550 réponses à ce sujet

[Angry_Elcor]

Well, indeed. I´m not arguing that.

I still hoped you would accept the challenge.

 

Never bite the low hanging fruit. It's almost certainly a trap.

 

[agonis]

...Only if biting is exactly what they ask for...

[prosthetic soul]

The romances in DA:I were terrible because Bioware tried to appease everyone but did so terribly for each group.   Either make every romance player-sexual or not at all.  That way we can cut down on chasing two hares at the same time but catching neither.  God I miss Jade Empire. 

[Synthetic Turian]

If the main character is a tranny I will stop playing video games.

[KaiserShep]

The romances in DA:I were terrible because Bioware tried to appease everyone but did so terribly for each group.   Either make every romance player-sexual or not at all.  That way we can cut down on chasing two hares at the same time but catching neither.  God I miss Jade Empire.

If they were really trying to appease everyone, Cass might have been an option for female Inquisitors. There certainly were people asking for it.

[prosthetic soul]

If they were really trying to appease everyone, Cass might have been an option for female Inquisitors. There certainly were people asking for it.

I would have rather had Cassandra be bisexual and have a more fleshed out romance then have 8 other romances in the game specific for every sexuality under the sun.   It's literally quantity over quality.  I HATE QUANTITY OVER QUALITY ARRRRHDSGADES

*Hulk Smashes topic*

[agonis]

The romances in DA:I were terrible because Bioware tried to appease everyone but did so terribly for each group.   Either make every romance player-sexual or not at all.  That way we can cut down on chasing two hares at the same time but catching neither.  God I miss Jade Empire. 

I try a translation:

 

The romances in DA:I were terrible because Bioware tried to appease everyone but did so terribly for each group.

- I didn´t get what I wanted.

 

Either make every romance player-sexual or not at all. 

-Give it to me and if you don´t, I want that nobody gets it.

 

Edit: Oh, I was right.

[Battlebloodmage]

Fallout 4 and Skyrim have no sexual orientation, and there is barely any complain. Bioware fans focus too much on what part fits into what hole. They need to go back to kindergarten.

 

[KaiserShep]

I would have rather had Cassandra be bisexual and have a more fleshed out romance then have 8 other romances in the game specific for every sexuality under the sun. It's literally quantity over quality. I HATE QUANTITY OVER QUALITY ARRRRHDSGADES
*Hulk Smashes topic*

I don't see how any of them were qualitatively worse than their counterparts in the other DA games or Mass Effect, the latter of which, in my opinion, is easily inferior in terms of quality to DA's better examples. I don't see any character in Mass Effect that really comes close in terms of quality to, say, Solas. They make a fair effort with Liara, but only if you play LotSB.

[fchopin]

Fallout 4 and Skyrim have no sexual orientation, and there is barely any complain. Bioware fans focus too much on what part fits into what hole. They need to go back to kindergarten.

 

There is also no story in the games and that is why i don't play them or care if they have no orientation.

[Panda]

I would have rather had Cassandra be bisexual and have a more fleshed out romance then have 8 other romances in the game specific for every sexuality under the sun.   It's literally quantity over quality.  I HATE QUANTITY OVER QUALITY ARRRRHDSGADES

*Hulk Smashes topic*

 

Comparing DAI romances to other BW romances I have to disagree. DAI seemed have both quantity and quality.

 

Fallout 4 and Skyrim have no sexual orientation, and there is barely any complain. Bioware fans focus too much on what part fits into what hole. They need to go back to kindergarten.

 

 

Bethesda's romances are like peeling a mandarin and realizing that there is no mandarin under the peels. You have to headcanon almost everything about your relationship. Hopefully you are fanartist or fanfic-writer cause that's only way you get any substance in those romances.

[Battlebloodmage]

There is also no story in the games and that is why i don't play them or care if they have no orientation.

It does have a story, and many mini quests related to the main quests itself. Its main storyline is actually longer than DAI, and I like how their quest integrated a lot better than the endless fetch quests with no purpose in DAI. The main storyline in Fallout 4 was a reharsh of Fallout 3, but I'm more impressed at the integration of their storyline. If DA series is headed to the open world, it really needs better synergy. 

[KCMeredith]

At least hint at it, I don't want to waste my time flirting only to find out that the lady doesn't swing my way. My femshep tried getting into Talis suit for 80% of the game before I realized she's not interested.

[AlanC9]

The romances in DA:I were terrible because Bioware tried to appease everyone but did so terribly for each group. Either make every romance player-sexual or not at all. That way we can cut down on chasing two hares at the same time but catching neither. God I miss Jade Empire.

