11 réponses à ce sujet

[Broganisity]

DISCLAIMER: The Original Poster realizes he's risking the chance of this thread exploding into a big ol' can of Druffalo Chips. However, he believes the topic needs to be discussed properly and is the reason he is being some sort of an Illusive man by not saying which system he is discussing specifically in this thread's title. He hopes people will remain civil and realize he is talking about the system in large, not the small things that make people go bananas.

 

Introduction: I've started this thread to have a conversation about the Romance System of the Dragon Age series. As a reminder to those reading, the thread is not here to discuss the specific romances of Inquisition, and any time I bring it up I do so in discussion of the thread topic, and not because of the romance in and of itself.

 

I'm sure many people consider the two things that make a Bioware game are the Memorable Characters and the Memorable Choices that both occur across the story. However, I personally believe that some of the characters in Inquisition felt hollow, and this believe in part extends to the Romance System of the game. A good chunk of characters I never truly felt a connection to on my first play-through, and I've yet to feel the want to go through another play-through, but that's a different thread in and of itself. Likewise, I ended up having my Inquisitor romance Cassandra, but I felt as though I wouldn't have a solid connection to the aforementioned character without that romance occurring.
 

Iron Bull was just this Qunari that sat around the bar. Sure I'd talk to him but we never really...did much, Sure we hung out a bit, I met his crew, did his little questline, talked about how good it was to be Champion...but I felt that there was something missing in the connection between Bull and the Inquisitor (along with myself the player). I felt more of a connection to his lieutenant, the Krem d'la Krem, than I did the companion I took with me once or twice on a mission. I had similar feelings in regards to Josephine; I felt as though there was a gap in their friendship and the development of Josephine's character that I couldn't explain...not to mention Sera. I mean sure I found her annoying, but she gave me cookies! Nasty cookies, but still! There was a part of me that wanted to like her, but felt that some pieces to make that happen were missing. Sure, my inquisitor was friends with them, but I the player? I didn't feel anything to match.

 

In any case, I came to the conclusion that there was some sort of, as I call it, 'Romance Pay Wall' involved. By this I mean you only really could get a solid connection to or possibly understanding of a character by entering into a romance with them. Which bothers me, considering I wanted to like certain romanceable characters, but felt that the connection a player could have with said characters was limited outside of the romance involved.

Now, I don't think all of them were this way. I didn't think Blackwall and Cullen needed to be romanced to get a connection to their characters, but maybe that was because their situations were...better shown/written/performed? I can't properly describe the feeling, but I -feel- that I can't feel them, you feel me?

--------------------------

Anyways, this confusing thought led me to think about the Romance System in whole. I then came to the conclusion that the system in question was rather bland, despite calling itself diverse. Origins had four romances, and Dragon Age Two had four, with a fifth as DLC. Inquisition has Eight Romances, and they are all fundamentally the same. Get someone's approval up to a certain point, then initiate romance...

Why does the player have to initiate the romance? Why can't we have a character who, if your approval is high enough and you match their interests, will start pursuing the player, allowing you to accept the flirting, reciprocate the flirting, or rejecting it/having them stop? Maybe there is a character who's just looking for a 'one night stand' type of scenario? Maybe you're a part of that character's affair?

I did not care for Vivienne overall, but what I liked was that the option to flirt with her was there, but she just rejects you. Why can't we have more characters that do that? You don't match their interests, or they simply aren't interested in you period? Maybe they're in a relationship, maybe they don't like the choices you've made (even if they're approval of you is high enough), or maybe they're aromantic? What if there was a character that just didn't get that you were flirting with them, and instead ran around trying to play wingman for you, with comedic results?

 

--------------------------

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Romance System of Dragon Age is rather one-sided, or empty. People like to compare Skyrim to Inquisition, and I suppose I'll give that a shot as well. In Skyrim, you can marry a large amount of people (who, for some reason, are all magically bisexual, but that's a different topic) just by doing something to make them like you. I had the option to marry a beggar because I gave them a coin. A single coin. You can't even buy half a carrot shaving for that. That's a horrible basis to found a marriage upon! 

 

The Romance System in Dragon Age is nowhere near that silly, but in each game every romance starts and continues on in roughly the same way...I believe that particular foundation needs a redesign/re-visit. There should be more 'romance options' per say, but only a few that actually end up in what can be considered a successful state. Sort of how attempting to flirt with Vivienne ends in rejection, and flirting with Scout Harding (unfortunately) leads nowhere, but I suppose I mean on a larger scale:

 

--------------------------

A fancy list because people like lists

--------------------------

 

- Characters that attempt to romance you, either for the long long term or in a one-off "hook-up" type of scenario.

