15856 réponses à ce sujet

[WikipediaBrown]

I only visited the brothels in previous games when required through questlines so I don't really care one way or another, but if they purposely removed anything from the games just because it could potentially offend anyone there would be nothing left.

 

Off the top of my head I could think of a couple interesting quests that could take place in such a place: an Orlesian brothel run by one of Leliana's spy network or Red Jennies that was a front for blackmailing/exhorting nobles that we could use to pressure them into providing resources for the Inquisition, or a human trafficking storyline involving elves from alienages that we would need to track down where they were being taken and eliminate the ringleaders, etc. Obviously I'm not a writer but I think there could be a way to make brothels more than a joke or mere titillation. 

 

Or they could have just had brothel in Val Royeaux's market that had a sign on the front with "Closed Due to Demons."

[Xetykins]

I thought the DAO brothel The Pearl was quite ok. They have males and female prossys, even from other races. I don't personally use them but talking to sanga when they're all lined up was quite amusing. Pity they replaced that with just 1 sickly elf in da2 and abolished completely in DAI.

[thats1evildude]

I don't think brothels were caught because they were offensive; I think they were cut because DAI is primarily an outdoor exploration game and brothels didn't really mesh with the rest of the game. And as In Exile and I have been saying, they weren't a good of resources anyway.

 

WikipediaBrown and Xetykins, you sort of reinforce this point. Like many players, you didn't use the brothels. So if they weren't being done well and they weren't being used by a majority of players, why have them at all? To fill some random sex encounter quota?

 

Anyways, I think this topic has been ground into the dust, so I'm not talking about it anymore.

[VelvetV]

After playing TW3 some more, I have to say I'm puzzled at my own reactions.

 

The world is too "grey". I'm an ordinary person, I want to help good people and don't care for bad ones (or outright want to harm them). But when I start to realize that everyone in the game is bad (even if they seem good) and that there's something good (however small) even to villains, then I feel like my choices ultimately mean nothing. I can't help a good person in this game, because they're all secretly bad. So why should I care for their lives? And I can't really harm a bad person all the way, because the game keeps "telling" me they aren't as bad as I think. Even though I try to overlook it, because I think some actions can't be excused, the game insists.

 

In previous TW games I didn't feel like that. On the contrary, I tried to be neutral and thought there were too many ethical decisions. Now I miss that.

 

I think The Walking Dead games got it right with their ethical decisions. When you chose, you really chose. From complex variables. In TW3 I feel it doesn't matter what I choose, like they removed ethical component altogether by making everyone "grey", yet provided no other variables to choose from.

 

I hope Bioware doesn't try to use their approach to choices. Too grey means no agency.

 

On that note, has anyone encountered Roche, where is he? He had such a great and "noble" personality, I start to worry what TW3 has done to him. I want to see for myself that he's still awesome. 

 

P.S. If I can talk to him, that is, after having used a save with Iorveth path. It would be pretty pathetic if Roche told Geralt to go to hell, haha.

[Hazegurl]

You bring up brothels as a negative change. You suggest Bioware should make changes from its previous titles, namely, DA:O and DA2 in this regard, and then specifically speak about changes made to brothels. And the inference to draw from that is, apparently, that you do not want brothels to appear in the same form as in DA:O or DA2, but in a totally different form that uses fewer resources? 

 

 

I brought up brothels as an example of Bioware making extreme decisions based on fan complaints instead of them finding some sort of middle ground.  You guys are the ones that saw "brothel" and jumped on it with an argument that had nothing at all to do with countering what I've said other than "I don't like brothels due to resources."  What does that have to do with Bioware making snap decisions and allowing themselves to be run around by the nose by their fans?

 

 

I did prove that they cost resources. To quote Solas: "Is this a serious question?" They require VO. Do you deny that the brothel has VO? They cost cinematics-related resources. Do you deny that the brothels had cinematics? They require level design. Do you deny that the brothel is a level in the game?

