why is this a issue less than 2% of the population is gay and we need to make this the reason im pissed is because the half orc nearly raped me in my sleep and i had to dump the body in a stream
Eerr.. i don't know, maybe less than 2% is openly gay (and even as this i doubt this small percentage).
@Aron740 i agree with shawne because IMO he leads rational, mature discussion without resorting to insults, and i happen to have more or less same views on the matter.
i'm not denying your right to request what pleases you, but feature requests are open to debate among members of the forum. i simply think making romances optional via button is unnecessary, since they are optional content already.
many other arguments are either irrelevant or eye-rolling inducing border-line trolling (i'm not referring to you only). i think shawne dealt with those so i do not feel the need to repeat in my words what has already been said.
"That's absolutely false - the dialogue options that activate romances are clearly-worded, and breaking up runs along the lines of "We need to end this now". They'll ask why, and you have a whole bunch of options to choose from like "I'm interested in someone else", "I'm sorry, it's just not working" or "I don't want to talk about it."
I think it is too easy to get into a relationship in DA2 and that is why the I find the comic fun because of how it exaggerate how "Hi" is enough to bed Anders. It is a joke, it's meant to be fun. There is no need to break it down to how it is false, It is a comical exaggeration. Hope those words did not strike you as to "fancy".
@Shawne "Then why are you discussing this here and not on the Modding subforum? Why pose this as a request to the devs?"
Obviously you did not read the full discussion. I/we were discussing romances and I said that I do not like how the Dorn romance works(or any for that matter) and later asked if there was any way the option to "turn off" romances could be integrated and if it couldn't I asked if any one know how to manually turn it off or if there is a mod for this.
@Shawne "No, you are limiting your options. If you're unable or unwilling to deal with the fact that some characters exist as potential romances (despite that - as has already been pointed out - no one forces anything on you, this is a complete fabrication), you can choose from the 17 NPCs who are not potential romances."
In a way that is true, but I do not want to limit myself without compromising my story. That is why I requested this totally fair optional request that did not even have to be integrated, thanks to @dee.
@Shawne "And here we are, discussing the merits of that request. What's the problem?"
You are saying I'm forcing this change on everyone? Which is untrue. If I would ask for a button in the game menu which would turn all humans green and it would be integrated. Would that ruin your game if it was by default turned off? No it will not. But If someone gets a crazy idea involving some green skin virus they could simply click that button and make their story come true. But if that person asked for an in game npc to come up to your character when you entered Naskel and ask if you want the green plague in their game. That would force it on you and possibly ruin your story even if the options would be as simple as "yes" or "no".
@Shawne "BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. You are asking to implement a possible state of gameplay in which plot variables that already exist never trigger. By definition this removes a choice the player faces when a potential romance comes into play: do you activate the romance or reject it? That's a roleplaying decision you make in-game and in-character. If it never comes up, that is one less choice you can make."
(Hope you don't mind me capitalizing your two first sentences) So my opinion is wrong? Or is my request wrong? Or is it wrong that I ask for this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpdZwuyEmRk
I would like the option to make the romances optional and thus allowing my own story to play. That allow infinite amount or stories and infinite amount of options. I can't be wrong. It's as simple as that, because I do it pretty much all the time and while doing it I bumped into this problem and asked for a way to solve it without it touching my story.
@Shawne "...an optional component of the game bothers you, you don't want to deal with it..."
If I have to deal with it it's not optional, may be the closest thing we'll ever get to "fact" in this discussion of opinions that will never be forced to interact beyond this pointless rambling. But I like Dorn and I like Neera but I don't like that they are "fixed" into how they are, I want the option to make them more moldable. You really do not seem to like even the option of options? Kinda reminds me of asperger syndrome. To despise any kind of liquid through processes because it may bring change. But that is just as off topic as HPD or HPPD.
But as I already said, I have my fix now, again thanks to @dee and hopefully your game or mind did not take any damage.
But as a little tip here is the immortal words of Morpheus: "Set your mind free"
I sincerely hope that this discussion is over since we do not seem to agree on any plane, no doubt because my opinion is wrong but hey, that is also an opinion, yours in fact. If that is not just my opinion. That really reminds me of some discussion I had... Wonder when? Let us move on.
@Aron740 i agree with shawne because IMO he leads rational, mature discussion without resorting to insults, and i happen to have more or less same views on the matter.
