Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Same gender relationships clarifications?

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Story and Lore
Same gender relationships clarifications?
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

Revanchis's Avatar


Revanchis
01.20.2013 , 10:04 PM | #5471
Quote: Originally Posted by Kioma View Post
Then again I don't know a single polyamorous person who's not in some way or another a recovering monogamist living in a monogamy-centric society. Historical evidence suggests that people brought up in societies accepting of non-monogamy don't (surprise surprise) have hang-ups about it.
Recovering monogamist sounds wrong, I mean we don't say recovering heterosexual when talking about gay people that have come out.

On topic, it would be interesting to see something like that in a future game, although I don't see myself using that option.

Kioma's Avatar


Kioma
01.20.2013 , 10:15 PM | #5472
Quote: Originally Posted by Revanchis View Post
Recovering monogamist sounds wrong, I mean we don't say recovering heterosexual when talking about gay people that have come out.
I agree, it does sound wrong, but options are low. If you can think of a better term for someone who's been indoctrinated with the belief that monogamy is the only viable model of relationships and is attempting to break free of that, well, you let me know.

Quote: Originally Posted by Revanchis View Post
On topic, it would be interesting to see something like that in a future game, although I don't see myself using that option.
A game, yes. SWTOR, I don't think it'll ever happen. It's taken us a year just to get word of upcoming non-companion NPC same sex flirts.
::Please Stand By, Signature Assessment Probe Commencing Analysis::

Dire-Wolf's Avatar


Dire-Wolf
01.20.2013 , 11:29 PM | #5473
I am thoroughly disappointed with BioWare's handling of SGRA. Restricting it to one planet, sticking it behind both a level wall and a pay wall and not including romanceable is just insulting. I was fine with BioWare's poor handling of other aspects of the game. That whole mess with the oceanic release, the sharding of areas, the lack of basic mmo features such as chat bubbles, the annoying restrictions the game used to have (alignment restriction of colour crystals for example), the gambling machine that is the cartel market, I could put up with all that, but this is pushing things too far. Not only does it not give me hope for the future of the game, it makes me question the future of BioWare as a company and all their games. Can we expect the same sort of treatment in DA3? ME4?

SirGladiator's Avatar


SirGladiator
01.21.2013 , 01:09 AM | #5474
Quote: Originally Posted by Dire-Wolf View Post
I am thoroughly disappointed with BioWare's handling of SGRA. Restricting it to one planet, sticking it behind both a level wall and a pay wall and not including romanceable is just insulting. I was fine with BioWare's poor handling of other aspects of the game. That whole mess with the oceanic release, the sharding of areas, the lack of basic mmo features such as chat bubbles, the annoying restrictions the game used to have (alignment restriction of colour crystals for example), the gambling machine that is the cartel market, I could put up with all that, but this is pushing things too far. Not only does it not give me hope for the future of the game, it makes me question the future of BioWare as a company and all their games. Can we expect the same sort of treatment in DA3? ME4?

In DA3 no, in ME4 not exactly, but still pretty bad. Thats just a guess in both cases, based on the previous games in each series, but the DA series started good and improved to great, the ME series started decent (1 out of 2 female teammates romancable, like DAO) and finished terrible (0 out of 3 female teammates romancable in ME2 and 1 out of 5 in ME3, but with one female NPC romancable in ME2 and two in ME3 for what thats worth) . Ultimately it comes down to the guy making the decisions in the DA series wants to give us as much as possible, the ME guy wants to give us as little as possible, like the SWTOR guy. The level of pressure on each guy in the ME and SWTOR games dictated exactly how much he gave us, they'd give us zero if they could, but they can't. The DA fellow, whose name is David Gaider for those who don't know, has stated quite clearly that those at the highest levels of Bioware don't care what he or any of his equals in the other game series' do with the romances, they can do them the way he did them in DAO, in DA2, or just the way they did it in SWTOR, they don't care one bit (Im sure he would add that they do care when the decisions result in extreme public backlash, like the ME2 and SWTOR ones, seems like a reasonable guess). But the general point is each game has a head guy, and that one guy has all the power when it comes to who is, and who isn't, allowed to enjoy the romances. I remember back when the ME2 controversy came out (the first Bioware game in modern history that had no SGRA whatsoever, other than one NPC which they tried to pretend wasn't even a romance, it shocked everybody at the time), virtually everyone that worked on the game favored the DA style approach, and thats how it was going to be in the game, then the head guy swooped in at the last minute and made them disable all our romances, every last one of them, with the dreaded gender check, thats why there was plenty of evidence of the romances still on the disc, bits and pieces here and there. The Devs made it as clear as they could, without losing their jobs, that they disagreed with the guy's decision and fought to keep the romances in, but ultimately the one guy had all the power and he abused it to our tremendous disadvantage.

