7455 réponses à ce sujet

[SirGladiator]

I think they're all good ideas, the toggles, the colored dialogue, all of it are good ideas, but ultimately none of that would be necessary if they did one simple thing that they really should've done all along, and that is make the romances at least slightly CHALLENGING. There would be no 'accidentally' romancing someone if it was quite obvious, and a bit difficult, to do. One idea would be to have, much like the 'loyalty missions' of ME2, sort of a 'romance mission' that would be clear that you would only be doing it if you wanted to romance that particular character, and if you do that you 'will' romance that character, and won't be able to romance anybody else (unless of course you 'fail' the mission, then you would obviously be free to romance someone else). It would add challenge, it would add complete clarity, noone will 'accidentally' romance someone they didn't mean to, and it would be a great improvement over the WAAAY too easy romance system as it is now.

[Tirigon]

SorenTrigg wrote...

But...gay content is already in the game with Liara and Kelly. We do not need to suddenly have a toggle to turn off things.

Liara isn´t really a LI in ME2 and Kelly doesn´t even count as romance..............

[Tirigon]

SirGladiator wrote...

I think they're all good ideas, the toggles, the colored dialogue, all of it are good ideas, but ultimately none of that would be necessary if they did one simple thing that they really should've done all along, and that is make the romances at least slightly CHALLENGING. There would be no 'accidentally' romancing someone if it was quite obvious, and a bit difficult, to do. One idea would be to have, much like the 'loyalty missions' of ME2, sort of a 'romance mission' that would be clear that you would only be doing it if you wanted to romance that particular character, and if you do that you 'will' romance that character, and won't be able to romance anybody else (unless of course you 'fail' the mission, then you would obviously be free to romance someone else). It would add challenge, it would add complete clarity, noone will 'accidentally' romance someone they didn't mean to, and it would be a great improvement over the WAAAY too easy romance system as it is now.

I agree, except for the part that you can´t romance anyone else then. You should be able to have mutliple romances at once.

[Nuclear]

And suffer the consequences. That's real life folks.

[Tirigon]

-ßeta- wrote...

And suffer the consequences. That's real life folks.

But this is a game. I would expect aliens in a game to be a little more understanding and open-minded than people in Real Life.

[Nuclear]

Woops. I just meant to say life and not REAL life. If it was real life it would be 10 times worse. Thanks for calling me out on that I guess (ignore what I say, it's mindless dribble 99% of the time)

[Tirigon]

-ßeta- wrote...

Woops. I just meant to say life and not REAL life. If it was real life it would be 10 times worse.

Well but it´s not life either that you defeat a technologically superior race with only 10 people or so.

[The_KFD_Case]

-ßeta- wrote...

And suffer the consequences. That's real life folks.

Agreed. There are choices and there are consequences. Freedom with responsibility.

Modifié par The_KFD_Case, 02 mai 2010 - 04:39 .

[Tirigon]

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Agreed. There are choices and there are consequences. Freedom with responsibility.

But you should also have the option to say: Hey I love you both and I´m in no mood to dump one just because you can´t accept my feelings.

[Siansonea]

Lot of posts since I last posted to the thread. Lots of deliberate misunderstanding too. I can't possibly invest the time to read all the back-and-forth, but I did want to respond to one point that keeps coming up.

Enough with the comparisons to race. Customizing SHEPARD is not the same thing as a toggle to change NPC attributes. The Shepard sexual orientation toggle idea ONLY AFFECTS SHEPARD. You aren't changing ANYTHING about the NPCs. All you're doing is ensuring that your Shepard doesn't accidentally go off in an unplanned direction because you misunderstood the conversation keyword choices. Some characters might still express an interest in Shepard, because that's what their character would do. But a locked Shepard wouldn't have the option of responding in a way that would further that relationship, because that's what that particular Shepard would do.

I think this would be a good idea, because I might actually want a Shepard who is not open to certain types of relationships or any relationships at all. I would also want other Shepards who are open to anything. All this idea does is give the player another way to customize their Shepard. If anything, the opposition to this idea is more like opposing the option to customize SHEPARD'S skin color, because 'it shouldn't be about race' or something.

Why is this so hard to understand? If you want something, you have to give something, and the scale of 1 to kidney, I think this idea is a pretty small 'sacrifice'.