 

 

You are reaching hard with this response.  Any location that uses VO and cinematics will cost resources.  How on earth is this exclusive to brothels alone?  I advocate for more VO and cut scenes over all.  What does the location matter as long as the content is interesting and engaging? How does a brothel alone drain resources that no other location with VO and cut scenes will?

 

 

The only possible point of contention is that you think that this is worthwhile content. To which, I said, I do not see this as adding to the verisimilitude of the world. This is quite different from some half-baked theory about "sexism", the only proof of which is the apparent removal of the brothel and the absence of desire demons. 

 

 

It's hardly half baked when the same people cry sexism about brothels then argue that it's a resource drain when pressed further on the issue. me thinks you're arguing this so hard because you're one of them. 

 

It seems to me like resources is the go to "I win" argument for eliminating any sort of ingame content. 

 

Remove the deep roads...well resources! *shrug*

Add a note on a random corpse for a side quest....Resources!

 

Riiight.

 

 

Ah, so we have the verisimilitude argument. Anything can add to the "background and look of a city", including an otherwise non-interactive house that has silent NPCs or NPCs with background dialogue. Why is a brothel something that offers this in preference to a nursery? 

 

Sigh, you are determined to to make this a "You just want brothels ingame!"  never mind the fact that I just mentioned more than brothels.  But keep on trying to hand wave my argument as nothing more than a complaint on freaking brothels.

[Han Shot First]

 

 

On that note, has anyone encountered Roche, where is he? He had such a great and "noble" personality, I start to worry what TW3 has done to him. I want to see for myself that he's still awesome. 

 

Roche was charismatic and a well-written and acted character, but he was never noble. He readily admits to committing atrocities in the service of what he sees as the greater good, much as Iorveth does. In fact despite despising each other Roche and Iorveth are actually quite similar, it is only accidents of birth that place them in opposing camps. The Blue Stripes are even described in the lore as being the human version of the Scoia'tael, and like the Squirrels not always distinguishing between enemy troops and noncombatants.

 

Iorveth also sums up some of Roche's prior crimes when the two first cross paths in TW2:

 

[WikipediaBrown]

I don't think brothels were caught because they were offensive; I think they were cut because DAI is primarily an outdoor exploration game and brothels didn't really mesh with the rest of the game. And as In Exile and I have been saying, they weren't a good of resources anyway.

 

WikipediaBrown and Xetykins, you sort of reinforce this point. Like many players, you didn't use the brothels. So if they weren't being done well and they weren't being used by a majority of players, why have them at all? To fill some random sex encounter quota?

I honestly didn't notice the lack of them until I came on the forums. I have no strong opinions for or against brothels, I just think Bioware should have the freedom to include brothels or anything else deemed potentially controversial if they so choose without getting accused of
"sexism," etc by a portion of the fanbase. 

[Gundar3]

You all... Are amazing...

 

Its probably because I only normally read the PC Concerns Thread that I am so jaded about Bioware as a company and about this community/fanbase in general, but wow.

 

I honestly never expected that there would be a real feedback thread, in the Feedback forums, with people providing ACTUAL constructive criticism and direction to Bioware.  I just assumed that the Feedback threads were all Bioware kool-aid drinkers.  

 

I don't know anything anymore.  I hope that Bioware sees this?  Do they comment here?  Because they sure don't on the PC thread.

 

In some small way, you have made a crack in my icy heart towards Bioware.  Thanks.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

You all... Are amazing...

 

Its probably because I only normally read the PC Concerns Thread that I am so jaded about Bioware as a company and about this community/fanbase in general, but wow.

 

I honestly never expected that there would be a real feedback thread, in the Feedback forums, with people providing ACTUAL constructive criticism and direction to Bioware.  I just assumed that the Feedback threads were all Bioware kool-aid drinkers.  

 

I don't know anything anymore.  I hope that Bioware sees this?  Do they comment here?  Because they sure don't on the PC thread.

 

In some small way, you have made a crack in my icy heart towards Bioware.  Thanks.