The DA guy will always give us plenty, that will never be a problem, he's made that perfectly clear. The ME and SWTOR guys will always give us as little as public pressure, or lack thereof, allows them to, they've made that perfectly clear as well. Thats who they are as people, thats what they believe in. Thats why we can't let up, if we let up thats when it ends, we've gotten all we're gonna get at that point, other than in the DA series which will always be good. Its ironic and sad, if the romance decisions were made as a team, by the folks working on each game, we'd be happy with the results in all of them. Most of Bioware is on our side, including most of the people working on each game, but ultimately the decisons of which romances do or dont get gender-checked away are made by one person, the guy at the top of each game. Nobody else's opinion carries any weight at all, except when the pressure gets so huge that somebody higher up orders them to do something to put an end to it. If the head of the ME or SWTOR series changes, we'll likely get romances-o-plenty in that given series. Until then, we're only going to get what they feel is absolutely required to avoid bad press, that's why what we're doing by constantly asking for fair and equal treatment is so important. But DA3 will be awesome either way, that's a given.

chuixupu's Avatar


chuixupu
01.21.2013 , 02:18 AM | #5475
Quote: Originally Posted by stuffystuffs View Post
I've been thinking about this and I don't believe the Makeb "romances" can be as in depth as the non-companion ones in game now.

From what I understand, none of the Makeb content is class and character exclusive...so all dialog choices will come down to a roll for up to 4 people in a group. The non-companion romances used in your example had dialog exclusive to an instance and the owner of it. It would be kind of odd if four players were romancing the same NPC over the course of Makeb's story.

So, it has to be like some of the shared flirt opportunities we have now with random NPCs and will be subject to a roll if you are in a group, which aren't deep at all.
Well, I can tell you this, and I believe this has been brought up in the thread before, but when I've seen people encounter npc romances in groups, the romance option just doesn't trigger. You can't roll to win to sleep with Darth Lachris. It won't happen. For Makeb, even though we know we aren't going to have class stories, there could in fact be class instancing still. But even if there is not, there's a good chance that they've thought of these things. There are some non-class quests in the game that you can't share with other people (like the ones tied to operations). So we'll have to wait and see.
Wardens of Fate / Alea Iacta Est
The Tarkus Legacy ~ The Harbinger/Jedi Covenant

Lillark's Avatar


Lillark
01.21.2013 , 03:05 AM | #5476
Quote: Originally Posted by Dire-Wolf View Post
I am thoroughly disappointed with BioWare's handling of SGRA. Restricting it to one planet, sticking it behind both a level wall and a pay wall and not including romanceable is just insulting. I was fine with BioWare's poor handling of other aspects of the game. That whole mess with the oceanic release, the sharding of areas, the lack of basic mmo features such as chat bubbles, the annoying restrictions the game used to have (alignment restriction of colour crystals for example), the gambling machine that is the cartel market, I could put up with all that, but this is pushing things too far. Not only does it not give me hope for the future of the game, it makes me question the future of BioWare as a company and all their games. Can we expect the same sort of treatment in DA3? ME4?
Remember, this is not far-superior BioWare Edmonton. This is totally inferior BioWare Austin. They came into existence only to handle SWTOR. They did not make and are not making and Dragon Age or Mass Effect Games. Even though the Mass Effect ending was handled as poorly as all of SWTOR (Space piloting? NAH) BioWare Austin has only messed up SWTOR and after this steaming pile, I am sure EA will only allow them to keep functioning to maintain SWTOR, at least until it becomes too unprofitable. BioWare Edmonton has always been open to SGR's, but BioWare Austin has dragged their feet for a year and are now putting in only enough SGR content to say there is SOME SGR content because EA is forcing them to do it. EA will kill a studio at the drop of a hat, so you can expect BioWare Austin to die when SWTOR ends as fast as they will delete these posts as soon as a forum mod sees them Monday morning.

Tatile's Avatar


Tatile
01.21.2013 , 05:15 AM | #5477
Quote: Originally Posted by stuffystuffs View Post
I've been thinking about this and I don't believe the Makeb "romances" can be as in depth as the non-companion ones in game now.