I don't really see how the "two hares" metaphor applies here. Are you saying there's something wrong with the mechanics in DA:I? Is this about, say, getting a flirt option with Sera as a male?

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Comparing DAI romances to other BW romances I have to disagree. DAI seemed have both quantity and quality.

 

 

Bethesda's romances are like peeling a mandarin and realizing that there is no mandarin under the peels. You have to headcanon almost everything about your relationship. Hopefully you are fanartist or fanfic-writer cause that's only way you get any substance in those romances.

 

But that works for Bethesda, because Bethesda focuses on open-world gameplay and it emphasizes allowing players to use headcanon to define almost everything about their characters (especially in TES). By contrast, Bioware games are more linear, and far more information is explicit as opposed to implicit. Most subjects aren't supposed to be relegated to headcanon in Bioware games.

 

I think both approaches for NPC orientation are fine, but they work so well because they fit the respective styles of the games they're used in.

[prosthetic soul]

I try a translation:

 

The romances in DA:I were terrible because Bioware tried to appease everyone but did so terribly for each group.

- I didn´t get what I wanted.

 

Either make every romance player-sexual or not at all. 

-Give it to me and if you don´t, I want that nobody gets it.

 

Edit: Oh, I was right.

This is such a hilarious knee-jerk reaction/logic jump that I can't even begin to describe it.  How do you go from "I'd like the romances to be player sexual" to IF I CAN'T HAVE IT NO ONE CAN *Froths at the mouth*?  Good lord you're sensitive. How about instead of immediately going to the extreme end of opinionated remarks, we translate this right?   I saw what I said as this:

 

I'd rather there be no romances than have romances that are shallow and try to cater to everyone at once while simultaneously diluting the quality of each specific romance because of the sheer quantity.

 

But no, you went straight to the Defcon 1 of opinions.  Clearly it must mean I want all the romances to myself and if no one else likes it, no one else can have it. You truly know how to read between the lines.  Bravo sport. 

[prosthetic soul]

I don't really see how the "two hares" metaphor applies here. Are you saying there's something wrong with the mechanics in DA:I? Is this about, say, getting a flirt option with Sera as a male?

Hares = variety of players complaining about their sexuality not being represented enough in BW games

Hunter = Bioware chasing after hares in an effort to appease each group.  Instead of going after one hare and making sure the quality is on point, they go after both but fail to capture the quality of romances in past games. 

 

What exactly do you not understand about the metaphor and how it applies here?  Honestly, it's pretty self-explanatory.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

But no, you went straight to the Defcon 5 of opinions. 

I think you mean DEFCON 1, not DEFCON 5. DEFCON 5 is the lowest state of readiness, and is what America is in during peacetime. DEFCON 1 is the highest state of readiness, and is what America is in when nuclear war is imminent.

[Panda]

But that works for Bethesda, because Bethesda focuses on open-world gameplay and it emphasizes allowing players to use headcanon to define almost everything about their characters (especially in TES). By contrast, Bioware games are more linear, and far more information is explicit as opposed to implicit. Most subjects aren't supposed to be relegated to headcanon in Bioware games.

 

I think both approaches for NPC orientation are fine, but they work so well because they fit the respective styles of the games they're used in.

 

I think they could do bit better at least what came to Skyrim romances, but it does work with the rest of the game and I guess playersexuality works with games where NPCs aren't that defined and romances are more hollow. I don't think it would work at Bioware though where characters are one of main points of the game and they are well defined.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I think they could do bit better at least what came to Skyrim romances, but it does work with the rest of the game and I guess playersexuality works with games where NPCs aren't that defined and romances are more hollow. I don't think it would work at Bioware though where characters are one of main points of the game and they are well defined.

With very rare exceptions, I don't see why having the orientation defined makes the character or their story and/or romance arcs better. 

[Dunmer of Redoran]

I think they could do bit better at least what came to Skyrim romances, but it does work with the rest of the game and I guess playersexuality works with games where NPCs aren't that defined and romances are more hollow. I don't think it would work at Bioware though where characters are one of main points of the game and they are well defined.

 

Agreed. I don't want Bioware to try to copy Bethesda's style of romances, because the two styles work for very different types of RPGs.

 

 

With very rare exceptions, I don't see why having the orientation defined makes the character or their story and/or romance arcs better. 

 

When you define them, you don't have to do nearly as much writing to personalize the romances. Bioware romances (and Bioware writing, in general) have to be more specific and more personalized because the games don't operate in a sandbox style. Characters have deeper personalities, rife with traits and quirks that set them apart. Making them all playersexual (or giving them all the same flexible sexuality) cuts into that a bit.

 

By comparison, Bethesda characters who can be romanced don't have much depth at all, so leaving things open-ended doesn't really interfere with any character development.