@Shawne "Because you're wrong. It's as simple as that" Mature? Rational?
Really? I do not care what side you take that is totally up to you or anyone but just, really?
When did i fall down to insults (Are you referring to me?)? If so please i beg you, quote me on that so I can correct my intention.
I think it is too easy to get into a relationship in DA2 and that is why the I find the comic fun because of how it exaggerate how "Hi" is enough to bed Anders. It is a joke, it's meant to be fun. There is no need to break it down to how it is false, It is a comical exaggeration. Hope those words did not strike you as to "fancy".
@LadyRhian's reference was to DA:O, not DA2. And, as has already been pointed out, it's not even true for DA2: if you don't click on the big glowing heart, nothing happens. How much simpler does it need to be?
Obviously you did not read the full discussion. I/we were discussing romances and I said that I do not like how the Dorn romance works(or any for that matter) and later asked if there was any way the option to "turn off" romances could be integrated and if it couldn't I asked if any one know how to manually turn it off or if there is a mod for this.
And that is exactly where you're contradicting yourself. I'll reiterate one last time: you can have any opinion you like on how the romances work or whether they work at all, that's perfectly legitimate. You can also explore options to deactivate romances for your personal copy of the game. But when you ask that this be integrated into the game, you're imposing a certain viewpoint on the rest of us: namely, that the romance storylines carry the same weight in-game as the Gore button in the Options menu. That's going a step beyond merely stating your opinion.
(Hope you don't mind me capitalizing your two first sentences) So my opinion is wrong? Or is my request wrong? Or is it wrong that I ask for this?
If you're going to engage in a debate, it helps to keep track of what you actually say. To wit, this is your statement:
How could making something easily "removable" limit choice? If anything it will open up at least two possible stories for every romance that is "removable".
This is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact. And as a statement of fact, it is incorrect: removing triggers for plot variables that already exist means the player has fewer choices, not more.
@Aron740 i said i'm not referring to you only, but i didn't think you specifically insulted or trolled anybody. i simply generalized my opinion, to avoid further pointless off-topic discussion (ironically).
and "Because you're wrong. It's as simple as that" comment does not stand by itself as you make it out to be. as far as i can see, it is followed with arguments.
Although I tire of the whole 'we want gay romances' thing in games, as a whole, I really hope that if/when such things are in the game, that the PC gets an option like DA:O - sort of a 'thanks but I don't roll that way' thing. Similarly, I think gay/lesbian NPC's should always be - not 'we prefer whatever the PC is'. I guess I see the NPC's as entities, and therefore want consistency between game plays. I really did not like how DA ][ NPC's (all of them) seemed to just want sex with the PC regardless. I realize this bypasses 'why can't I romance (X)?' posts on forums, but I feel it makes them more real if they have consistent preference.
Anyway, Dorn is supposedly bisexual (don't know because I haven't (and probably won't) play with him - not because of sexuality but because of alignment). No knowledge of the others. Anyway, if it isn't added, I'm sure it's moddable.
@Shawne You are right, let us finish here. I do not seem to be able to explain to you what "I" exchange the removed romances for and how they it fills the void just as good as a professional story. May just fail since just like I could probably never explain the feeling of hunger to someone who never felt it.
On the "fewer choices", I will try to explain it by this metaphor, hope it works:
If you only allowed yourself to eat chicken and nothing else, you will only experience the taste of chicken and every time you eat you will only have the option of eating chicken. But if you for once allowed yourself for four days to eat anything else but chicken you will lose the choice of eating chicken. But that will open you up to eating other things like fish, tomatoes, cucumber, pork etc. So by removing your vow of only eating chicken you will have countless more "options" to chose from.
So to translate this to baldur's gate(ish):
At least once under every playthrough with Dorn in your party, he will hit on you. But if you would have an option to remove that repeated event his character would be open to change. You could make a story of how he falls for Viconia and how the relationship between Dorn and the Pc grows to that of siblings or that of great friends or partners in crime etc. The options are limitless even if you lost the option to bed him. But if it is not an option the story will always begin the same way: Dorn hits on you and then goes for Viconia, Dorn hits on you then become your most trusted friend, Dorn hits on you and then he gets mad at you for how you are too nice to everybody and challenges you to a duel which ends with the Pcs death. But because of Dorns pact of power with a demon the demon manages to steal and infuse the essence of bhaal from the pc into Dorn and since both the pc and Dorn are lookalikes Dorn takes over the Pcs role and fights Sarevok in his place to no ones but the now dead party's knowledge. (This will be my next playthrough!)