From what I understand, none of the Makeb content is class and character exclusive...so all dialog choices will come down to a roll for up to 4 people in a group. The non-companion romances used in your example had dialog exclusive to an instance and the owner of it. It would be kind of odd if four players were romancing the same NPC over the course of Makeb's story.

So, it has to be like some of the shared flirt opportunities we have now with random NPCs and will be subject to a roll if you are in a group, which aren't deep at all.
Though I share your misgivings on how Bioware will implement these (Mr. Gonzalez is convinced that throw-away [Flirt]s are the same as full-blown romances, after all), it could be possible that the Makeb story lines, while note class specific, could be placed in "owner only" instances, like class stories are. Personally, if I had the chance, I would have done something like that, as it allows for more of a sense of "ownership" when it comes to the choices and actions taken on Makeb, rather than just "Oh, I lost the roll, guess we have to kill this guy now".

If our (ahaha - excuse me) "romance" NPCs are placed in these instances, then there's less issue of leveling or questing as a group and missing those options and, of course, it adds to the sense of uniqueness.

Pity that that's probably not how they've done it though :/

SithKoriandr's Avatar


SithKoriandr
01.21.2013 , 07:50 AM | #5478
Quote: Originally Posted by chuixupu View Post
My agent is definitely polyamorous.

People generally ask that question when it comes to gay marriage in general, although in real life I think there's certainly a large number of social/tax/economical issues that are relevant.

I think in the context of the game, they just like to have people make meaningful choices, and not be able to marry every companion and NPC. What are the odds that every romanceable companion in the game is totally cool with sharing?
What are the odds of every romanceable companion being SGR?

I thought the idea was more that people wanted to dictate how their own story plays out and less on what is most likely.

Kioma's Avatar


Kioma
01.21.2013 , 07:51 AM | #5479
Quote: Originally Posted by Tatile View Post
(Mr. Gonzalez is convinced that throw-away [Flirt]s are the same as full-blown romances, after all)
You've slipped this line in a couple of your posts and I wanted to address it as I think it's misconceived.

Here's the background of what I'm about to state, wrapped in spoiler tags for brevity's sake:

Spoiler


He referred to SGRs, not SGRAs, and I feel a certain amount of misunderstanding has arisen due to that truncated acronym. Some of the non-companion flirts result in a bit of fade-to-black action and I think that the use of 'SGRs' was, in this case, intended to refer to that (they're not arcs precisely, after all, but could roughly be described as romances).

Here's where I think the issue is: most of us (myself included) largely see no difference between the acronyms 'SGR' and 'SGRA' except, obviously, for the letter 'A'. When I use the term it's to refer to the companion story arcs and whilst I can't speak for anyone else I do suspect that most people consider 'SGRAs' and 'SGRs' to mean the same thing: same gender companion romance arcs.

I've started using the acronym SGFPs (same gender flirt prompts) to differentiate between the two. If Mr Gonzales were to address his position on the matter I suspect he'd clarify his use of 'SGRs' in the context of the comments you're referring to, Tatile, was to refer to non-companion flirt prompts.

I respectfully suggest that it's inaccurate to claim his comments mean that he thinks that what you call 'throw-away flirts' are equal to full-fledged companion romances. I likewise suggest that when he referred to SGRs he did so as it was the term being used in the Hickman Update and was referring directly back to that (swapping to a different acronym would have just confused the matter) but that both he and the Hickman Update are referring specifically to SGFPs going in with Makeb, and not that they're intended to be a replacement (or even particularly comparative to) SGRAs.

The only one who can clarify what he meant for certain, of course, is JovethGonzales himself.
::Please Stand By, Signature Assessment Probe Commencing Analysis::

Revanchis's Avatar


Revanchis
01.21.2013 , 08:29 AM | #5480
Quote: Originally Posted by Kioma View Post
I respectfully suggest that it's inaccurate to claim his comments mean that he thinks that what you call 'throw-away flirts' are equal to full-fledged companion romances. I likewise suggest that when he referred to SGRs he did so as it was the term being used in the Hickman Update and was referring directly back to that (swapping to a different acronym would have just confused the matter) but that both he and the Hickman Update are referring specifically to SGFPs going in with Makeb, and not that they're intended to be a replacement (or even particularly comparative to) SGRAs.

The only one who can clarify what he meant for certain, of course, is JovethGonzales himself.
I kind of expected him to immediately pop up, like you had said Beetlejuice three times.