[SorenTrigg]

Why do we need 'protection' against romances, only if more same sex stuff gets implemented?



Why can't people just...be careful? Sure, some of the dialogue is unclear, but it is like that with the *entire game*.

[KalosCast]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

I have to disagree with this.  A player that chooses his or her own sexual orientation in a game, has nothing in common with choosing other npcs' races.

If this was the case, then one could draw the same comparison to gender.  You could also draw the comparison to choosing your own skin color. 

An analogy would be:
Why be able to pick your own gender in the game?  That would be like demanding that certain npc's change their gender also.  That would be sexist and demanding special attention. 
Why do people get to choose their own skin color?  That would be like demanding that other npc's change their skin color also.  That would be racist and demanding special attention.

I'm arguing the idea of having a "gay content filter" on toggle, similar to how some games have sliding scales of blood/gore. Which is exactly the same thing as demanding that NPCs behave in a certain way. In fact, the whole point of my argument is that there should be a choice. Not some magic toggle button to hide the content because including same-sex romance options is some how magically "pandering to the gays" but having straight options isn't "pandering to the straights"

Modifié par KalosCast, 02 mai 2010 - 05:51 .

[The_KFD_Case]

Tirigon wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Agreed. There are choices and there are consequences. Freedom with responsibility.

But you should also have the option to say: Hey I love you both and I´m in no mood to dump one just because you can´t accept my feelings.

Sure you can say that, but that does not guarantee that the individuals involved will nor should accept your stance on the matter. We are each entitled to your own point of view and while we may try to persuade others to come around to our way of thinking the same rings true for every other individual.

[Tirigon]

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Sure you can say that, but that does not guarantee that the individuals involved will nor should accept your stance on the matter. We are each entitled to your own point of view and while we may try to persuade others to come around to our way of thinking the same rings true for every other individual.

And in Real life I would agree. But NPCs in a videogame have the only purpose of making me happy when playing the game, or getting shot if they don´t. So I disagree here.

[Nordic Einar]

Siansonea II wrote...

Lot of posts since I last posted to
the thread. Lots of deliberate misunderstanding too. I can't possibly
invest the time to read all the back-and-forth, but I did want to
respond to one point that keeps coming up.

Enough with the
comparisons to race. Customizing SHEPARD is not the same
thing as a toggle to change NPC attributes. The Shepard sexual
orientation toggle idea ONLY AFFECTS SHEPARD. You aren't changing
ANYTHING about the NPCs. All you're doing is ensuring that your
Shepard doesn't accidentally go off in an unplanned direction because
you misunderstood the conversation keyword choices. Some characters
might still express an interest in Shepard, because that's what
their character would do. But a locked Shepard wouldn't have the
option of responding in a way that would further that relationship, because
that's what that particular Shepard would do.

I think
this would be a good idea, because I might actually want a Shepard who
is not open to certain types of relationships or any relationships at
all. I would also want other Shepards who are open to anything. All this
idea does is give the player another way to customize their Shepard. If
anything, the opposition to this idea is more like opposing the option
to customize SHEPARD'S skin color, because 'it shouldn't be about
race' or something.

Why is this so hard to understand? If you
want something, you have to give something, and the scale of 1 to
kidney, I think this idea is a pretty small 'sacrifice'.

Rubbish. Why not include a Paragon/Renegade choice in the beginning them? Perhaps I'm offended by some of the morally grey decisions Shepard can partake in - I don't want to accidently participate in one! Therefore, I should simply indicate, from the beginning, that I will never kick a puppy and will always save the pretty ladies!

That's ridiculous and more or less the same thing we're discussing here - except that there's no icky gay men involved in the Paragon/Renegade choice.

Modifié par Nordic Einar, 02 mai 2010 - 07:23 .

[Temper_Graniteskul]

Siansonea II wrote...

Lot of posts since I last posted to the thread. Lots of deliberate misunderstanding too. I can't possibly invest the time to read all the back-and-forth, but I did want to respond to one point that keeps coming up.

Enough with the comparisons to race. Customizing SHEPARD is not the same thing as a toggle to change NPC attributes. The Shepard sexual orientation toggle idea ONLY AFFECTS SHEPARD. You aren't changing ANYTHING about the NPCs. All you're doing is ensuring that your Shepard doesn't accidentally go off in an unplanned direction because you misunderstood the conversation keyword choices. Some characters might still express an interest in Shepard, because that's what their character would do. But a locked Shepard wouldn't have the option of responding in a way that would further that relationship, because that's what that particular Shepard would do.

