Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Same gender romance discussion

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Story and Lore
Same gender romance discussion
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

chuixupu's Avatar


chuixupu
04.01.2013 , 11:57 AM | #711
Quote: Originally Posted by Tatile View Post
IIRC, marriage and that happens relatively early in Mandalorian society, around 16 years or so. I believe Torian is supposed to be 18, so he "should" be married off by now, but of course his personal standing in his clan somewhat hindered that.
Interesting perspective, I'm not expert on Mandalorian culture and expectations.

Quote:
Of course it's possible the author of that blog post hasn't played the BH line, you could always ask her. Torian being the exception could be down to his culture or his youth, but I suspect that that would be more of a respect based on battle prowess (the mark of a Mandalorian) rather than something that is gender based.
I was not suggesting his motivations where gender based, just that he doesn't really seem to fit in with the male dominance theme as with some other classes. It always struck me as how he said all he is looking for is "someone who is a better shot than I am".
Wardens of Fate / Alea Iacta Est
The Tarkus Legacy ~ The Harbinger/Jedi Covenant

Tatile's Avatar


Tatile
04.01.2013 , 12:02 PM | #712
Quote: Originally Posted by Slaign View Post
I mean sure, our female characters are warriors and heroes, but maybe they like to go back to their romantic interest and drop the weight of the world for awhile and just be taken care of?
The problem is that, because the romance dialogues are so limited (if you're not hitting the [Flirt] option, you're either apathetic to your potential partner or actively eating their entrails) that the traditional romance seems to be pretty much the only option. This goes back to the earlier conversation that every female-PC romance ends in the "marriage+babies" assumption and that not accepting that puts an end to the relationship. I'm also a little bit annoyed that it's always the male companions that are doing the proposal, but I guess when you're flying through space at light speed with a giant Wookie for a friend, there's really only so much "disbelief" you can suspend.

With the companion SGRAs, at least, can we have the PC being the one to suggest kids? That way you can have them if you want and if you don't you get all that free time, cash and chocolate to yourself (and your partner).


Quote: Originally Posted by chuixupu View Post
Interesting perspective, I'm not expert on Mandalorian culture and expectations.

I was not suggesting his motivations where gender based, just that he doesn't really seem to fit in with the male dominance theme as with some other classes. It always struck me as how he said all he is looking for is "someone who is a better shot than I am".
I know nothing about Mandos, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they marry comparatively early. And as to gender-based assumptions, I just threw that in before someone came along and tried to twist my post to mean that the other male companions, being that they come from different cultures to Torian, must then inherently have different expectations of women and we shouldn't be complaining about that because then we're not respecting their culture wherein they're allowed to assume pregnancy as the default position.

Or something.

Slaign's Avatar


Slaign
04.01.2013 , 12:17 PM | #713
Quote: Originally Posted by Tatile View Post
The problem is that, because the romance dialogues are so limited (if you're not hitting the [Flirt] option, you're either apathetic to your potential partner or actively eating their entrails) that the traditional romance seems to be pretty much the only option. This goes back to the earlier conversation that every female-PC romance ends in the "marriage+babies" assumption and that not accepting that puts an end to the relationship. I'm also a little bit annoyed that it's always the male companions that are doing the proposal, but I guess when you're flying through space at light speed with a giant Wookie for a friend, there's really only so much "disbelief" you can suspend.

With the companion SGRAs, at least, can we have the PC being the one to suggest kids? That way you can have them if you want and if you don't you get all that free time, cash and chocolate to yourself (and your partner).
Yea I totally agree. Like I said it should be at the behest of the player how the relationship dynamic plays out. It would be a lot better, in my opinion, if once you "confirmed" the relationship you got a range of dialogue choices for that relationship. Like in the Mass Effect series, you would have a moment in time where you and your crew mate commit to a relationship, and then future discussions with them are dialogue trees where it's always a part of the relationship.

Still, like I said, that's a general shortcoming of the game. Our options are pretty limited when it comes to really defining our characters' personalities. It would certainly be nice to have more control, but barring that there should be a wide variety in how the different relationships in the game play out.

As someone who never wants kids, and looks dubiously at the prospect of marriage, I'm totally with you on the annoyance factor of that being the assumed end goal of a relationship.

chuixupu's Avatar


chuixupu
04.01.2013 , 12:45 PM | #714
Quote: Originally Posted by Tatile View Post
I'm also a little bit annoyed that it's always the male companions that are doing the proposal
Well, there is one exception....I'll spoiler tag it just in case.

