how Bioware could have gone about this, well, I would've suggested that they should have not bothered with implementing any multiplayer and instead should've used that money instead on improving the single player (just a thought).

 

Oh, and another thing, don't bloody patronise me by suggesting that I should play The Sims instead if I'm not happy with the romance options. I haven't had to resort to petty insults in this thread and you shouldn't have to either.

 

EDIT: For the record, I am actually happy that everyone is getting options (I think it's great that women and LGB people are getting more proper representation), all I'm saying is that I'd have liked maybe a little bit options for myself personally. So, people, please, stop painting me with the same brush like some of you have done, because, unlike a lot of other straight guys on this forum, I'm not whining about how I'm not being catered to, rather just voicing a minor complaint of mine.   

[Ina]

 

EDIT: For the record, I am actually happy that everyone is getting options (I think it's great that women and LGB people are getting more proper representation), all I'm saying is that I'd have liked maybe a little bit options for myself personally. So, people, please, stop painting me with the same brush like some of you have done, because, unlike a lot of other straight guys on this forum, I'm not whining about how I'm not being catered to, rather just voicing a minor complaint of mine.   

 

Ok and I agree it's a valid complaint. Some gay men/women are also disappointed that straight women get twice the options. It shouldn't be so and I wish it wasn't. I apologize for painting you with the same brush if that isn't the case, your tone and how the post was worded seemed to indicate that to me. Anyway what I'm trying to say is I just feel it's more important for it to be equal across the board rather than just 'more than last time for this sexuality' if you get the distinction.

[SofaJockey]

@SofaJockey: Where in my comment did I state, or even imply, that I want more options than everyone else? All I said was that I wanted more options than what I currently have.

 

ok, I thought it was implied here:

 

"An increase of even just one isn't too much to ask for when you consider that pretty much everyone else has had their number of romance options increased from what they were in Origins and/or DA2 except for us. "

 

Fair enough, I misunderstand then.

 

You are then arguing that everyone has 3 romance options.

So we would be talking 6 Bisexual romances OR up to 12 single-sex (straight or LG) relationships.

 

Given 4 races, up to 48 sets of romance animations and (due to PC 2 voice actors) 96 sets of romance dialogue ?

Are you really serious about that?

 

With all the additional race options this is by far the widest romance selection I have seen in Dragon Age.

 

To go to three would be financially improbable and would start to look like a dating simulator...

[BartDude52]

@Ina: I apologise if I maybe came across as whiny or whatever. It's sometimes kind of hard to properly get what you're trying to say across on a forum without someone misinterpreting you.

 

Again though, I am genuinely happy that women and LGB are getting more options than they've had in previous games. Maybe in the past I didn't strongly advocate for other people to have more romance options probably because it didn't occur to me because I was so used to being the one with the most/best options, not because I didn't care; I do care, honestly (I am also still quite young and naïve so that probably has something to do with it). So, if anything, it's maybe ignorance at best and I apologise for that (I've probably worded this comment wrongly as well, but what can you do?).

[daveliam]

@Ina: I apologise if I maybe came across as whiny or whatever. It's sometimes kind of hard to properly get what you're trying to say across on a forum without someone misinterpreting you.

 

Again though, I am genuinely happy that women and LGB are getting more options than they've had in previous games. Maybe in the past I didn't strongly advocate for other people to have more romance options probably because it didn't occur to me because I was so used to being the one with the most/best options, not because I didn't care; I do care, honestly (I am also still quite young and naïve so that probably has something to do with it). So, if anything, it's maybe ignorance at best and I apologise for that (I've probably worded this comment wrongly as well, but what can you do?).

 

This post is awesome.  The bolded part in particular.  Thank you for thinking about these things.  Very, very cool.

