782 réponses à ce sujet

[Fixers0]

I don't think anyone is saying that a game can't be successful without gay romances.  But if they already have implemented them in the series, it would be a gut punch to those fans if they removed them going forward.  Again, all I want to see is choice in LI.  ME1 and ME2 offered 1 option each for lesbians (with Kelly really barely counting in ME2 anyway) and zero for gay guys.  That's just not cool coming from Bioware.  I don't care if straight guys have a billion options as long as I get two so that I can have a choice.  Just know that the more and more options for one demographic, the less quality options for everyone will likely be. 

 

While I understand your position I can't get behind this because I know for a fact that Mass Effect 3's commercial succes wouldn't have been anything less if they hadn't included Cortez, Allers, Traynor and Bi Kaidan as romances because hardly any people bought the game for said romance options. Now if Bioware had invested the money from those romances into things like making war assets work better, give more consquence to choices, make priority earth better, etc I don't think most people who mind those romances being absent.

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

While I understand your position I can't get behind this because I know for a fact that Mass Effect 3's commercial succes wouldn't have been anything less if they hadn't included Cortez, Allers, Traynor and Bi Kaidan as romances because hardly any people bought the game for said romance options. Now if Bioware had invested the money from those romances into things like making war assets work better, give more consquence to choices, make priority earth better, etc I don't think most people who mind those romances being absent.

Cite sources please, or be called out as full of bullpucky.

[KaiserShep]

Romances were hardly integral to the story of Mass Effect considering they were all optional. And personally Mass Effect 3 could have gone perfectly well without Traynor, Cortez and Allers, three less voice actors, and a lot less animating to do. EDI could fill most of Traynor's role and Cortez can simple be replaced by squadmate or generic pilot voiced by a stock actor. with these three characters gone the writing and development team could have devoted their time and effort into other matters.

Still, this all relies on the assumption that subtracting certain characters will result in something else being better somehow, like more dialogue or more animation with the remaining characters, or even a whole different character altogether. I guess my thing is that I'm never really going to be convinced that the game would be any different beyond their absence. If BioWare wanted to add more squad members than what we got, they probably would have. I don't see why Traynor, Cortez and Allers would have stopped them, because no one demanded that these characters exist. They decided to have members of the crew [beyond Joker] be actual characters than just mannequins. I don't know if taking that away would result in anything being better.

Of course, something to consider is that you can kill off so many characters at this point that removing anyone would make the ship pretty much empty.

[darkiddd]

Cite sources please, or be called out as full of bullpucky.

His source is common sense

[Fixers0]

Still, this all relies on the assumption that subtracting certain characters will result in something else being better somehow, like more dialogue or more animation with the remaining characters, or even a whole different character altogether. I guess my thing is that I'm never really going to be convinced that the game would be any different beyond their absence. If BioWare wanted to add more squad members than what we got, they probably would have. I don't see why Traynor, Cortez and Allers would have stopped them, because no one demanded that these characters exist. They decided to have members of the crew be actual characters than just mannequins. I don't know if taking that away would result in anything being better.

 

As mentioned in an earlier post the writer's of said character could have concerned with the events of the main plot, we might end up with explanations for the crucible, the Thessia mission being better executed and Priority earth being more better designed. It's a hypothetical of course, but not unreasonable to think of.

[Pasquale1234]

But Dragon Age is a totally separate beast than ME.  In DA, each game is a stand-alone.  In ME, each game is part of a larger trilogy.  People were overwhelmingly unhappy with the ME romances in ME3.  And a large part of that was because they kept adding in so many options each game that they needed to short-change some of them by the end (pretty much all of the ME2 romances minus Garrus and Tali plus Steve and Samantha).

That fact alone created a huge amount of dissatisfaction.

They like to provide multiple options to appeal to different tastes and preferences, but at the same time, the available word budget / content gets spread thinner with each option supported.

Personally, I'm going with the assumption that ME:A is standalone, not the start of another trilogy. A trilogy like ME is a fairly rare thing in any form of media, and in a branching narrative gets pretty unmanageable pretty quickly.

Frankly, if they were going to have 6 LIs, I would prefer 3/3 over 2/2/2. Just because more options for everyone, and nobody is excluded from pursuing the romance most interesting to them.

[Il Divo]

As mentioned in an earlier post the writer's of said character could have concerned with the events of the main plot, we might end up with explanations for the crucible, the Thessia mission being better executed and Priority earth being more better designed. It's a hypothetical of course, but not unreasonable to think of.

 

Still, this leaves a few issues that need to be addressed: why are Bioware adding these romances if there's no market? I guess you could argue that it lets them advertise themselves as "more inclusive", but that would go against your conclusion that no one plays Mass Effect for these romances. Alternatively, it could be because the writers want to encourage more romance options, since they've become increasingly emphasized since their first implementation in BG2.