I think this would be a good idea, because I might actually want a Shepard who is not open to certain types of relationships or any relationships at all. I would also want other Shepards who are open to anything. All this idea does is give the player another way to customize their Shepard. If anything, the opposition to this idea is more like opposing the option to customize SHEPARD'S skin color, because 'it shouldn't be about race' or something.

Why is this so hard to understand? If you want something, you have to give something, and the scale of 1 to kidney, I think this idea is a pretty small 'sacrifice'.

Except that this is pretty much the first discussion of the toggle to mention not changing how NPCs react, only affecting the lines available to Shepard. The previous iteration of the toggle would have changed how NPCs reacted to Shepard - most of the people asking for it were ones wanting to see no trace of homosexuality in their game, and that included NPCs of the same sex 'hitting on' their Shepard. Toggling a hetero orientation for Shepard would have removed any potential flirting, overtures, or mention that a same-sex NPC might be interested in Shep. Not 'well, hetero Shep just wouldn't have a dialogue option to reciprocate,' but a potential m/m LI, for example, wouldn't ever even mention that they were interested or open as an LI to a hetero Shep. This version of the toggle is very much about hiding your gays, so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the anti-s/s LI crowd.

[The_KFD_Case]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

I don't see it as a "gay content filter", although I do filter out content that I have no interest in all of the time.  I may engage in a m/m romance out of the just experience and curiosity of role playing alone, if it was offered in ME3.  Perhaps the analogy to a blood/gore sliding scale was not accurate enough.

This sexual orientation customization, would give you all the choice you would need.  You could choose the Bi-sexual option and have the best of both worlds so to speak. 

This is about entertainment and giving all of the players a choice and provides more options and customizations.  This is not about a social policy integrating the acceptance of homosexuals into society.  That IMO is not the business of business, and has nothing to do with video games.  This is a sci-fi video game that is a form of entertainment.

If we judged how ME should be developed on the reality of our own societies' morality, political alignment, beliefs, etc., then we should scrap the game altogther.  This is not a perfect world.

Agreed on all points.

[Temper_Graniteskul]

Nordic Einar wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Lot of posts since I last posted to the thread. Lots of deliberate misunderstanding too. I can't possibly invest the time to read all the back-and-forth, but I did want to respond to one point that keeps coming up.

Enough with the comparisons to race. Customizing SHEPARD is not the same thing as a toggle to change NPC attributes. The Shepard sexual orientation toggle idea ONLY AFFECTS SHEPARD. You aren't changing ANYTHING about the NPCs. All you're doing is ensuring that your Shepard doesn't accidentally go off in an unplanned direction because you misunderstood the conversation keyword choices. Some characters might still express an interest in Shepard, because that's what their character would do. But a locked Shepard wouldn't have theoption of responding in a way that would further that relationship, becausethat's what that particular Shepard would do.

I think this would be a good idea, because I might actually want a Shepard who is not open to certain types of relationships or any relationships at all. I would also want other Shepards who are open to anything. All this idea does is give the player another way to customize their Shepard. If anything, the opposition to this idea is more like opposing the option to customize SHEPARD'S skin color, because 'it shouldn't be about race' or something.

Why is this so hard to understand? If you want something, you have to give something, and the scale of 1 to
kidney, I think this idea is a pretty small 'sacrifice'.

Rubbish. Why not include a Paragon/Renegade choice in the beginning them? Perhaps I'm offended by some of the morally grey decisions Shepard can partake in - I don't want to accidently participate in one! Therefore, I should simply indicate, from the beginning, that I will never kick a puppy and will always save the pretty ladies!

That's ridiculous and more or less the same thing we're discussing here - except that there's no icky gay men involved in the Paragon/Renegade choice.

QFT. And how do they make the P/R choices clear? Colour coding! There's even some ambiguity left in; I certainly didn't expect my Paragon Shep to be quite as much of a douchnozzle as he was in a couple of his choices, but he still got the job done without compromising his morality. I'm pretty sure that the same sort of treatment for all romances would ensure that Shep never ends up accidentally coming on to the ship's counsellor, too.