[BartDude52]

@SofaJockey: When you put it that way, then yes it would be financially improbable the ways thing are at the moment; that's why I suggested that Bioware should just scrap multiplayer and instead use the money for that on the single player (i.e. on things like romance) in order to make the game even better (games like Inquisition should always be single player only in my opinion). I know Bioware can't and probably won't ever be able to please everyone, but if maybe they focussed exclusively on single player in this game then maybe they could improve things like romance more, even if only slightly. That's just my suggestion though.

 

P.S. I know that there are some people that do genuinely care about multiplayer, but for me, the single player is what makes RPGs like Inquisition stand the test of time, not the multiplayer. To me, multiplayer is for games like Call of Duty, not Dragon Age.

[Ina]

@Ina: I apologise if I maybe came across as whiny or whatever. It's sometimes kind of hard to properly get what you're trying to say across on a forum without someone misinterpreting you.

 

Again though, I am genuinely happy that women and LGB are getting more options than they've had in previous games. Maybe in the past I didn't strongly advocate for other people to have more romance options probably because it didn't occur to me because I was so used to being the one with the most/best options, not because I didn't care; I do care, honestly (I am also still quite young and naïve so that probably has something to do with it). So, if anything, it's maybe ignorance at best and I apologise for that (I've probably worded this comment wrongly as well, but what can you do?).

 

No, it makes perfect sense. I too have been guilty of not looking at the full picture or from other peoples shoes in the past mostly due to ignorance. While as a woman I've been catered to less in media than straight guys, I still always got more than the lgbt which I often took for granted. It's good that you reflect on these.

 

 

 

You are then arguing that everyone has 3 romance options.

So we would be talking 6 Bisexual romances OR up to 12 single-sex (straight or LG) relationships.

 

 

 

They only had to make the last two LIs Bi and one of them female and it would have been equal across the board. So it's still possible to do with 8 total - 2 straight, 2 gay and 4 bi.

[SardaukarElite]

Guys, you're being nice and considerate, what went wrong?

 

 that's why I suggested that Bioware should just scrap multiplayer and instead use the money for that on the single player

 

The thing is, that's not really how budgeting works. Romances are a high quality, fleshed out feature of BioWare games, they undoubtedly attract sales. But the people who want that element have probably already commited to buying the game, if they were going to - so adding more romances will see diminishing returns. Adding multiplayer content is a new element, that different people who haven't yet bought the game might engage with.

 

If they took the budget for multiplayer and spent it on singleplayer you'd probably be looking at some significant gameplay addition, like I don't know, naval combat or dress making.

 

You probably could add to romances by scrapping something similar, like companion friendship arcs.

[SofaJockey]

And @BartDude52 I had clearly misread your intentions which have clarified positively in recent posts 

 

On the multiplayer (we shouldn't have that debate here !  )

but there are some fascinating dev articles on the relationships between single and multi player funding:

 

May 2014 - http://askagamedev.t...y-away-from-the Does MP steal SP resources? (part 1)

May 2014 - http://askagamedev.t...takes-away-from (part 2)

[Ryzaki]

They only had to make the last two LIs Bi and one of them female and it would have been equal across the board. So it's still possible to do with 8 total - 2 straight, 2 gay and 4 bi.

 

They probably would've had to be heavily gated though which I would've been okay with because extra options were extra. Solas for only elves, Cullen would've been replaced with an ungated Blackwall, and a humans only Vivienne would've been fine with me.

[SofaJockey]

Guys, you're being nice and considerate, what went wrong? ...

 

If they took the budget for multiplayer and spent it on singleplayer you'd probably be looking at some significant gameplay addition, like I don't know, naval combat or dress making.

 

Only if I could wear them to the ball...   

[Ryzaki]

Only if I could wear them to the ball...   

 

Ugh I do hope we get a variety of outfits to wear to that. Being stuck with that ugly outfit in MOTA was annoying.

[SardaukarElite]

Only if I could wear them to the ball...   

 

Ehh, that will require scrapping something else... unless we get funding for ballroom co-op.