 

Whether the arguement is to encourage sales or writer's intent, I can't say this alternative version of ME3 ever had a chance of existing.

​

[Panda]

While I understand your position I can't get behind this because I know for a fact that Mass Effect 3's commercial succes wouldn't have been anything less if they hadn't included Cortez, Allers, Traynor and Bi Kaidan as romances because hardly any people bought the game for said romance options. Now if Bioware had invested the money from those romances into things like making war assets work better, give more consquence to choices, make priority earth better, etc I don't think most people who mind those romances being absent.

 

Well you can always think what could have been cut in order to make game better for some people, but it's always guesses. I doubt more people would have bought the game with information of war assests working better though when some people do buy the game with information to get gay romances. And it made some players who were forgotten earlier on happier. So I don't think anything better could have been gained if gay romances were cut from the game, but maybe some options for people who got lot of romances could have been cut instead without people noticing that much.

[Panda]

Overweight and obese people for one. That's certainly an immensely larger (ha ha) demographic than, say, transgender people. Yet they aren't represented at all.

 

Ugly people. And don't say you can make your character ugly with the CC. BioWare protagonists are assumed to be attractive by the characters in the story.

 

Stupid people, to put it bluntly. People who can't preform serious physical tasks for one reason or another. People who have difficulties speaking to strangers or making speeches or whatever.

 

On a fundamental level, the entire concept of the 'hero' is built upon exclusion. Not inclusion. The one in a million. Not the 999,999. They're excluded. The story is never about them. It's always about the one. The 'hero' is as exclusive as it's possible to be.

 

I don't think being overweight and obese is romance inclusion, but I think characters in general could present different body types. This would require more character models though.

 

I guess ugliness is bit subjective though, some already find BW's characters- even LI's ugly and some don't. In other hand I'm not sure if you can say all characters of ME are attractive, for example I don't think Udina looks that attractive.. nor Krogans.

 

I think game already has people of varying intelligence levels. Salarians compared to Vorcha for example. Inside humans as well, but not as clearly.

 

BW isn't perfect, but I think overall they are doing pretty good. Better than anyone I can think off at least in terms of inclusion in videogames.

[rapscallioness]

After how vehemently they were against the DA2 system, I doubt they'll do all bisexual romances again.

Unless they decide to make each one a separate orientation that just happens to involve both genders. Like have one be bi, one be pan, one be demi, and an Asari one since gender has no meaning to them.

 

How would the romance arcs tie more into the main plot? 

 

I would say the romances tying into the main story more by having the characters tie in to the main story. In ME3 many of the ME2 squad romances were given a nod, but they had no real place in the story. It was too many characters and too many possible romances.

 

I think it's more interesting when your LI is a character that has strong ties to the main story. Then how that main story plays out for them impacts the state and emotion of your romance. For example, DAO Alistair romance.

 

In contrast, too many of the DAI LI's and characters felt like they were just there. They did not have any real tie to the main story. By extension your romance with them was not as integral and impacted by events in the story.

 

I think if they have fewer squaddies overall, and by extension fewer LI's, they could weave them into the story in a more powerful way. And could also make for a more powerful romance story arc.

 

If you have too many squaddies and too many LI's, with too many variables as to how things play out with them, it's more difficult to seriously incorporate them into the main story.

 

*I had no problem with how they did it in DA2. It gave me more options within any given PT.  I'm not a fan of the gated romances. It's not a deal breaker, but I'm not a fan.

[FKA_Servo]

His source is common sense

 

I'm 100% certain that you could cut every romance subplot from the game and not free up one blessed zot to make any appreciable difference in the other content. Just not the way it works. So arguments like this from folks who bravely and selflessly sacrifice inclusive romances (or all romances) in favor of "content that everyone can enjoy" are not particularly impressive or convincing to me. Plus, I know for a fact that the adoption of gay romances in ME3 resulted in some sales that otherwise would not have happened. Anecdotal, sure, but I'm also certain that my experience is not unique. Adding them in unambiguously broadened the appeal of the game.

 

Mass Effect is weird, though. It was transitional, and it (probably not necessarily, but c'est la vie) handled a bunch of things poorly so Dragon Age could subsequently handle them a bit better in comparison.

[daveliam]

While I understand your position I can't get behind this because I know for a fact that Mass Effect 3's commercial succes wouldn't have been anything less if they hadn't included Cortez, Allers, Traynor and Bi Kaidan as romances because hardly any people bought the game for said romance options. Now if Bioware had invested the money from those romances into things like making war assets work better, give more consquence to choices, make priority earth better, etc I don't think most people who mind those romances being absent.

