1378 réponses à ce sujet

[Shechinah]

 

All RPGs have some amount of limitation with their protagonists. In FNV, you were always a curior, and a human

 

Man, I played a ghoul through and through in Fallout: New Vegas because there were not enough of reason not to allow that choice for myself since the protagonist was not stated to be from a vault this time around and I could see enough lenience in terms of breaking immersion.

 

I loved that guy so much with his sweet stealth suit, sweet sunglasses, sweet scarf and sweet powerfist; he hit that Mojave Wasteland like he was nuclear devastation personified.
 

[Shechinah]

You know, I think that robot up at Greygarden that moves away when you try haggling with it does it deliberately because it does not want to pay anymore and it is genre savy enough to know that you can make it.

[Iakus]

 I'll give you luck as pure combat... but when hasn't it been? 

ICE CREAM!!!

[Giantdeathrobot]

ICE CREAM!!!

 

I was about to write another essay, but Iakus nails it.

 

Moments like that are lost in FO4. For context, to enter the 3rd floor of a building, you have three options; finding an ID card, or having either luck 9+ or int 2- and you get to say the above line, which grants you entry and eventual access to a unique plasma gun.

 

It is random? Sure, but there's loads of loads of similar skill checks in NV. In Goodsprings alone there are a few, you can get Pete to give you dynamite if you use your explosives skill to prove to him you know how to handle them for instance. Some quests have several unique ways to complete them based on your skills or SPECIAL. Use Barter to get good deals or to explain to someone how they economic ventures are doomed to fail. Use perception to catch that someone lies to you. Use intelligence to figure out Christine's sign language in Dead Money. Be able to skilfully operate Caesar's tumor with high Medicine (or again very high Luck). There are so many examples in that game alone, and more in FO1 and FO2.

 

I don't mind that Bioware doesn't really have those in their game, it's never been their ''thing'', albeit Inquisition has a few perks that work that way. They compensate by focusing on character writing and decisions, sometimes it's hit or miss yet it is their model.

 

But Fallout has those moments at the core of its identity, and they are now mostly gone. I saw one non-charisma check in the entire game, abord the USS Constitution quest. Your perks are never used in conversations either, you can have science 4 and still sound like a dummy as soon as anything vaguely technical comes up, despite being able to build a jetpack out of tin cans and blowtorches in gameplay terms.

[Dean_the_Young]

ICE CREAM!!!

 

I thought that was the Intelligence under 3?

 

 

(The better answer would have been 'gambling.' FNV did that right, at least.)

[Dean_the_Young]

I was about to write another essay, but Iakus nails it.

 

Moments like that are lost in FO4. For context, to enter the 3rd floor of a building, you have three options; finding an ID card, or having either luck 9+ or int 2- and you get to say the above line, which grants you entry and eventual access to a unique plasma gun.

 

It is random? Sure, but there's loads of loads of similar skill checks in NV. In Goodsprings alone there are a few, you can get Pete to give you dynamite if you use your explosives skill to prove to him you know how to handle them for instance. Some quests have several unique ways to complete them based on your skills or SPECIAL. Use Barter to get good deals or to explain to someone how they economic ventures are doomed to fail. Use perception to catch that someone lies to you. Use intelligence to figure out Christine's sign language in Dead Money. Be able to skilfully operate Caesar's tumor with high Medicine (or again very high Luck). There are so many examples in that game alone, and more in FO1 and FO2.

 

I don't mind that Bioware doesn't really have those in their game, it's never been their ''thing'', albeit Inquisition has a few perks that work that way. They compensate by focusing on character writing and decisions, sometimes it's hit or miss yet it is their model.

 

But Fallout has those moments at the core of its identity, and they are now mostly gone. I saw one non-charisma check in the entire game, abord the USS Constitution quest. Your perks are never used in conversations either, you can have science 4 and still sound like a dummy as soon as anything vaguely technical comes up, despite being able to build a jetpack out of tin cans and blowtorches in gameplay terms.