 

- Characters that are either cheating on someone with you, or possibly cheat on you with someone else if your approval rating with them goes down considerably.

 

- A polyamoric option?

 

- Characters that accept/reject your attempts based on what actions you've done. In other words, it's not just your approval rate that matters, but the actions you've taken. Rejections based simply on not being interested in a relationship, already in a relationship, and/or being Aromantic/Asexual.

 

- More characters with specific restrictions, a la Mordin Solas. Maybe there's a Tal-Vashoth Woman who only likes Dwarf wo/men? A Templar who won't romance Mages? A Legionnaire who will only romance a fellow dwarf Warrior?

 

- A character who, instead of you romancing them, goes off and plays wingman for you! It would be Legen- wait for it...

 

- In general, more romance options and the variety thereof, but fewer 'successful' relationship options. Variety is life's spice, and all that!

 

--------------------------

 

...That's about all I have to say in regards to opening up this topic so...what do you think about the Romance System of Dragon Age? Think things need to be changed/improved in the next game? More options, but less 'success'? Or fewer options with 'more meaning'? More character restrictions? Less character restrictions?

...Dary! Legendary!

[Voodoo Dancer]

far too much romance fluff in inquisition , I would have preferred they kept such a relationship to just Cassandra and Cullen , those 2 characters at least seemed to be a proper part of the story , I would have liked it if they spent more time introducing the other companions in a better way instead of them all just falling into our lap , like us having to find them and convince them to join and giving them a reason for joining , maybe each of the new areas could have been used for a companion story and quest. 

[worldbro]

I completely agree with the op. The open world is done. Now focus on more immersion, like having more than 2 romantic options for a heterosexual male character.

 

Make an epic expansion using the world designed, and don't waste resources on a multiplayer option the majority don't care about.

[AlanC9]

Why does the player have to initiate the romance? Why can't we have a character who, if your approval is high enough and you match their interests, will start pursuing the player, allowing you to accept the flirting, reciprocate the flirting, or rejecting it/having them stop? Maybe there is a character who's just looking for a 'one night stand' type of scenario? Maybe you're a part of that character's affair?

I'll tell you exactly why. Too many of the Gamergate types would flip out if subjected to a gay flirtation -- we've already seen this happen with DA2 -- and Bio wants to keep romance mechanics for all characters similar. Now, Bio theoretically could use different mechanics for the gay and straight characters, but then this would cause some resource allocation issues, since there's no way Bio's going to give the straight romances more wordcount.

I did not care for Vivienne overall, but what I liked was that the option to flirt with her was there, but she just rejects you. Why can't we have more characters that do that? You don't match their interests, or they simply aren't interested in you period? Maybe they're in a relationship, maybe they don't like the choices you've made (even if they're approval of you is high enough), or maybe they're aromantic? What if there was a character that just didn't get that you were flirting with them, and instead ran around trying to play wingman for you, with comedic results?

Proposals like this are workable. The problem is, you'll burn a lot of wordcount for stuff that isn't all that consequential; to implement this you'll need to increase the amount of romance and quasi-romance content at the expense of other content. Which is fine if you think that will make for a better game.

[AlanC9]

Make an epic expansion using the world designed, and don't waste resources on a multiplayer option the majority don't care about.

Don't be silly. MP players are buying up MP chests. You really think Bio would get to keep the MP development budget without any prospect of MP revenue?

[Broganisity]

I completely agree with the op. The open world is done. Now focus on more immersion, like having more than 2 romantic options for a heterosexual male character.

 

Make an epic expansion using the world designed, and don't waste resources on a multiplayer option the majority don't care about.

Honestly, I'd say I'm arguing for less 'actual' romance options overall, but with a greater, truer diversity between those options. The game could let you attempt to flirt with...I don't know...twelve-plus people, but there are only four to six actual romance options (In Inquisition we have eight options). With that in mind, I'd limit there to being one 'straight romance option' per sex, a homosexual option per sex, and then I guess a bisexual option? So...five? Something like that.

...also Multiplayer is glorious and needs playable Mabari, stat!

 

I'll tell you exactly why. Too many of the Gamergate types would flip out if subjected to a gay flirtation -- we've already seen this happen with DA2 -- and Bio wants to keep romance mechanics for all characters similar. Now, Bio theoretically could use different mechanics for the gay and straight characters, but then this would cause some resource allocation issues, since there's no way Bio's going to give the straight romances more wordcount.



Proposals like this are workable. The problem is, you'll burn a lot of wordcount for stuff that isn't all that consequential; to implement this you'll need to increase the amount of romance and quasi-romance content at the expense of other content. Which is fine if you think that will make for a better game.