 

I don't think Bioware cares about us or read the Feedback & Suggestions. The only time Bioware ever frequents here is to close threads.

 

To Bioware, we are just a vocal minority who can't get their "artistic ingenuity" and "artistic vision". 

 

Unless you are talking about how their "Game is great because they have a character with a particular sexuality and that it somehow makes a difference in the real world !" or how " Representative they are and this will herald the next great social change ! ", Bioware won't be listening to you. 

[VelvetV]

Roche was charismatic and a well-written and acted character, but he was never noble. He readily admits to committing atrocities in the service of what he sees as the greater good, much as Iorveth does. In fact despite despising each other Roche and Iorveth are actually quite similar, it is only accidents of birth that place them in opposing camps.

 

That is why I said "noble", not noble. He's not really noble as in being ideal. But a lot better than other characters. He believed in something good. Iorveth just killed out of spite.

 

He also has positive personal traits. Would Iorveth save Geralt's life if Geralt ran away from him and joined his enemy? Not for any rational reason, but just because! I'll go with "no".

 

And my absolute love for Roche was cemented when... too spoilery, so here it goes under spoiler tag:

Spoiler

when he chose to give Anais away to Radovid to avoid causing a civilian war in Temeria. That was "my" choice, so to speak, but the explanation and reasoning were his own. The guy actually gives a damn about people and their lives, he isn't just an obstinate patriot who wants to see a legal heiress on the throne and a country named Temeria on the map, no matter what it costs others. He even states outright that there's no warranty that Radovid ever places Anais on the Temerian throne and yet he was fine with it. Iorveth? Kills women and children out of anger at humans and only stops because Saskia is a dragon and he worships them. Whatever he is, a changed man or not, I find Roche shines too much in comparison. And even without comparison, he just sold me on his personal traits and care for people's lives in Temeria.

[Gundar3]

After playing TW3 some more, I have to say I'm puzzled at my own reactions.

 

The world is too "grey". I'm an ordinary person, I want to help good people and don't care for bad ones (or outright want to harm them). But when I start to realize that everyone in the game is bad (even if they seem good) and that there's something good (however small) even to villains, then I feel like my choices ultimately mean nothing. I can't help a good person in this game, because they're all secretly bad. So why should I care for their lives? And I can't really harm a bad person all the way, because the game keeps "telling" me they aren't as bad as I think. Even though I try to overlook it, because I think some actions can't be excused, the game insists.

 

In previous TW games I didn't feel like that. On the contrary, I tried to be neutral and thought there were too many ethical decisions. Now I miss that.

 

I think The Walking Dead games got it right with their ethical decisions. When you chose, you really chose. From complex variables. In TW3 I feel it doesn't matter what I choose, like they removed ethical component altogether by making everyone "grey", yet provided no other variables to choose from.

 

I hope Bioware doesn't try to use their approach to choices. Too grey means no agency.

 

On that note, has anyone encountered Roche, where is he? He had such a great and "noble" personality, I start to worry what TW3 has done to him. I want to see for myself that he's still awesome. 

 

P.S. If I can talk to him, that is, after having used a save with Iorveth path. It would be pretty pathetic if Roche told Geralt to go to hell, haha.

 

 

See, I think this is amazing, because it puts the onus onto the gamer.  Especially if you are really trying to role-play the character.  The people (npcs) are not easy to understand.  It begs the question about the nature of people.  Why are people good?  Are they good because they do what others think they should do, to get a reward?  Or because they naturally feel that way?  Why is this guy "bad"?  What caused him to be that way?  Maybe he has real justification to take his actions and feel the way he does.

 

The Witcher is not a world where you have moral absolutes.  Those moral absolutes can only work on paper, because in real life, people are too complex in how they arrive at their thoughts and feelings.  I love that the Witcher demonstrates this.  It shows that people are not just "good" or "bad" like cartoon heroes/villains, which is a criticism I have of DA:I and recent Bioware writing.

 

And I feel the exact same way about wanting to be the hero, especially when the world is more oppressive in nature.  But it makes it difficult doesn't it, when people are not just caricatures.  I love it.