 

Goodsprings isn't the best example for what you were referring to earlier about SPECIAL stat. Dead Money is better- but can also be pointed out as anamolous for how FNV frequently handled dialogue, rather than a norm. Skill checks (like the Dynamite check) would be analogous to perk-checks- which I already agreed FO4 could use more of, but aren't especially tied to the skill point system itself.

 

Separate what the issues are here. Is FO4's issue that it scrapped the skill system- as in, there's something unique to the skill system that was unfairly lost- or is it that FO4 simply has less dialogue than FNV? If the problem is FO4's approach to dialogue in the first place, then the skill system itself is neither the problem or the solution. A good check for this would be FO3- and seeing how much skill checks mattered to this.

 

Which, itself, comes back to whether FNV is the standard or the exception as far as Fallout is concerned. You've repeatedly cited FNV, which I fully agree is a great game- but is it the standard for what Fallout 'usually' offers? Moreover, are the points you cite even standard for FNV?

[Giantdeathrobot]

Goodsprings isn't the best example for what you were referring to earlier about SPECIAL stat. Dead Money is better- but can also be pointed out as anamolous for how FNV frequently handled dialogue, rather than a norm. Skill checks (like the Dynamite check) would be analogous to perk-checks- which I already agreed FO4 could use more of, but aren't especially tied to the skill point system itself.

 

Separate what the issues are here. Is FO4's issue that it scrapped the skill system- as in, there's something unique to the skill system that was unfairly lost- or is it that FO4 simply has less dialogue than FNV? If the problem is FO4's approach to dialogue in the first place, then the skill system itself is neither the problem or the solution. A good check for this would be FO3- and seeing how much skill checks mattered to this.

 

Which, itself, comes back to whether FNV is the standard or the exception as far as Fallout is concerned. You've repeatedly cited FNV, which I fully agree is a great game- but is it the standard for what Fallout 'usually' offers? Moreover, are the points you cite even standard for FNV?

 

Of course it was a standard in the old games. High Science (and maybe Int, not quite sure) allowed you to teach crop rotation to settlers in Shady Sands. Then good Charisma allowed you to defuse the raider situation near the town and ensure the town gets its good ending. Repair allowed you to more easily solve a problem in Necropolis (a ghoul town, basically). The final boss could be beaten either by sneaking into the basement and detonating the nuke (needs high sneak and science), killing him (better have invested in combat stats, he's tough) or using Charisma and critical information previously obtained to persuade him into giving up. That's those I remember in FO1, there are far more overall. Same in FO2, Vault City in particular has something like 10 ways you can enter it (sneak in, BS people, forge credentials, be on a mission from NCR, actually pass a test required crazy SPECIAL stats, I'm forgetting some) and become a citizen.

 

I'm using New Vegas because it's the one I played in the last 5 years and closest to memory. The list is nowhere close to exhaustive. I could have added that you could persuade Lanius to leave either with Barter or Speech, convince Arcade to accompany you either with Confirmed Bachelor or low INT (and I think high Medicine), use Science (or spare parts) to have Primm Slim as sheriff or Speech to convince NCR to release Meyer (or bribe the official or have good NCR reputation) or Barter (or doing jobs for Major Knight) to convince NCR to send a squad and take the town. Look at the latter, no less than 7 ways to find a solution for that quest resulting in 3 potential ending slides for Primm, and it's not even a main quest. You're lucky if you get 2 possible solutions in the average FO4 sidequest.

 

My beef is both that they scrapped skills (only for a good third of the new perks to be skills in all but name anyway) and didn't use SPECIAL and perks in the game proper the way old games used to. Even FO3 has strength, repair, intelligence checks. FO4 ditches all but charisma. There are some sidequests with options, but they are few and far between, and certainly don't have the amount of choices NV has. At this point I'm pretty sure I had more freedom of action in Deus EX: HR and that doesn't even bill itself as an RPG.

[Iakus]

I thought that was the Intelligence under 3?

 

 

(The better answer would have been 'gambling.' FNV did that right, at least.)

