323 réponses à ce sujet

[thevaleyard]

I just don't see 'You are a dwarf and I am not sexually attracted to dwarves' to be a particularly compelling character trait. I'd rather have a character who responds to my ACTIONS and it creates conflict between the PC and their companions. Again, had Fenris been gated against a Hawke who supports slavery. Or Anders against Templar spec'd warriors. These gating scenarios are more compelling to me compared to 'I'm just not attracted to dwarves'. That? Does nothing for me. In fact, it seems kind of shallow to me on some level. Really? NO dwarf? NONE? There is literally NO WAY that you could ever find a dwarf attractive? Okay then.

 

OP mentioned other types of gating as well, like class and the type of specialization you took. I think that might be right up your alley.

[daveliam]

Also, to add to your point on the number of LIs, unless they increase the number of bisexual LIs again, they would have to add in more options. Just imagine if we had exactly what we had now but also added in class gating. There would absolutely be groups of players who would lose choice in their LI. I think having two choices for all PCs should be the most important thing. If they can do that and add in three or four ways to gate? Fine. I just don't want to see it dropped lower for the sake of 'texture'.

[Jagrevi]

"I just don't see 'You are a dwarf and I am not sexually attracted to dwarves' to be a particularly compelling character trait."

 

It's not, but it's certainly more compelling than "None of us notice that you're 4 foot tall what-so-ever". We're not talking about the space to put a character's most compelling character traits, we're just talking about maximizing the texture of a particular gating system, of course it will be a minor detail all thing considered, this is a discussion about minor details.

 

"Again, had Fenris been gated against a Hawke who supports slavery. Or Anders against Templar spec'd warriors"

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about (well, the second case); the expansion of the gating system into more than just [Are you MALE / FEMALE?]. The first case you mention doesn't really apply, because that's general in-game responsivity (which of course is the place where all the meatier character detail is, but its not in the scope of the issue), but the second, actually gating a romance based on your class specialization, that falls into the Character-Selection-Romance-Gating perview I'm talking about here.

 

We've expanded past Gender and into Race. Why not embrace this and explore other textures as well, such as, as you put it, gating against Templar specs?

[Gtdef]

OP mentioned other types of gating as well, like class and the type of specialization you took. I think that might be right up your alley.

 

I think that everyone who is opposed to gating won't agree to anything that has to do with "who you are" (in the literal sense) instead of "what you do". It's the main reason I'm opposed as well. 

[Jagrevi]

"They would have to add in more options"

 

Why? Everyone seems to be assuming when they start designing a game they have a predetermined number of romance options with a predetermined set of pre-existing romance gates. Heck, in DA2, we didn't have ANY romance gates. There's an entire design space here, 'we' (even 'they') have no idea of how many companions of whom how many are romanceable and by whom until they're written, and I'm not sure where people are coming in with this presumption of "an existing number of romance gates".

[Jagrevi]

re:Gtdef

 

That's not the way it works in the real world though, so, while I'm not for promoting realism for its own sake above fun gameplay, I don't see how that's a problem here.

[nightscrawl]

I think that people get uncomfortable with race gating because it seems a very prejudiced world view. To say, I don't find full lips and wide noses attractive, is one thing. To say, I don't find black women attractive seems another. Not all people of a race have the same features, so it just seems that there's something more to a statement like that beyond physical looks.

Now, that being said, is it the same thing when talking about fantasy races? Not really since there aren't actually elves and qunari running around. But I can understand why people find it distasteful.

 

[Obviously we haven't played the game yet so we don't know what Solas actually says/does when confronted by a non-elf female about romance.]

 

If people compare it to real life racism, sure I can understand the feeling, but that's not the case here. A mating between an elf and a human produces an elf-blooded human (Arianni's term). In our world we're ALL human so we breed and produce more humans. That's not the case with elves and human inter-breeding, which is why that is strongly discouraged in elf communities because it could lead to the extinction of the entire race. [And yes, I AM aware that strains of human DNA can die out as well, but I don't really consider that to be the same thing.]

 

So, Solas could be a raging racist, yes. But he could also be of the mind to say, "Gee, I'm flattered and all, but I can't let myself get attached to anyone because I have certain obligations as an elf." He could actually be very open to another race, but would smother his own desire in favor of his (as he sees it) racial obligation.

 

Again, we don't know him yet, because we haven't played the game. IMO it is extremely unfair, and a bit silly, to judge the character based solely on one tidbit of information regarding his possible romance status.

[Tevinter Soldier]

I see it as an natural Extension, for example a templar that hunts down renegade mages getting on with said renegade mage?

 

makes about as much sense as a Qunari hating sister of the chantry having a fling with the Sten.