What this version of the toggle does is remove any opportunities for on-the-fly decision making, which is the kind of thing usually reserved for NPC interaction as opposed to things that affect combat. Shep's not likely going to change career mid-game and deal with enemies differently (biotics over tech, for example), but might very well opt to treat NPCs differently based on how they initially behaved and what Shep needs or wants to do. The toggle removes that flexibility.

Modifié par Temper_Graniteskul, 02 mai 2010 - 07:52 .

[The_KFD_Case]

Nordic Einar wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Lot of posts since I last posted to
the thread. Lots of deliberate misunderstanding too. I can't possibly
invest the time to read all the back-and-forth, but I did want to
respond to one point that keeps coming up.

Enough with the
comparisons to race. Customizing SHEPARD is not the same
thing as a toggle to change NPC attributes. The Shepard sexual
orientation toggle idea ONLY AFFECTS SHEPARD. You aren't changing
ANYTHING about the NPCs. All you're doing is ensuring that your
Shepard doesn't accidentally go off in an unplanned direction because
you misunderstood the conversation keyword choices. Some characters
might still express an interest in Shepard, because that's what
their character would do. But a locked Shepard wouldn't have the
option of responding in a way that would further that relationship, because
that's what that particular Shepard would do.

I think
this would be a good idea, because I might actually want a Shepard who
is not open to certain types of relationships or any relationships at
all. I would also want other Shepards who are open to anything. All this
idea does is give the player another way to customize their Shepard. If
anything, the opposition to this idea is more like opposing the option
to customize SHEPARD'S skin color, because 'it shouldn't be about
race' or something.

Why is this so hard to understand? If you
want something, you have to give something, and the scale of 1 to
kidney, I think this idea is a pretty small 'sacrifice'.

Rubbish. Why not include a Paragon/Renegade choice in the beginning them? Perhaps I'm offended by some of the morally grey decisions Shepard can partake in - I don't want to accidently participate in one! Therefore, I should simply indicate, from the beginning, that I will never kick a puppy and will always save the pretty ladies!

That's ridiculous and more or less the same thing we're discussing here - except that there's no icky gay men involved in the Paragon/Renegade choice.

That idea could also be accommodated as required. A player could choose Paragon, Renegade, None, or Open (resulting in the current setup we've experienced in the ME games). Some people appear hell bent on turning this entertainment medium in to a crusade for the type of world they desire to see in real life. As JohnnyDollar has already pointed out that is not the role of the ME games nor games in general. Nor for businesses in general. Furthermore, asking/demanding the option for s/s LIs and bemoaning that there are people whom don't share one's enthusiasm for such an outcome while then proceeding to ridicule and dismiss some of those people's personal views because they are not in sync with one's own makes those individuals just as guilty of the same type of behaviour that they are a lambasting others for. Hypocritical to say the least. If a person is determined to feel slighted then there is very little anyone can do or say to avoid that and since your rights stop where mine begin, and vice versa, that is not to say that other people should then be quiet and not express their views because it just might offend someone, somewhere, somehow, some time.

I have little problem with people expressing their desires regarding including or excluding s/s LIs in this thread, however if one is so determined to bring about a change in views regarding sexual orientations, etc. perhaps the time and effort spent in this forum pursuing such an outcome would be put to more effective use pursuing said outcome in the real world. You know, the world that you actually live in and have to deal with on a daily basis one way or another.

Modifié par The_KFD_Case, 02 mai 2010 - 07:59 .

[Tirigon]

slimgrin wrote...

But someone has yet to tell me why s/s is such a big deal in Mass Effect and not in Dragon Age.

"Because in Dragon Age you are not playing a defined Character."

Besides, it´s not perfect in DAO either, though a lot better than in ME. You can´t romance Alistair and Morrigan, for example, if you have the same gender.

[The_KFD_Case]

Tirigon wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Sure you can say that, but that does not guarantee that the individuals involved will nor should accept your stance on the matter. We are each entitled to your own point of view and while we may try to persuade others to come around to our way of thinking the same rings true for every other individual.

And in Real life I would agree. But NPCs in a videogame have the only purpose of making me happy when playing the game, or getting shot if they don´t. So I disagree here.

I disagree that NPCs only serve the purpose of making you happy when playing a game. They exist to help tell the story/provide the entertainment experience (in whatever flavour it may be,) that the creators envision.