 

I hope that Bioware can go back to incorporating some of this in future games, because its real human drama!

[Dreadstruck]

That is why I said "noble", not noble. He's not really noble as in being ideal. But a lot better than other characters. He believed in something good. Iorveth just killed out of spite.
 
He also has positive personal traits. Would Iorveth save Geralt's life if Geralt ran away from him and joined his enemy? Not for any rational reason, but just because! I'll go with "no".
 
And my absolute love for Roche was cemented when... too spoilery, so here it goes under spoiler tag:

Spoiler

when he chose to give Anais away to Radovid to avoid causing a civilian war in Temeria. That was "my" choice, so to speak, but the explanation and reasoning were his own. The guy actually gives a damn about people and their lives, he isn't just an obstinate patriot who wants to see a legal heiress on the throne and a country named Temeria on the map, no matter what it costs others. He even states outright that there's no warranty that Radovid ever places Anais on the Temerian throne and yet he was fine with it. Iorveth? Kills women and children out of anger at humans and only stops because Saskia is a dragon and he worships them. Whatever he is, a changed man or not, I find Roche shines too much in comparison. And even without comparison, he just sold me on his personal traits and care for people's lives in Temeria.

That is exactly what I love about Vernon. He is fiercely loyal to you.
Hell like you said, he helps you twice even after you betray him and saves your life as well in the Nilfgaardian camp (all of this on Iorveth path).

 

Meanwhile, when you decide to go with Roche's path, Iorveth is nowhere to be found and you actually have to bust him out of trouble in one of the optional quests.

 

And of course, he's a legitimate badass as well. Pretty much the Temerian version of Jack Bauer/Jason Bourne.

 

 

 

No wonder that the default TW3 world state has Geralt siding with Roche. Makes the most sense.

[Gundar3]

I don't think Bioware cares about us or read the Feedback & Suggestions. The only time Bioware ever frequents here is to close threads.

 

To Bioware, we are just a vocal minority who can't get their "artistic ingenuity" and "artistic vision". 

 

Unless you are talking about how their "Game is great because they have a character with a particular sexuality and that it somehow makes a difference in the real world !" or how " Representative they are and this will herald the next great social change ! ", Bioware won't be listening to you. 

 

And... My hope is dashed once again.

[Xetykins]

I don't think brothels were caught because they were offensive; I think they were cut because DAI is primarily an outdoor exploration game and brothels didn't really mesh with the rest of the game. And as In Exile and I have been saying, they weren't a good of resources anyway.
 
WikipediaBrown and Xetykins, you sort of reinforce this point. Like many players, you didn't use the brothels. So if they weren't being done well and they weren't being used by a majority of players, why have them at all? To fill some random sex encounter quota?
 
Anyways, I think this topic has been ground into the dust, so I'm not talking about it anymore.

Well the Pearl brothel added to the atmosphere and humour for me in the game though. Just because some people don't use them like me does not mean they should be scrapped. I mean, I don't ever access gay content, but they added diversity and I'm glad they are there. Does that mean they should be scrapped?

[Joseph Warrick]

No they don't comment here.

It's funny this thread is about what DA can steal from the witcher and the last million posts are about brothels and prostitutes. Might as well say "be more like DA2". FWIW the only game whose prostitution I liked is Fallout 3 because it allowed me to kill the pimp.

Going back to TW3: Unlike most I liked to have exploration and conversation modes blended together for secondary conversations in DAI. I Like looking at Cassandra's face but the natural feel the new approach provides is worth it to me. If you steal the npc responsiveness from TW3 you can take another step towards a wholesome game experience, leaving behind the compartmentalized exploration/conversation/combat modes of past games.

[VelvetV]

See, I think this is amazing, because it puts the onus onto the gamer.  Especially if you are really trying to role-play the character.  The people (npcs) are not easy to understand.  It begs the question about the nature of people.  Why are people good?  Are they good because they do what others think they should do, to get a reward?  Or because they naturally feel that way?  Why is this guy "bad"?  What caused him to be that way?  Maybe he has real justification to take his actions and feel the way he does.