But just like how you one day can chose to eat chicken again, you can still bed Dorn or Neera to get the "option" that you for some reason seem think will be lost?
This added flexibility will just add, since it is just an "option" to make it removable. And if you just want to eat chicken on every playthrough or at least smell it, you still have the option to do so. Nothing to lose, only to gain.
But as I said I have this implemented and my story is flowing without any rocks to hinder it, even if it can flow past them, nothing will no longer disturb its shiny surface. Would still like to have the option pick up the stones without taking a bath in code but If no one cares about the stones enough to make them easy to remove then I can without too much trouble remove them myself before every adventure trip as I already said. This was secondly just a matter of convenience that I though other would also be interested in.
why is this a issue less than 2% of the population is gay
The less than 2% stat is heavily contested, so I wouldn't tout it so much, makes you look silly. Furthermore, if you listen to the lecture given by David Gaider at GDC (http://gdcvault.com/play/1017796/Sex-in-Video) he says that according to the statistics gathered by Bioware and EA from the games 24% of the people who played DA played a gay romance at least once. That's 12 times 2%...
I think it is too easy to get into a relationship in DA2 and that is why the I find the comic fun because of how it exaggerate how "Hi" is enough to bed Anders. It is a joke, it's meant to be fun. There is no need to break it down to how it is false, It is a comical exaggeration. Hope those words did not strike you as to "fancy".
@LadyRhian's reference was to DA:O, not DA2. And, as has already been pointed out, it's not even true for DA2: if you don't click on the big glowing heart, nothing happens. How much simpler does it need to be?
Not only that, but even if you DO press the big glowing heart in the first conversation with Anders, guess what? Nothing happens. You have to press it in his second and third conversations as well. So you really have to work at it to get a chance to romance him.
@Aron740: What it comes down to is this: your entire argument is based on speculation and conjecture.
Why do you think Dorn will hit on you? He doesn't in BG:EE. Ever. The closest you get is him wondering if the two of you might have something in the future, and that only happens if you consistently choose dialogue options that are flirtatious and/or flattering. If you don't, then he and the PC have exactly the relationship you describe (ie: partners in crime).
Why do you think that removing the romance will magically make him develop a storyline with Viconia? That's content you'd have to script in addition to removing the romance. Who gets to script that content? You? Because while you seem to have a very elaborate scenario in mind, you make some rather broad assumptions about how people play BG2. Suppose Viconia isn't in the party? Suppose there are no women in the party at all? What happens then? (The answer, of course, is: Exactly what happens if you don't flirt with Dorn: the romance isn't triggered and his storyline continues.)
Most importantly, how exactly does a non-interactive relationship between two NPCs allow the player greater depth of roleplaying? You have no input on Khalid's and Jaheira's marriage, or Korgan's crush on Mazzy, there are no choices to be made there. But I suppose as long as it's not happening to your character against your will (as if that's something that can happen in a RPG, ever), that's perfectly justified?
You're trying to make an issue out of something that is entirely within your ability to control. If you don't want to romance NPCs, don't initiate romances. If you're worried specific NPCs will "force" your character into compromising situations, don't take those NPCs with you. If you want characters tailor-made to your specifications, create your own party and venture forth.
Do you know what all these options have in common? They require you to make active decisions rather than flip a switch. Almost like you're "playing a role in a game", as it were.
@callimachus: Honestly, I'm starting to suspect the issue so many people had with DA2 was that other players were romancing Anders as male Hawkes - otherwise, how would they even know it was possible? I mean, if you don't want your Hawke to be a lesbian, you could maybe try not flirting with Isabela or Merrill? Just a thought.
@Aron740: What it comes down to is this: your entire argument is based on speculation and conjecture.
Why do you think Dorn will hit on you? He doesn't in BG:EE. Ever. The closest you get is him wondering if the two of you might have something in the future, and that only happens if you consistently choose dialogue options that are flirtatious and/or flattering. If you don't, then he and the PC have exactly the relationship you describe (ie: partners in crime).