Int under three or a 7+ Luck

 

a 9+ Luck can cure Caesar's brain tumor without the required Medicine skill

[Battlebloodmage]

What Fallout 4 has over ME series is the ability to resolve things many different ways. You can sneak around and kill the target before the realize, snipe them from afar, kill them straight up with a gun, bribe his troops to attack him, intimidate him to run away, or convince him to give up the fight. ME is a more linear game, so this may not be possible, but I would like to see them to at least try to allow us more roleplaying experience.

 

What I don't like about Fallout 4 is how one dimensional your companions are. Even after I romance them, I got caught stealing, and Piper fill her lover with bullets. They need to recognize the relationship more, I guess. Some of the companions don't change their dialogue even after strong heavy revelation is revealed. I'm looking at you Danse.

[Dean_the_Young]

What Fallout 4 has over ME series is the ability to resolve things many different ways. You can sneak around and kill the target before the realize, snipe them from afar, kill them straight up with a gun, bribe his troops to attack him, intimidate him to run away, or convince him to give up the fight. ME is a more linear game, so this may not be possible, but I would like to see them to at least try to allow us more roleplaying experience.

 

What I don't like about Fallout 4 is how one dimensional your companions are. Even after I romance them, I got caught stealing, and Piper fill her lover with bullets. They need to recognize the relationship more, I guess. Some of the companions don't change their dialogue even after strong heavy revelation is revealed. I'm looking at you Danse.

 

FO4's compasions are certainly well shy of Bioware standards.

 

Compared to most Fallout standards, though, they're pretty good. Not on FNV level, but certainly well above FO3, and I'd argue most of them are above most of the companion/follower content of FO2 and FO3. Definitely a step forward for Fallout as a whole, and Bethesda in particular.

 

One thing I also like is that they made a point of including repeatable actions as a way to gain affinity. No matter the companion, there's always something you can do to max out affection. Minute Men/faction quests, weapon modification, cannibalism...

 

Really, the only one I don't think has an infinite method is McCrealy- and you can get affection with him by stealing stuff.

[Giantdeathrobot]

FO4's compasions are certainly well shy of Bioware standards.

 

Compared to most Fallout standards, though, they're pretty good. Not on FNV level, but certainly well above FO3, and I'd argue most of them are above most of the companion/follower content of FO2 and FO3. Definitely a step forward for Fallout as a whole, and Bethesda in particular.

 

One thing I also like is that they made a point of including repeatable actions as a way to gain affinity. No matter the companion, there's always something you can do to max out affection. Minute Men/faction quests, weapon modification, cannibalism...

 

Really, the only one I don't think has an infinite method is McCrealy- and you can get affection with him by stealing stuff.

 

On the other hand, Piper and Cait falling in love with you because you lockpick enough safes in front of them is quite silly. It's even worse than DA:O's gifts.

 

And apparently the affection is highly abusable; get all your companions sent to a settlement, then go there and start shooting Dogment until he's wimpering on the ground. Stimpack him. Almost everyone around you gains positive affection. Rinse and repeat until torturing the poor dog makes you a messiah to everyone on the premises.

 

Still, the companions are well above bethesda standards, that's true. I remember Skyrim had apparently dozens of companions but everyone always used Lydia because they were all boring as sin anyway, so might as well keep the first one.

[Battlebloodmage]

On the other hand, Piper and Cait falling in love with you because you lockpick enough safes in front of them is quite silly. It's even worse than DA:O's gifts.

 

And apparently the affection is highly abusable; get all your companions sent to a settlement, then go there and start shooting Dogment until he's wimpering on the ground. Stimpack him. Almost everyone around you gains positive affection. Rinse and repeat until torturing the poor dog makes you a messiah to everyone on the premises.

 

Still, the companions are well above bethesda standards, that's true. I remember Skyrim had apparently dozens of companions but everyone always used Lydia because they were all boring as sin anyway, so might as well keep the first one.

Danse loves me because I go in and out of the armor constantly. Who knows Danse is a pervert?

Cait loves you if you wake around naked as well.