 

There are three assumptions being made here:  1.)  that content in the game must be directly linked to commercial success in order to be something that the authors want to include; 2.) that the writers wanted to delve deeper into the war assets/consequences/priority earth content but couldn't do so because they were hindered by the budget; and 3.) if romance content was cut, that money would directly funnel over to the aspects listed in point 2.

 

Still, this leaves a few issues that need to be addressed: why are Bioware adding these romances if there's no market? I guess you could argue that it lets them advertise themselves as "more inclusive", but that would go against your conclusion that no one plays Mass Effect for these romances. Alternatively, it could be because the writers want to encourage more romance options, since they've become increasingly emphasized since their first implementation in BG2.​

 

Exactly.  Despite what some very vocal fans seem to think, there is undoubtedly an audience for romance content in Bioware games.  Whether that audience is significant enough to be 'catered to' is subjective, of course.  But there is no doubt whatsoever that there is a market for this content. 

[dlux]

 

 

How could Mass Effect: Andromeda handle romance better than previous games?

No romance would do the trick.

 

Or no human-alien romance sexy time. 95% of problem solved.

[Fixers0]

Still, this leaves a few issues that need to be addressed: why are Bioware adding these romances if there's no market? I guess you could argue that it lets them advertise themselves as "more inclusive", but that would go against your conclusion that no one plays Mass Effect for these romances. Alternatively, it could be because the writers want to encourage more romance options, since they've become increasingly emphasized since their first implementation in BG2.

​

 

I'm not saying there is no market for said romances at all nor have I said that adding such content would hurt Bioware's sales. I just wholeheartly believe that a more effort on the plot and the like would have made a better game than gay romances.  

 

There are three assumptions being made here:  1.)  that content in the game must be directly linked to commercial success in order to be something that the authors want to include; 2.) that the writers wanted to delve deeper into the war assets/consequences/priority earth content but couldn't do so because they were hindered by the budget; and 3.) if romance content was cut, that money would directly funnel over to the aspects listed in point 2.

 

1.  I never made such a claim, all that was said that overwhelming majority of people who bought Mass Effect 3 would not perturbed by the absence certain romances in such a manner that would make them not by the game.

 

2. I'm not saying the would have done so I'm saying the could have done so, It's a piece of advice, nothing more.

 

3. once again this is just a piece of good advice to the devs from my part.

[Battlebloodmage]

Let's just cut out romance completely and improve other aspects of the game since they said the people who actually use the romance feature is in the minority. Considering there is only 2 gay romance in ME3 while a whole lot of contents was for straight romance, it would make a much better game now, isn't it?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 

But Dragon Age is a totally separate beast than ME.  In DA, each game is a stand-alone.  In ME, each game is part of a larger trilogy.  People were overwhelmingly unhappy with the ME romances in ME3.  And a large part of that was because they kept adding in so many options each game that they needed to short-change some of them by the end (pretty much all of the ME2 romances minus Garrus and Tali plus Steve and Samantha). 

 

If ME: A is the beginning of a new trilogy, I think it's better for them to start small and add in a few (1-2 max) per game, otherwise they'll end up with the same mess as before.  It seems to me that the best way to do that is to start with 4 bisexual options in ME: A so that everyone gets two options.  Then add in 1-2 more each of the rest of the games.  This way, it won't be such an overinflated cast by the third game.  And you can have a variety of sexualities by the end.  Add a straight guy and a lesbian in ME:A2.  Add a straight lady and a gay guy in ME:A3.  For example.

 

Another option could be to have 4 LIs in ME: A (one straight guy, one straight gal, one gay guy, one lesbian) and then add in a few going forward.  This way no one has multiple options to start, but everyone has at least one.  Or, they could add in a cast of 6 LI's now and then just keep those ones without adding any/many going forward (maybe 1 or 2 total).  That's another approach they could take.  I just don't want to see a cast of 12 full romances (plus 2-3 'quasi-romances') with very few of them getting appropriate attention.

That doesn't matter. Bioware has stated at GaymerX after pulling the rug out from everyone by confirming that all the LIs in DA2 other than Sebastian were bisexual that they do not want to do something like that again. The reason being that it implies bisexuality is a compromise and they do not want to have that implication in their games. They also want everyone to have options, so they won't go with the 1/1/1/1 either. The adding only a couple instead of seven more in each game after that may happen, but there is no good way to start it without being hypocritical than 2/2/2.

 

Yeah making everyone swing both ways was weird. They could expand the field of possible romancable characters by involving characters who are not your squaddies. Kinda like what they did in ME3 but not as awkwardly. 

I hope they continue to have some romances be with followers but not companions. The adviser romances in DAI showed they could do it just as well as the companion romances. 