Spoiler
Wardens of Fate / Alea Iacta Est
The Tarkus Legacy ~ The Harbinger/Jedi Covenant

Tatile's Avatar


Tatile
04.01.2013 , 12:49 PM | #715
Quote: Originally Posted by chuixupu View Post
Well, there is one exception....I'll spoiler tag it just in case.

Spoiler
Well, she is the exception in many things.

Raynezazki's Avatar


Raynezazki
04.01.2013 , 01:12 PM | #716
Quote: Originally Posted by chuixupu View Post
Well, there is one exception....I'll spoiler tag it just in case.

Spoiler
female SW can beat Quinn to the punch I believe.

FuryoftheStars's Avatar


FuryoftheStars
04.01.2013 , 01:23 PM | #717
Quote: Originally Posted by Slaign View Post
But I think you seem to have trouble grasping what's become a core concept of any MMO with a story that you interact with personally, and that is that your character is a hero, and often THE hero. It's not just this game. When you play WoW, and you kill the Lich King, you are the guy who killed the Lich King. Or at the very least your raid group is the group that killed the Lich King. There can't be a million people who all killed the Lich King.

Unless an MMO is one of the few that are based on the idea of a persistent world with no quests, just a bunch of players making their own way and their own stories, they are all pretty much based on that concept. Farmer Joe doesn't lose his shovel 100 times a day and spend his whole life asking adventurers to recover it. When you do a quest, your character is the one that did that quest. The other players in the world are a gameplay consideration, not a story one.

Which brings me to...


Then how do you explain that there are thousands of people who are Black Bisectors? In that public quest, are communications breaking down constantly, the senator forgetting the alliance the last player forges, and the systems he repaired now broken again?

In an MMO where you interact directly with the story, you just have to accept that those other players aren't canon. If you go through a mission with 3 other players and all of you are different classes, you can make that work, but beyond that, you're pretty boned without an alternate universe theory.

It being "your story" is the only way it can work. There is no other explanation that holds up.
I think I can sum up a general response to this as such (and mind you, this does apply to more than just BW/EA): they didn't do it right.

Quite frankly, it is entirely possible to have a persistent game world while at the same time keeping the feeling of everyone is contributing. One fine example is with Coruscant... in dealing with the gangs, you are told at one point that they are extremely resilient and hard to put down. Cut off the head and another takes its place. It's easily believable that way in that everyone could have killed "the" leader and there is still another for someone else to kill. The developer would just have to keep the leader as a "no name" and (for further depth) have the NPC itself pulled from a pool of potential NPCs.

Another good example would be Nar Shadda. At one point you are asked to destroy a bunch of spice(?) labs. Ok, cool. But who's to say they weren't rebuilt by the time the next person came through?

When it comes to killing prominent figures, the solution there is easy: don't. Thwart their attempt or whatever, but you don't let the player actually kill them. That way when the next person comes in, it's entirely believable that they are still alive... and trying again. For me personally, this would not ruin the game experience. And it wouldn't for anyone else, for that matter, if that's the way it was designed from the start.

It's entirely believable for me that there are that many people running around and putting effort into the war. That there are a lot of Jedi, Troopers, Sith, etc all trying to accomplish the same thing. But only if the story was written to support it. And quite frankly, if it was all supposed to be about "your story", then missions requiring the assistance of others have no place in it because the other characters aren't supposed to exist. To me, I have always considered MMOs as they are supposed to be about the group effort, otherwise they are nothing more than chat channels in game, while also having to deal with some other yahoo that's going to run past you fighting some guards in order to loot the chest/destroy the quest objective/etc. If it's "my story", then why am I having to put up with that? They shouldn't exist! :P

Quote: Originally Posted by Slaign View Post
I do respect your opinion, so don't take this as an angry rebuttal... But frankly, who are you to say what an MMO should be? Single player games aren't all about making my story. Gears of War is about Delta Squad, it's not my story at all. In fact, I'd say MMOs as a genre offer a lot more in the way of making the story personally your own.