 

I think if companions' affections should tie more the quests and events in the game. I like how much personality the companions have. It has a Bioware feel to it. I do feel like it does take a while if you don't abuse the reload system. It takes a ton of likes just to get an event, but they also have a cooldown period. I'm not sure what the suggestion should be. I like that doing certain things would make them like you more like being charitable. It actually gives us a more indepth view on how they think. These things are also very abusable. Bethesda is about personal freedom, so it being abusable should be up to the player, I guess. I do feel like there are a lot of room for improvement though. They need to take into relationship status to reflect whether they shoot you if you do something they hate. Some of their comments should change depending on how far your progress in their personal story. After Danse's personal quest, his lines should have changed a lot and what he approves or disapproves should also have changed because it wouldn't make sense otherwise. I would like to hear what they think more often. Seeing as how much lines and dialouges they're recorded, I feel like the companions should have been integrated more. 

[Iakus]

On the other hand, Piper and Cait falling in love with you because you lockpick enough safes in front of them is quite silly. It's even worse than DA:O's gifts.

 

While true, we should also remember that Skyrim had people falling in love with you for wearing a particular piece of jewelry.

 

So it's not like Bethesda had to do too much to raise their own bar 

[Deathjester929]

Not really. I have never liked Bethesda games and I have always had a high end rig to mod them. I usually end up modding them for fun and never play them. I have Fallout 4 sitting there completely unplayed. I literally only bought it to MOD and tinker with and I am not even going to bother atm, because the textures look worse than games from 2007.

 

If I want Bioware to learn from anything from anyone? I want them to look at the great history of their own company and the masterpieces they produced and learn from themselves. I want them all to go back and play KOTOR and see romance handled right (directly tied to the main plot), a self contained story with a complete arc and not sequel bait (even though you could easily have sequels of the game), villains worth a darn, and how they felt at the end of the game.

 

ME 1 and 2 were almost as good and those would be good to replay again as well. ME 2 was all over the place with plot, but it still worked because the ending was epic, building a team was fun and it was like a sci-fi dirty dozen.

 

The only thing they should be looking at ME 3 for is combat, Tuchanka and Rannoch. 

 

Now there is ONE open world game I truly believe is a masterpiece, where I actually give a the slightest @%#% about wandering around the world and exploring. Witcher 3. I do not think ME should be that open of a world, because this series fanbase did not buy or enjoy the games based on being open world. The ability to change mission orders in the ME series was "open" enough for me.  I hated DA:I. In fact if Bioware says DA:I even closely resembles DA:I in any shape, way or form? No purchase. ME 3 was by far the worst ME game. It was still WAY better than DA:I.

 

If I am going to play a boring open world game, with fetch quests and repetition? I am just going to go back to playing World of Warcraft. In that game I can raid with 25 other people or pvp against 3 to 40 other people in small and large scale combat. DA:I was like WoW with nothing close to the multiplayer goodies, combined with a fanfic dating simulator. It is the most boring thing I can possibly imagine. Can't believe they made it a game. 

 

Oh and one last thing. I want Bioware to hire a team of 5 people to play through Kotor, ME 1,2,3 and write down anything that a SJW might object to. When they have a list of 10,000 things and realize they couldn't even make the great games they made in the past, in the golden age of this company? Maybe they should stop listening to them and trying to pander to their every whim, wasting a ton of resources and money on romances the games do not need, or shoehorned characters not essential to the plot and painfully obvious additions, that makes the rest of the game suffer in content, and emotional context.

[MsKlaussen]

What I would expect right away would be some sort of crafting which is a staple of Bethesda games. But really, in the future, who crafts? Crafting would be more a matter of computer skills than anything else, so there's not going to be any plastic working or smithing skill tree and I can't even really see any point in there being something like a mechanic skill either. Why would the player character or any squadmates need to be grease monkeys when the fleet alredy has them and so does any ship they are in? To fix the Mako mid mission? Maybe to modify weapons, but wouldn't that be more of a visual cut screen in effect than anything real? The Bioware inventory system doesn't lend itself well to manual weaponsmithing.