 

I think that it robs people of agency. The only conclusion I derived from the game so far is that if people are all bad, then they aren't worth caring about. So why would I care what Geralt does to them? That makes me bored with people in the game rather than delighted.

 

As for why someone did something bad, when I think that something is unforgivable, they can talk my ears off about how they felt, but I won't care. All such reasons are just lame excuses and the person who uses them can't just erase his actions. Regret doesn't work with me, because I do not believe that people can change. He regrets? Who cares about his fleeting feelings, he'll do the same in future anyway. He needs to be punished, not excused.

 

P.S. Not ALL people are bad in the game, some don't show their bad sides and I manage to even like them.

[VelvetV]

That is exactly what I love about Vernon. He is fiercely loyal to you.
Hell like you said, he helps you twice even after you betray him and saves your life as well in the Nilfgaardian camp (all of this on Iorveth path).

 

Meanwhile, when you decide to go with Roche's path, Iorveth is nowhere to be found and you actually have to bust him out of trouble in one of the optional quests.

 

If I could like you a hundred times, I would We share a love!     

 

No wonder that the default TW3 world state has Geralt siding with Roche. Makes the most sense.

 

 

I think I might regret it dearly that I used a Iorveth save. I wanted to see what happened to Pontar Valley. By the looks of it, nothing good happened and we don't even visit it. So if Roche dismisses Geralt, like he refused to talk to him in TW2 on Iorveth path, I won't be a happy camper. Especially since I'd have to replay the whole game again in order to use another save.

 

My hope is that they will allow fully for all optional content (however small it might turn out to be) in one playthrough. Restricting it made sense for TW2 with its two-games-in-one approach, but TW3 is so large that I think they know people wouldn't want to replay such largeness because of Roche\Iorveth choice only. *fingers crossed*

[Dreadstruck]

If I could like you a hundred times, I would We share a love!     

bRoche is love, bRoche is life!
 

I think I might regret it dearly that I used a Iorveth save. I wanted to see what happened to Pontar Valley. By the looks of it, nothing good happened and we don't even visit it. So if Roche dismisses Geralt, like he refused to talk to him in TW2 on Iorveth path, I won't be a happy camper. Especially since I'd have to replay the whole game again in order to use another save.
 
My hope is that they will allow fully for all optional content (however small it might turn out to be) in one playthrough. Restricting it made sense for TW2 with its two-games-in-one approach, but TW3 is so large that I think they know people wouldn't want to replay such largeness because of Roche\Iorveth choice only. *fingers crossed*

 

I might be on the same boat here, because even though I went with Roche, I saved Triss in the end for my "canon" import. So the chances of him appearing seem very slim, which sucks. I can imagine it's probably the same if you go with Iorveth.

 

And yeah, would also like to know what happened to Pontar Valley, then again I am not *that* far in the game, so who knows.

[Gundar3]

I think that it robs people of agency. The only conclusion I derived from the game so far is that if people are all bad, then they aren't worth caring about. So why would I care what Geralt does to them? That makes me bored with people in the game rather than delighted.

 

As for why someone did something bad, when I think that something is unforgivable, they can talk my ears off about how they felt, but I won't care. All such reasons are just lame excuses and the person who uses them can't just erase his actions. Regret doesn't work with me, because I do not believe that people can change. He regrets? Who cares about his fleeting feelings, he'll do the same in future anyway. He needs to be punished, not excused.

 

P.S. Not ALL people are bad in the game, some don't show their bad sides and I manage to even like them.

 

Well theres our difference!  I don't think that there things that are unforgivable!  All people can change blah blah blah.  I wont talk philosophy...  But I think that the Witcher brought this up at all is awesome, and demonstrates a willingness to go places with emotion and feelings that frankly DA:I can not, or will not.

[TheOgre]

No they don't comment here.