BioWare used the MMO format to deliver a great story driven game, and I appreciate that. I also enjoy the concept of games like EVE Online where it's more about a universe where the players are less heroes and more inhabitants, making their way in the universe with and against one another. I don't see why there shouldn't be room for both.
Eh, but on that same note (Gears of War), neither is this story. As the Trooper, yes, it's more centered around you, but as the leader of Havoc Squad. To me, that's the same thing. SP games that are more in line like what you're trying to compare I'd say are like Modern Warfare 4 or Black Ops and the like, where one minute you're playing as one person, then the next you're playing as someone different.

I do believe though that you can entirely have a universe where the players are heroes (unlike EVE), while still keeping with the group effort thing. Because really, even the heroes in the main stories (like Luke) who do end up making giant impacts on things, do not do so without the support of others. Heck, Luke would've died at so many different points if it wasn't for the help of someone else.

But... that's my opinion on it. And I realize (either because its already been said or I know someone will) that I'm probably fighting a lost cause... but I'd rather fight it then to roll over and let it be as is. *shrug*

And I'll stop here. This all helps support where I'm coming from, but discussion much more into it may be construed as derailing the thread.
The Shadowlands
||| Vanguard | Sage | Sentinel | Scoundrel

Slaign's Avatar


Slaign
04.01.2013 , 02:25 PM | #718
Quote: Originally Posted by FuryoftheStars View Post
I think I can sum up a general response to this as such (and mind you, this does apply to more than just BW/EA): they didn't do it right.

Quite frankly, it is entirely possible to have a persistent game world while at the same time keeping the feeling of everyone is contributing. One fine example is with Coruscant... in dealing with the gangs, you are told at one point that they are extremely resilient and hard to put down. Cut off the head and another takes its place. It's easily believable that way in that everyone could have killed "the" leader and there is still another for someone else to kill. The developer would just have to keep the leader as a "no name" and (for further depth) have the NPC itself pulled from a pool of potential NPCs.

Another good example would be Nar Shadda. At one point you are asked to destroy a bunch of spice(?) labs. Ok, cool. But who's to say they weren't rebuilt by the time the next person came through?

When it comes to killing prominent figures, the solution there is easy: don't. Thwart their attempt or whatever, but you don't let the player actually kill them. That way when the next person comes in, it's entirely believable that they are still alive... and trying again. For me personally, this would not ruin the game experience. And it wouldn't for anyone else, for that matter, if that's the way it was designed from the start.

It's entirely believable for me that there are that many people running around and putting effort into the war. That there are a lot of Jedi, Troopers, Sith, etc all trying to accomplish the same thing. But only if the story was written to support it. And quite frankly, if it was all supposed to be about "your story", then missions requiring the assistance of others have no place in it because the other characters aren't supposed to exist. To me, I have always considered MMOs as they are supposed to be about the group effort, otherwise they are nothing more than chat channels in game, while also having to deal with some other yahoo that's going to run past you fighting some guards in order to loot the chest/destroy the quest objective/etc. If it's "my story", then why am I having to put up with that? They shouldn't exist! :P


Eh, but on that same note (Gears of War), neither is this story. As the Trooper, yes, it's more centered around you, but as the leader of Havoc Squad. To me, that's the same thing. SP games that are more in line like what you're trying to compare I'd say are like Modern Warfare 4 or Black Ops and the like, where one minute you're playing as one person, then the next you're playing as someone different.

I do believe though that you can entirely have a universe where the players are heroes (unlike EVE), while still keeping with the group effort thing. Because really, even the heroes in the main stories (like Luke) who do end up making giant impacts on things, do not do so without the support of others. Heck, Luke would've died at so many different points if it wasn't for the help of someone else.

But... that's my opinion on it. And I realize (either because its already been said or I know someone will) that I'm probably fighting a lost cause... but I'd rather fight it then to roll over and let it be as is. *shrug*

And I'll stop here. This all helps support where I'm coming from, but discussion much more into it may be construed as derailing the thread.
I mean, you're totally free to your opinion that everyone is doing it wrong. I honestly think it's a bit narrow minded. When playing games a major part of the suspension of disbelief is understanding the line between gameplay and story. If you can't set aside the thousands of players running around to understand that in the story there were never that many Jedi period, I mean... I don't know what else to say. I'm sorry? It sucks that you can't reconcile the two things?