 

I would say the romances tying into the main story more by having the characters tie in to the main story. In ME3 many of the ME2 squad romances were given a nod, but they had no real place in the story. It was too many characters and too many possible romances.

 

I think it's more interesting when your LI is a character that has strong ties to the main story. Then how that main story plays out for them impacts the state and emotion of your romance. For example, DAO Alistair romance.

 

In contrast, too many of the DAI LI's and characters felt like they were just there. They did not have any real tie to the main story. By extension your romance with them was not as integral and impacted by events in the story.

 

I think if they have fewer squaddies overall, and by extension fewer LI's, they could weave them into the story in a more powerful way. And could also make for a more powerful romance story arc.

 

If you have too many squaddies and too many LI's, with too many variables as to how things play out with them, it's more difficult to seriously incorporate them into the main story.

 

*I had no problem with how they did it in DA2. It gave me more options within any given PT.  I'm not a fan of the gated romances. It's not a deal breaker, but I'm not a fan.

I think the main reason the ME2 squadmates didn't get a lot of involvement in the story of ME3 is simply because they could be dead.

 

I never saw Alistair's or even Morrigan's romance adding more to the main story, at least not any more than the romances with other characters in their other games. Can you give an example about how the romances in DAO were more involved than the ones in DA2, DAI, or the Shepard Trilogy?

[Fixers0]

Let's just cut out romance completely and improve other aspects of the game since they said the people who actually use the romance feature is in the minority. 

 

If it would have avoided things like Project Lazarus, the Human Reaper and the Catalyst then I'm all in with this.

[Battlebloodmage]

If it would have avoided things like Project Lazarus, the Human Reaper and the Catalyst then I'm all in with this.

I don't see how that has anything to do with romance. They said they wrote the story first before incorporate in romance. It's weird to see people use that kind of strawman argument.

[FKA_Servo]

If it would have avoided things like Project Lazarus, the Human Reaper and the Catalyst then I'm all in with this.

 

I promise you, it would not have.

 

The romances, essentially, amount to one short cinematic and a few dozen lines of dialogue out of hundreds, maybe. If the character is there already, then tacking on a romance is nothing in the greater scheme of the development.

[WildOrchid]

I can't help but think that if there weren't gay romances in first place, people like fixers0 wouldn't complain about them "ruining the story" (which is bull, by the way)

 

Tell me, fixers0... do you use the same arguments with Witcher? Or you find it completely fine because it has only hetero romances?

[AresKeith]

As mentioned in an earlier post the writer's of said character could have concerned with the events of the main plot, we might end up with explanations for the crucible, the Thessia mission being better executed and Priority earth being more better designed. It's a hypothetical of course, but not unreasonable to think of.

 

Because obviously romances had more to do with that than strict deadlines 

[rapscallioness]

 

 

snip

 

I never saw Alistair's or even Morrigan's romance adding more to the main story, at least not any more than the romances with other characters in their other games. Can you give an example about how the romances in DAO were more involved than the ones in DA2, DAI, or the Shepard Trilogy?

 

 

No, the romances did not add more to the main story. The main story added more to the romances. And the characters being more involved in the main story added more to the romance.

 

I did not say the romances in DAO were more involved than other games. Alistair was one example. However, another from DA2 would be the romance with Anders. His involvement in the main story could color your romance with him in a powerful way. The romance with Solas in DAI was greatly impacted by his involvement in the main story.

 

Characters that are more involved in the main story, and are LI's, have a more powerful romance story arc.

[FKA_Servo]

Because obviously romances had more to do with that than strict deadlines 

 

Or megalomania.

[Fixers0]

I don't see how that has anything to do with romance. They said they wrote the story first before incorporate in romance. It's weird to see people use that kind of strawman argument.

 

 

It's an obvious exaggeration, even then many characters were written as designated romances, so had the writers not bothered writing several characters at all they could have instead worried about other things instead, not saying Bioware would have done this but it's worth considering.

 

Personally, I have no issue with most individual romances, and I don't blame them exclusively for the many writting errors of the series, I've made some references to the Mass Effect series a way to illustrate what could have been done, but really it's just a lot of what if. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

No, the romances did not add more to the main story. The main story added more to the romances. And the characters being more involved in the main story added more to the romance.

 

I did not say the romances in DAO were more involved than other games. Alistair was one example. However, another from DA2 would be the romance with Anders. His involvement in the main story could color your romance with him in a powerful way. The romance with Solas in DAI was greatly impacted by his involvement in the main story.

 

Characters that are more involved in the main story, and are LI's, have a more powerful romance story arc.

Then the number of LIs is irrelevant, because the problem is how involved the characters are in the plot of the game. Whether there are 2 LIs who are or 8, the result would be the same.