[Super Drone]

"They would have to add in more options"

 

Why? Everyone seems to be assuming when they start designing a game they have a predetermined number of romance options with a predetermined set of pre-existing romance gates. Heck, in DA2, we didn't have ANY romance gates. There's an entire design space here, 'we' (even 'they') have no idea of how many companions of whom how many are romanceable and by whom until they're written, and I'm not sure where people are coming in with this presumption of "an existing number of romance gates".

 

If you are assuming they trade gate criteria one for one, then yes. If say, for instance, no one is gender gated, but each LI has some no -go (no Mages, no Qunari, etc.) then yes, you probably can keep the same number of LIs. It recreates the "realistic sexualities" conundrum all over again, and still creates more work for the developers as they need to create animations for up to 8 body types per LI (with a few less for whoever's race-gated).

[Jagrevi]

re:Gtdef - part 2

 

Let me actually expand on that, if briefly. More than being unrealistic, I think that with Dragon Age's set of themes, once of which is exploring the nature of race and prejudice in the world, that "white washing" the romance system of any gates ("Who you are") damages the narrative by not accurately portraying some of the real consequences of living in a world like this.

[nightscrawl]

re:Gtdef - part 2

 

Let me actually expand on that, if briefly. More than being unrealistic, I think that with Dragon Age's set of themes, once of which is exploring the nature of race and prejudice in the world, that "white washing" the romance system of any gates ("Who you are") damages the narrative by not accurately portraying some of the real consequences of living in a world like this.

 

There is another way of looking at it though. We are an exceptional group of people drawn together by exceptional circumstances. Isn't it just possible that conventionalities get thrown out the window in a case like that? Sure people do have legitimate, real preferences, and those might come into play when you first meet someone. But after fighting at their back for months or years, some barriers tend to get broken down, or you find other traits more important/valuable than appearance.

[Jagrevi]

re:Godot

 

I am entirely for preserving player fun over unnecessary realism. (I made that same argument earlier in this thread when I mentioned that "realism" was an odd argument against "player-sexual" characters a-la Dragon Age 2). Surely there are "unfun" gates that we could implement, however, I think that some gates are fun because they are realistic (if that's wasn't the case, why have Cullen only date Elves/Humans?).

 

Sure, there are examples of people who might feel like the barriers that block their romantic aspirations in real life are mirrored in the game in a way that confronts them in a way they may not like, but this is already the case. There are already people who are rejected because their object of affection is gay, or isn't gay. If we have gates, any gates, of course this potential exists. In fact, any bit of realism has this potential.

 

But just as I don't think realism is an argument in itself for the existence of gates, I don't think realism is an argument in itself against the existence of gates.

 

We play with realism, we paint the world with some realism and with some fantasy, and try to do so as a fantastical way to explore realism (or a realistic way to explore fantasy). Yes, the realism part could be a cold shower for someone somewhere, but that's always going to be the case and it has always been the case, and I don't think that's a compelling reason to avoid some general arena of realism.

[Jester]

I see it as an natural Extension, for example a templar that hunts down renegade mages getting on with said renegade mage?

You mean like Rhys and Evangeline?

[nightscrawl]

You mean like Rhys and Evangeline?

 

I thought DG did a good job of building that up very slowly over the entire book. It wasn't until the last scene where (we saw) them kiss for the first time. It's not like they gave each other a bunch of presents or anything for approval points. >.> It was a huge improvement over the angst-filled romances of the previous two novels.

[Jagrevi]

re: Nightscrawl

 

I think for some it may, but I think for some it may not, and I think those are both narratives of interest that are worth exploring. (And, for those that exist for reasons of physical preference, it still may or may not, but would probably be more heavily weighed toward 'not', given how neurochemistry works.)

[Tevinter Soldier]

You mean like Rhys and Evangeline?

 

exactly for me it's too mary sue (apologize if i have the trope wrong) this character is so awesome that they just get everything.

I'm not opposed to it, but its just a bridge too far. It makes no logical sense.

 

I know romantics would point out it's an example of love not being logical with a dash of love conquers all.

 

Just like when you start bringing characters back from the dead it cheapens things, nothing has weight or meaning.

it comes off as sappy teen love story.

 

If anything given the well established prejudice surrounding Mages the vast majority should hate them.

you don't have a relationship with someone if you hate them.

 

as pointed out fenris getting with any mage but a blood mage? doesn't make sense.

it would be like the Sten getting with Wynn. 

[Gtdef]

re:Gtdef - part 2

 

Let me actually expand on that, if briefly. More than being unrealistic, I think that with Dragon Age's set of themes, once of which is exploring the nature of race and prejudice in the world, that "white washing" the romance system of any gates ("Who you are") damages the narrative by not accurately portraying some of the real consequences of living in a world like this.