I find your view of things stiflingly limiting. You don't think our characters should have major roles because you either can't or won't accept that not every individual player needs to be accounted for in the story? Frankly, I think that would make for terrible stories. Especially in a Star Wars game. The Star Wars universe is one built almost entirely on stories about heroes. I don't want to be a moisture farmer watching the war on the holo. Hell, I don't even want to be the pilot out dogfighting TIE fighters. I want to be Luke, making the Death Star run.

At the end of the day, more power to you if you prefer games where the gameplay worlds most closely represent the story worlds. Have at it if you want to be just one in a crowd of millions in some persistent world like EVE, Second Life, or Mortal Online.

But to say that anyone who doesn't do it that way is doing it wrong? I'm sorry, but no. You are fighting a losing battle there, and I'm happy to fight on the other side. This is the way a lot of developers do things, and I find it narrow minded to dismiss it out of hand. I think most of us are perfectly capable of resolving the game world and the story world into two different headspaces, or at the very least ignoring the conflicts. Especially if doing so allows us to experience the kinds of epic stories developers like BioWare want to tell.

I want to be a hero on an epic scale, AND I want to be able to play with a big group of friends when I like. I don't think it's especially fair of you to judge that as "doing it wrong."

Anyway, you're right that this is probably veering a little far off topic. I think we get the gist of where each other stand, and I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

FuryoftheStars's Avatar


FuryoftheStars
04.01.2013 , 03:50 PM | #719
Quote: Originally Posted by Slaign View Post
I mean, you're totally free to your opinion that everyone is doing it wrong. I honestly think it's a bit narrow minded. When playing games a major part of the suspension of disbelief is understanding the line between gameplay and story. If you can't set aside the thousands of players running around to understand that in the story there were never that many Jedi period, I mean... I don't know what else to say. I'm sorry? It sucks that you can't reconcile the two things?

I find your view of things stiflingly limiting. You don't think our characters should have major roles because you either can't or won't accept that not every individual player needs to be accounted for in the story? Frankly, I think that would make for terrible stories. Especially in a Star Wars game. The Star Wars universe is one built almost entirely on stories about heroes. I don't want to be a moisture farmer watching the war on the holo. Hell, I don't even want to be the pilot out dogfighting TIE fighters. I want to be Luke, making the Death Star run.

At the end of the day, more power to you if you prefer games where the gameplay worlds most closely represent the story worlds. Have at it if you want to be just one in a crowd of millions in some persistent world like EVE, Second Life, or Mortal Online.

But to say that anyone who doesn't do it that way is doing it wrong? I'm sorry, but no. You are fighting a losing battle there, and I'm happy to fight on the other side. This is the way a lot of developers do things, and I find it narrow minded to dismiss it out of hand. I think most of us are perfectly capable of resolving the game world and the story world into two different headspaces, or at the very least ignoring the conflicts. Especially if doing so allows us to experience the kinds of epic stories developers like BioWare want to tell.

I want to be a hero on an epic scale, AND I want to be able to play with a big group of friends when I like. I don't think it's especially fair of you to judge that as "doing it wrong."

Anyway, you're right that this is probably veering a little far off topic. I think we get the gist of where each other stand, and I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Well, if my thinking that a game that is about your own personal character's story should be single player game, while an MMO that involves many other players should be about "our" story makes me narrow minded, then I'm sorry.

But, (and trying to drag this back on topic) whether it be single player or MMO, I personally think that having NPCs out there that you can't flirt with because you are not their "type" is perfectly acceptable.

EDIT: Had to reword some stuff because I was forced to post hurriedly. Also want to add, one could almost view that as "unlockable" game content (or add to the "replayablility" factor) by playing through again as a different character.
The Shadowlands
||| Vanguard | Sage | Sentinel | Scoundrel

FuryoftheStars's Avatar


FuryoftheStars
04.01.2013 , 04:25 PM | #720
Quote: Originally Posted by Slaign View Post
understand that in the story there were never that many Jedi period
Sorry, forgot to comment on this part.

Huh?? If we were talking SWG I could understand that comment, by my understanding of eras where the Sith/Empire were battling each other in the Old Republic was that actually Jedi were a fairly common site on the battlefield. Not as common as soldiers, mind you, but they weren't so few that they could only fill Commander and General rolls....

EDIT: *facepalm* Another typo... Not Sith/Empire, but rather Sith-Empire & Republic.
The Shadowlands
||| Vanguard | Sage | Sentinel | Scoundrel