 

I guess next up would be randomized missions a la Skyrim but so far Bethesda has just managed to make dungeon crawling and fetch quests look slightly different from each other. It works for a while just because of changing scenery and really random wildlife and bandit encounters but it doesn't work forever. I just started Fallout 4 and it seems to be a lot more realistic with the AI especially but again it's early.

 

The player creation options on Fallout 4 are pretty powerful. Skyrim's are too, and then there's the modding community, the Skyrim Creation Kit, and the Nexus Mod Manager, BOSS, etc. I imagine Fallout 4 is going to eventually benefit from this same sort of system. Bioware should get on board and open up the game to modding - and make it as easy as Bethesda has. Bethesda games start out huge and then are almost completely redone by modders adding literally years of life and playability to the base game and fixing it so one could play the same player for the entire time in between games and beyond.

 

Can anyone imagine how much fun ME would be with a system like that?!

[AlanC9]

If I want Bioware to learn from anything from anyone? I want them to look at the great history of their own company and the masterpieces they produced and learn from themselves. I want them all to go back and play KOTOR and see romance handled right (directly tied to the main plot), a self contained story with a complete arc and not sequel bait (even though you could easily have sequels of the game), villains worth a darn, and how they felt at the end of the game.

Huh? KotOR was almost as sequel-unfriendly as ME3. Two wildly divergent endings, remember?. Sure, a sequel was possible, but you could grind the ME3 endings into indistinguishable mush too.

I'm also not too sure what you're getting at about romances. Well, except that it sounds like you don't want any of that nasty gay stuff, maybe?

Oh and one last thing. I want Bioware to hire a team of 5 people to play through Kotor, ME 1,2,3 and write down anything that a SJW might object to. When they have a list of 10,000 things and realize they couldn't even make the great games they made in the past, in the golden age of this company? Maybe they should stop listening to them and trying to pander to their every whim, wasting a ton of resources and money on romances the games do not need, or shoehorned characters not essential to the plot and painfully obvious additions, that makes the rest of the game suffer in content, and emotional context.

You think that Bio's current games don't reflect Bio's own values? Really?

[MsKlaussen]

While true, we should also remember that Skyrim had people falling in love with you for wearing a particular piece of jewelry.

 

So it's not like Bethesda had to do too much to raise their own bar 

 

Where in the game is that? If you're talking about the Amulet of Mara that's not something that makes anyone fall in love because of itself. At least not up front (it is a flag that enables the marriage code in the backend). It's the Skyrim version of a wedding ring in-game. If you don't woo someone and effectively raise favor with them through interaction, most times the amulet is useless. The only time it seems to work automatically is with that bimbo Camilla at the Riverwood Trader and the people assigned when the player character becomes Thane. At least in my experience.

 

Well there is the cannibal girl who'll marry you if you share the rotted human meat in her lunchbox with her. But we won't talk about that right now...

[goishen]

What I would expect right away would be some sort of crafting which is a staple of Bethesda games. But really, in the future, who crafts? Crafting would be more a matter of computer skills than anything else, so there's not going to be any plastic working or smithing skill tree and I can't even really see any point in there being something like a mechanic skill either. Why would the player character or any squadmates need to be grease monkeys when the fleet alredy has them and so does any ship they are in? To fix the Mako mid mission? Maybe to modify weapons, but wouldn't that be more of a visual cut screen in effect than anything real? The Bioware inventory system doesn't lend itself well to manual weaponsmithing.

 

 

 

Actually this gave me an idea.  

 

Imagine a system like we had in ME 2 & 3 except it had Weapons Crafting, Armor Crafting, Computer Skills, Biotic Skills, etc.   Then, it assigns each class to each ability (or heavily prompts them to go in that direction).   A krogan warlord, for example could go into weaponsmithing or armorsmithing, but wouldn't be likely (but he could) go in to Computer Skills.  An adept, on the other hand would be heavily pointed towards Biotic skills or computer skills, but wouldn't be much pointed at the other two.

 

Is this making sense to anybody, or am I just drunk?