[AlanC9]

Hares = variety of players complaining about their sexuality not being represented enough in BW games
Hunter = Bioware chasing after hares in an effort to appease each group.  Instead of going after one hare and making sure the quality is on point, they go after both but fail to capture the quality of romances in past games. 
 
What exactly do you not understand about the metaphor and how it applies here?  Honestly, it's pretty self-explanatory.

I had no idea who the hares or the hunter were supposed to be. I don't think I've ever seen that metaphor used for a case of insufficient resources. Usually it's about confusion when pursuing divergent goals.

So, the argument is that Bio had enough romance resources to do four good ones, but didn't have enough to do six? (Six since Cullen and Solas weren't in the original production plan.)

[LinksOcarina]

Hares = variety of players complaining about their sexuality not being represented enough in BW games

Hunter = Bioware chasing after hares in an effort to appease each group.  Instead of going after one hare and making sure the quality is on point, they go after both but fail to capture the quality of romances in past games. 

 

What exactly do you not understand about the metaphor and how it applies here?  Honestly, it's pretty self-explanatory.

 

Oh the metaphor makes sense.

 

 BioWare is still meeting quality, in the end, so it's unecessary. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

When you define them, you don't have to do nearly as much writing to personalize the romances. Bioware romances (and Bioware writing, in general) have to be more specific and more personalized because the games don't operate in a sandbox style. Characters have deeper personalities, rife with traits and quirks that set them apart. Making them all playersexual (or giving them all the same flexible sexuality) cuts into that a bit.

 

By comparison, Bethesda characters who can be romanced don't have much depth at all, so leaving things open-ended doesn't really interfere with any character development.

No, you have to do more writing when you define them. The more you define something, the more work you have to put into it. In this case, writing. 

I disagree about the orientation adding anything to making them more personalized or having deeper personalities. Are people in real life who don't express their orientation less personalized or have less deep personalities than those that shout their orientation from the rooftops? The answer is no.

[Dunmer of Redoran]

No, you have to do more writing when you define them. The more you define something, the more work you have to put into it. In this case, writing. 

I disagree about the orientation adding anything to making them more personalized or having deeper personalities. Are people in real life who don't express their orientation less personalized or have less deep personalities than those that shout their orientation from the rooftops? The answer is no.

Sorry, I should've explained my position more clearly. Basically, if you don't define a romanceable character's orientation, or it's an orientation that is extremely flexible, there's two major paths to writing romances:

 

1. Write a single romance that is compatible for all types (but these tend to be a bit more vague) - relatively shallow, but easy to do

2. Write additional version(s) of a romance for a single character to match different orientations - deeper, but more difficult to accomplish

 

The first approach is akin the one we see in Bethesda games. Very simple, very vague. Bethesda keeps things vague, so everything can be left to headcanon. I like this approach to romances, but only if the characters are simple and applying headcanon to everything is acceptable (and that's pretty much how Beth games work, so it's cool). But I don't like this for Bioware games. Things are intentionally not vague, so leaving aspects of a character's personality and orientation to headcanon sticks out as a peculiarity.

 

The second approach takes additional writing and dialogue work. It's possible, and if it's done, would result in more personalized banter, conversations and the like, but the writers and VAs are usually strapped for time as it is. If they have to write more content, it would end up being a lot of work that may draw from other content, otherwise romance paths would feel pretty same-y (don't tell me otherwise--this is exactly why the Liara, Leliana, Zevran, etc. romances never really interested me). Putting a lot of effort into writing variations of the same romance could take a great deal of resources away from writing the core game.

 

That aside, orientation and sexuality do factor in to a character's personality in Bioware games, just like their morality, experiences, character class, and pretty much everything else factor in to some extent. I think those are things that help to set different dynamics for different playthroughs. If I play DA:O as a male Warden vs a female Warden, my interactions with Alistair and Morrigan are going to be radically different; likewise would my interactions with various characters be somewhat different if I play a Mage Warden vs a Dwarven Noble Warden. Maybe the effects of those interactions aren't enormously different, but I felt as though they enhanced the RP value because they're fundamentally different and go in different paths. Conversely, I found the ME2 romances pretty dull, since I could romance a character regardless of what I said or did, as long as I matched their orientation.

 

I'm in favor of sexual preferences in romances, just as I'm in favor of approval or player action-based preferences, possibly even class-based preferences, within the sphere of Bioware titles. The more restrictions in interactions, the more impetus I have to try new characters and go in different directions with those characters. Although, if Bioware adopts the Bethesda method, I won't really mind, I just think the way they're doing it now is a better fit for the type of game they produce.