 

We have different interpretations of Dragon Age's themes. I view it as a satire, where humans are mad with prejudice and comfortable living in their bubble while the hero deals with the alien and has the option for cooperation.

 

"Whitewashing the romance system" is perfectly agreeable with my interpretation. And it's pretty much what art is about. Not taking things at face value. It's what I meant on an earlier post when I said about "alternative reality" and the story reacting to the presence of the player.

 

In my opinion to highlight something, you need to make everything else familiar enough so your audience will be able to spot it. The application for romances would be to move away from the limitations of sexuality and race that everyone understands, and explore personal conflicts. An example of this at work is Morrigan. She is beautiful and smart, but the cost is that feelings aren't exactly mutual. You can observe this in the game. You don't need to be told.

 

That's exactly what gating for "who you are" does. Simplifies the concept and tells you what happens. There is no excitement when the only thing you need to do for qualifying is to exist.

 

Even if you were absolutely right in your interpretation (I'm not saying you are not, but I don't think that this answer is definitive), this implementation is still problematic. None of us lives his everyday life considering the big picture. We create are own worlds, with friends and people that we want to be with, while dealing with everyone else the minimum that we have to (this varies from person to person). My subculture, or my sexuality doesn't get in the way of my everyday life because I made it so by making choices. Playing a game with mature themes and dealing with these kinds of obstacles is a step backwards. 

[Tootles FTW]

I liked the playersexuality of DA2, but I appreciate the mish-mash of gating in Inquisition since it's given me an excuse to create a detailed pre-gaming chart to map out my playthroughs...all of which I've found to be quite entertaining in a hugely nerdy and obsessive sort of way.

I say NAY on the class-gating idea.  There aren't enough class options to justify this restriction, as I see the Mages being the only ones to suffer in the implementation. 

[jomymarquis]

My personal preference will always be a DA2 style romance system. Give me a dating free for all! Not only do you get maximum choice, but it can make for a very interesting story either just in game or in your head if you are big into the roleplay aspects of the game. For example, my Hawke was a mage that romanced Fenris. Human mage with a magic hating elf? I can see why some people would find it unrealistic and ok to put gates in place to stop it, but it's probably my favorite romance in either game. I think it's a lot more interesting to allow "odd couples" and address that in the romance storyline than keep them from happening. But, they require a lot more work for the writers I guess.

As long as there are never restrictions based on the look of your character, I can accept others like gender/race/class. Even if I don't always like it haha.

[SirGladiator]

I'm opposed to the various forms of gating, there's never anything good about any of them.  I would support options to make it more 'difficult' to romance certain LIs, based on just about anything really, as romances tend to be overly easy and adding challenge could both make them more fun and unique, without taking away the fun of actually letting you romance the LI of your choice.  So yes to certain LIs being more difficult to romance if you're female, an elf, a mage, extremely good/bad, taller than 6 feet, and pretty much whatever else you can think of, but no to outright gating of any kind, as taking away someone else's choices of LI is always a bad thing.

[bazzag]

I don't mind gating of gender or race, or even class for that matter, as it adds an extra texture to replayability and, dare I say it, realism. 

[The Night Haunter]

I'd be fine with class based gating, and I greatly prefer having distinct gender preferences and kinda prefer race gating a limited selection of LIs.

[bazzag]

I liked the playersexuality of DA2, but I appreciate the mish-mash of gating in Inquisition since it's given me an excuse to create a detailed pre-gaming chart to map out my playthroughs...all of which I've found to be quite entertaining in a hugely nerdy and obsessive sort of way.

I say NAY on the class-gating idea.  There aren't enough class options to justify this restriction, as I see the Mages being the only ones to suffer in the implementation. 

 

Yes, at present mages would be the only ones to suffer at present. But as an idea how it could be implemented in the future, what about more of a story twist depending on your class? We'll say a human as an example. If you opt to be a warrior, you would be a noble. So maybe someone who is from an impoverished background will not romance you as they have a hatred towards the wealthy. If you were a rogue, maybe you are involved in some sort of illegal activity, like a gang or something. So someone whose part of the law wont romance you as youre a criminal.

 

A Dwarf as another example. Perhaps as a rogue you are a surfacer or casteless, so a dwarf who still has stone sense wont romance you because youre 'scum'

 

Just a thought that i thought that, if implemented correctly, could work quite well. And it would also alter the story slightly depending on your class

[Commander Rpg]

Fortunately I have the possibility to deny flirts, done by chars with same gender as my pc, 'cause I really wouldn't like to see that kind of "relationship" on games anymore.