 

Yah yah, 'cause then you could have MP where you had an adept that took Tech skills (something I just made up) and have it blow up her biotic powers (to a much lesser degree than if she took biotic skills) but it would also form a tech explosion.  Huh, I'll have to think on this tomorrow when I'm more sober.

[Ahglock]

It's funny to me but I think bethesdas romances are deeper than biowares. People like to mock the lock picking or whatever and yeah you can work the system with it. Good for you, you found and exploited a system in a open world game.

But the reality is you have conversations, show affection and take actions that a character likes and they slowly fall in love. In bioware you can do pretty much anything you want, ignore them for 99.99% of the game but as long as you pick the flirt line in 3ish conversations hey it's love for life baby.

Which one of those seems a more accurate reflection of a relationship? Are there flaws like how quickly they attack you if you break the law or something? And can you break the system? Sure but that's a open world game for you. It requires a little bit more from the player that small but if restraint not to work the loopholes

[Hazegurl]

I don't see how FO and DA are that different in the romance dept except that DA give us romance scenes which puts them above FO IMO.

 

In both games the romances depend heavily on approval and disapproval which is acquired as you make choices in the world. DAI just gives you chunks of approval which speeds the romance up.  Considering how lackluster their world is, I actually don't mind that.  I'd rather speed through the main mission with a romance than drag myself thru that one note world grinding approval points.

 

The LI will also dump you in DAI if they don't like you.  Sera would dump you if you don't give in to her BS, and Dorian will not date you at all if you kill the guy to get his amulet back and there is no chance to get them back.  But I do like the way the FO 4 LIs will talk to you about how they're feeling and ask to just be friends for a while if things are going bad.  I just watched a breaking and making up video on Youtube.  The companions were very mature in how they handled the situation.  Whereas the moment you get low approval with a romance in DAI, the companion is done without a chance to win them back.  Not that they should automatically come back because you want them to, but when you think about it, the companions will dump you over stupid shyt that have nothing at all to do with the actual relationship.  Unless you punch romanced Dorian in the face.  But even then he was dumping you over something stupid anyway.

[Dean_the_Young]

On the other hand, Piper and Cait falling in love with you because you lockpick enough safes in front of them is quite silly. It's even worse than DA:O's gifts.

 

And apparently the affection is highly abusable; get all your companions sent to a settlement, then go there and start shooting Dogment until he's wimpering on the ground. Stimpack him. Almost everyone around you gains positive affection. Rinse and repeat until torturing the poor dog makes you a messiah to everyone on the premises.

 

Still, the companions are well above bethesda standards, that's true. I remember Skyrim had apparently dozens of companions but everyone always used Lydia because they were all boring as sin anyway, so might as well keep the first one.

 

While the Dogmeat example in particular is absurd, any system that lets you 'grind' affection is abusable and silly- but in the case of games, it's a tradeoff versus alternatives of (a) not having affection systems at all, ( tying 'affection' solely to a few trigger flags rather than actions, and/or © accepting that you can simply lose the opportunity to influence your absent companions as you play the game.

 

DA2 is a good example of a pet peave of mine. DA2 tied approval entirely to dialogue- but many missions were set up in a way so that they could only potentially impact a few character's approval ratings. For someone like me, moving Isabella's approval around- especially enough for the Arishock choice to even occur- was like pulling teeth, because you never knew in advance what missions would actually affect her. It was pretty easy to simply miss what quests would matter to what companions, leaving you stuck in the annoying mid-zone of companion approval/disapproval.

 

On the other hand, ME3 didn't even have that. ME3 didn't have any approval system at all- everyone loved and respected you regardless of what you did, except for the very rare trigger issue flag- but aside from that, nothing as far as an affection system. Even the loyalty method of ME2 was a poor substitute since, with few exceptions, people liked/respected you already and were just 'distracted.'

 

FNV tried a variety of different character triggers to different effects. Because their approval/disapproval was general tried to trigger points, they pretty much all failed any silly test of 'why do you put up with this'- when their quests weren't outright impossible to achieve if you didn't metagame certain ways. Raul's was the biggest, but I believe Boon's could fail if you weren't taking him along on certain quests, and regardless none of them had approval-based character arcs, which has merit in and of itself.