Then those people with prejudice would be able to outright reject the character, and possibly get into an argument about it if they are rude about it. A writer who shies away from character and content is no writer at all...likewise, a writer who largely panders to a focused group within a larger, overarching fanbase also brings their work to a questionable light. You can't be afraid to have other characters take charge; to see them grow in skill and character, suffer in emotional or physical agony, triumph over adversity be it of themselves or others, or die in a way that causes people to complain that it's 'unfitting'. In short, I think a writer is obligated to write their story regardless of what other people want that story to be. To quote Socrates: “As it is, the lover of inquiry must follow his beloved wherever it may lead him.”

 

I don't see why splitting the mechanics behind the romances based on sexuality makes much sense, when it should be on a 'per character basis'. A Character's approval of you is high, they agree with your choices, and you match their preference...the companion in question could be any of those five options  I mentioned above, it doesn't have to be split so that only X-sexuality will attempt to initiate flirtations/romance...also, I'd take this moment to question why every option in DA2 was bisexual, but that's been done to death and really doesn't matter much going onwards and into the future.

 

I would like to re-iterate: I do not care for the Romance System in Inquisition. If removed, I believe the resources allocated to it could be used for better character development amongst the Companions and Advisors. However, I understand that, as a Dragon Age and Bioware game, such a thought is folly. That particular system has become a staple in their games, and I'd rather see their core traits be made better than removed.

With the amount of time until DA4, the success of DA:I, and the budget that DA:I had, I like to think that they could spend a fair bit of time fine tuning the systems they laid out in DA:I (of which I'll make other threads about eventually) for a better DA4.

[Kantr]

They've talked about polyamory and how difficult it would be to implement. See their 2014 panel on romance

[Broganisity]

They've talked about polyamory and how difficult it would be to implement. See their 2014 panel on romance

Interesting.

 

I'll have to find and read that before I comment much further on that topic...though it's mostly an afterthought in my mind. Still, I think it is something that should continue to be contemplated, tossed around, and otherwise considered if the topic of 'diversity in romance' is meant to be taken seriously. Whether the problem lies within programming (Of which I know precious little) or actual story-writing (of which I know enough to have a few ideas on.) I'll see once I find a video or a transcript...preferably the later. I don't much care for videos for some reason.

[Kantr]

Interesting.

 

I'll have to find and read that before I comment much further on that topic...though it's mostly an afterthought in my mind. Still, I think it is something that should continue to be contemplated, tossed around, and otherwise considered if the topic of 'diversity in romance' is meant to be taken seriously. Whether the problem lies within programming (Of which I know precious little) or actual story-writing (of which I know enough to have a few ideas on.) I'll see once I find a video or a transcript...preferably the later. I don't much care for videos for some reason.

 

the consensus was that it wasnt wirting but how to program the Ai to detect it

 

There's no transcript

[Broganisity]

I see.. Videos why! D:

The way I see the concept, it wouldn't be the Player character romancing multiple companions and getting those companions to agree with the player's actions. Rather, it would be the companion introducing a third party to the Player. Perhaps someone from said Companion's background or Companion/Loyalty/Romance Quest thing. The player can then decline the request, whether through disinterest (Committing to a single partner) or through being appalled by the suggestion (possibly cancelling the romance, even!),  or by accepting and partaking in the romance.

By making it an option in a single character's romance, you prevent having to handle the whole triangle of working between multiple separate companions, getting the AI to acknowledge they are partaking in a romance with the player AND another companion, not to mention who would follow through in it, who would hate it, yadda yadda... You sacrifice the complexity of the concept for added characteristics to a single companion. Or something.

[AlanC9]

Then those people with prejudice would be able to outright reject the character, and possibly get into an argument about it if they are rude about it.

Well, ideally, yeah. But if you've hung around here enough you can see how this stuff goes.

It'd obviously be different if the writers really had a strong preference in favor of NPC advances to the player, and hten they would go ahead and do it anyway. But in the absence of such a preference, I can see why they wouldn't care for the trouble.

[Broganisity]

Well, ideally, yeah. But if you've hung around here enough you can see how this stuff goes.

It'd obviously be different if the writers really had a strong preference in favor of NPC advances to the player, and then they would go ahead and do it anyway. But in the absence of such a preference, I can see why they wouldn't care for the trouble.

The former topic is the fault of the plague of zealotry. A topic so- yeah. I have no words for that particular topic.

And I agree that I can see why the writers wouldn't have such a thing, though I would regardless hope to see a greater diversity in romantic means than in romantic persuasions.

 

Side Note: while I personally wouldn't argue such, I can see how a character initiating a romance option would deprive a player a part of the 'power fantasy' mentality. Sometime to contemplate I suppose.

 

P.S. I love your signature so hard. Mmph.