It's funny this thread is about what DA can steal from the witcher and the last million posts are about brothels and prostitutes. Might as well say "be more like DA2". FWIW the only game whose prostitution I liked is Fallout 3 because it allowed me to kill the pimp.

Going back to TW3: Unlike most I liked to have exploration and conversation modes blended together for secondary conversations in DAI. I Like looking at Cassandra's face but the natural feel the new approach provides is worth it to me. If you steal the npc responsiveness from TW3 you can take another step towards a wholesome game experience, leaving behind the compartmentalized exploration/conversation/combat modes of past games.

 

... Okay mr.Hyperbole.

[thats1evildude]

Well the Pearl brothel added to the atmosphere and humour for me in the game though. Just because some people don't use them like me does not mean they should be scrapped. I mean, I don't ever access gay content, but they added diversity and I'm glad they are there. Does that mean they should be scrapped?

 

Sort of a false equivocation. The gay content is enjoyed considerably by a portion of the fanbase; while I'm not interested in it, I don't object to its presence, because others enjoy it and I want Dragon Age to be successful so that they will keep making Dragon Age games.

 

On the flip side, I can't really see even the people who would enjoy going to brothels actually getting much use out of them, because in both DAO and DA2 they were pretty badly-implemented.

 

Yeah, the Pearl adds a little bit of atmosphere and humour to DAO, but not too damn much. As such, the resources spent into making it are really not being used well.

 

Look at this way: it's like if Dragon Age forced you to periodically eat food. You had to buy food from a vendor or hunt for food now and then. Food didn't restore your health or provide any benefits, but if you don't eat some every six hours or so, you got an automatic game over.

 

It took resources to create this feature, and while it does add a little bit of "verisimilitude" to the game, it doesn't make the game more enjoyable. In fact, a lot of people hate it. So why have it? That's how I feel about brothels. They weren't very fun, they weren't being used by most of the fanbase, and they were wasting resources better spent elsewhere. So I'm glad they're gone, and I hope they don't come back unless Bioware actually wants to put a little work into them.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You all... Are amazing...

 

Its probably because I only normally read the PC Concerns Thread that I am so jaded about Bioware as a company and about this community/fanbase in general, but wow.

 

I honestly never expected that there would be a real feedback thread, in the Feedback forums, with people providing ACTUAL constructive criticism and direction to Bioware.  I just assumed that the Feedback threads were all Bioware kool-aid drinkers.  

 

I don't know anything anymore.  I hope that Bioware sees this?  Do they comment here?  Because they sure don't on the PC thread.

 

In some small way, you have made a crack in my icy heart towards Bioware.  Thanks.

They don't comment, but I think they definitely read the threads. 

[VelvetV]

I might be on the same boat here, because even though I went with Roche, I saved Triss in the end for my "canon" import. So the chances of him appearing seem very slim, which sucks. I can imagine it's probably the same if you go with Iorveth.

 

And yeah, would also like to know what happened to Pontar Valley, then again I am not *that* far in the game, so who knows.

 

Actually, I found this. Peruse at your own risk, preferably with a search function of "Roche" as a word to avoid reading through all these horrible spoilers:

http://www.eurogamer...gh-3696?page=18

 

It seems that he does appear for all. But I cannot find any information on any special content for him or whether he's welcoming to those who sided with Iorveth.

 

I think you're safe even if you saved Triss, it shouldn't change a lot. Roche will remember that you're friends.

[Shechinah]

They don't comment, but I think they definitely read the threads. 

They do but in their own time, I think. David Gaider posts once in a while and recently did so in relation to answer why they decided to not have the Warden feature in Inquisition. They likely have people specifically to gather feedback from the threads, distill it and make it into a report that the developers and related parties read. 

 

[Seraphim24]

That's the thing. Dragon Age doesn't have an identity. Bioware changes it on a whim.

 

You know that is an identity of sorts, the identity of one who constantly seeks to conform their presentation to expectations, constantly seeks to please or placate, not one that ignores.

 

I  just like the identity that is equally willing to try and ignore everyone's opinions.