 

 

I'm all for further refinement of FO4's system. Approval triggers should be built around character personality in clear ways that distinguish and further the characterization. Say that Cait, to go on a criminal angle, likes it when you break into 'owned' locks or safes to burglarize and loot. Whereas Piper approves of 'door locks' with a sort of 'gain access sneak sneak hope to avoid combat' dialogue.

[AlanC9]

DA2 is a good example of a pet peave of mine. DA2 tied approval entirely to dialogue- but many missions were set up in a way so that they could only potentially impact a few character's approval ratings. For someone like me, moving Isabella's approval around- especially enough for the Arishock choice to even occur- was like pulling teeth, because you never knew in advance what missions would actually affect her. It was pretty easy to simply miss what quests would matter to what companions, leaving you stuck in the annoying mid-zone of companion approval/disapproval.

KotOR 2 had the same problem. Not really an issue for the romances, such as they were, but approval had serious gameplay consequences. Not sure about DAI, though my guess is that doing the companion quests will get you over unless your Inky is really opposed to that companion's agenda.

[Lataryn]

I just hope they don't put out a dumbed down stinker with tons of filler quest nonsense like Dragon Age Inquisition was.

[Deathjester929]

It's funny to me but I think bethesdas romances are deeper than biowares. People like to mock the lock picking or whatever and yeah you can work the system with it. Good for you, you found and exploited a system in a open world game.

But the reality is you have conversations, show affection and take actions that a character likes and they slowly fall in love. In bioware you can do pretty much anything you want, ignore them for 99.99% of the game but as long as you pick the flirt line in 3ish conversations hey it's love for life baby.

Which one of those seems a more accurate reflection of a relationship? Are there flaws like how quickly they attack you if you break the law or something? And can you break the system? Sure but that's a open world game for you. It requires a little bit more from the player that small but if restraint not to work the loopholes

 

I do not like Bethesda games but you are probably right about romance. 

 

The only romance I think Bioware has ever done right is from KOTOR where they did not have to juggle trying to appease every possible buyer with "romance" and could make the romance span the entire plot arc and be directly tied to the plot.

 

Past that it has been RIDICULOUS high school level, unrealistic flirting and laughable dialogue, where you flirt a few times and have sex right before the final mission.

 

What Bioware romance has taught me since KOTOR...You can usually only have sex before basically a suicide mission. You can flirt with everyone and as long as you dump everyone else before that suicide mission that you stringed along, your "true love" will let you in their pants.  Oh and you can leave the LI on the ship and ignore them for most of the game. 

 

The only believable female romance in the entire series was Tali (minus the weird alien part), and that was because Tali WAS basically a high school girl at the start of the series who was unsure of herself and matured, so the silly, corny dialogue fit. Add to that she was pretty much the only completely die hard, loyal female LI to Shep that spanned the entire series, who always had his back and whose romance could possibly have effected the course of events in ME 3 (star kid ruined all that though and made it pointless). Jack COULD have been a good romance if it happened in 3, but there is no way in heck, that what is basically a survivor of MKUltra level mind control and conditioning could recover and fall in love that fast in ME 2 and have the entire thing be stable and healthy. 

 

Heck I think Emily Wong could have been a better LI than everyone besides Tali (get off my ship Diana Allers).  

[Iakus]

 

Past that it has been RIDICULOUS high school level, unrealistic flirting and laughable dialogue, where you flirt a few times and have sex right before the final mission.

 

What Bioware romance has taught me since KOTOR...You can usually only have sex before basically a suicide mission. You can flirt with everyone and as long as you dump everyone else before that suicide mission that you stringed along, your "true love" will let you in their pants.  Oh and you can leave the LI on the ship and ignore them for most of the game. 

 

Just want to make one correction:

 

In ME1, you do not have to "get into the pants" of the LI before the final mission.  You can politely refuse, and the romance still completes.  Unlike ME2 and ME3.

 

Most of Bioware's games, however, romance=sex.