Why do you think that removing the romance will magically make him develop a storyline with Viconia? That's content you'd have to script in addition to removing the romance. Who gets to script that content? You? Because while you seem to have a very elaborate scenario in mind, you make some rather broad assumptions about how people play BG2. Suppose Viconia isn't in the party? Suppose there are no women in the party at all? What happens then? (The answer, of course, is: Exactly what happens if you don't flirt with Dorn: the romance isn't triggered and his storyline continues.)
Most importantly, how exactly does a non-interactive relationship between two NPCs allow the player greater depth of roleplaying? You have no input on Khalid's and Jaheira's marriage, or Korgan's crush on Mazzy, there are no choices to be made there. But I suppose as long as it's not happening to your character against your will (as if that's something that can happen in a RPG, ever), that's perfectly justified?
You're trying to make an issue out of something that is entirely within your ability to control. If you don't want to romance NPCs, don't initiate romances. If you're worried specific NPCs will "force" your character into compromising situations, don't take those NPCs with you. If you want characters tailor-made to your specifications, create your own party and venture forth.
Do you know what all these options have in common? They require you to make active decisions rather than flip a switch. Almost like you're "playing a role in a game", as it were.
I seriously give up, you do not seem to understand how hard I even try. I have wasted enough time on you, live in your bubble for all I care. Let us just say I have pens and papers beside me and you should try em out.
@callimachus: Honestly, I'm starting to suspect the issue so many people had with DA2 was that other players were romancing Anders as male Hawkes - otherwise, how would they even know it was possible? I mean, if you don't want your Hawke to be a lesbian, you could maybe try not flirting with Isabela or Merrill? Just a thought.
The whole bisexual thing in DA2 is so bogus as well. I mean Isabela does indeed refer to herself as bisexual, and Anders will make a comment to a male Hawke that can be construed that he is pansexual, but Merrill and Fenris make no reference to their sexuality. The only way to know they can be romanced by the sex you are not playing is through metagaming.
The whole bisexual thing in DA2 is so bogus as well. I mean Isabela does indeed refer to herself as bisexual, and Anders will make a comment to a male Hawke that can be construed that he is pansexual, but Merrill and Fenris make no reference to their sexuality. The only way to know they can be romanced by the sex you are not playing is through metagaming.
And that's before you even get into the whole notion of "parallel Thedas" - unlike Mass Effect, where it's your character that's transferred from one game to the next, with Dragon Age it's the world that gets imported. So in one version of Thedas Alistair is king; in another he's a Grey Warden; in another Anora had him executed. If you can accept that different versions of Hawke exist in different versions of Thedas, there's really no contradiction with the companions: Fenris can be gay in one world and straight in another, etc.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. To each their own playthrough.
I seriously give up, you do not seem to understand how hard I even try. I have wasted enough time on you, live in your bubble for all I care. Let us just say I have pens and papers beside me and you should try em out.
That's a rather unfortunate turn of phrase coming from someone who needs an "off" switch to avoid dealing with fictional romances.
@callimachus I haven't played DA yet, but I thought the comic was riffing on the aspect that the only way to turn down a romance option there is to be nasty to the person (i've gotten this impression from people who HAVE played it), and thus, unless you turn them down in a nasty/fairly cruel way... romance happens. It's nice if this isn't so.
@LadyRhian, I can attest to that. It's not just homosexual romances, either. It's something I really hate when everything seems to be going so well then, out of the blue, romance time. I had a similar situation in the first Mass Effect game, and I was faced with Liara and Ashley.
... I didn't even want a romance... I thought I was just being nice up until that point.
I want a way to let my companions know I'm not interested, but in a nice way, and not a way that just abruptly cuts off any future dialogue. I tried telling Aerie that it wasn't a good time, or I wasn't interested, and it killed all her dialogue off after the third of fourth time. What I would really like is for a friendship line to continue if you let a character down without any drama.
Anders romance is easy enough to fall into, actually, and I did it once by accident, then again to find out where it triggers. I still haven't been able to find out exactly where, but it seems to trigger at some point where the reply isn't actually marked by a heart; rather it is just the 'good' option (to avoid it, you should pick the neutral option on just about all of Anders' dialogue). It appears that if you are nice to Anders all the way along, that's enough to be taken as being interested in having a romance. The problem is once you start on that path, even unknowingly, it's difficult to tell a character that you're not interested because, assumedly, it's like you've been leading them on. Applies to all romantic interests, and it's not really something I'm fond of. I'd like an option where it's clear that it's the point of no return and, at that point, you still have the option to turn them down nicely.
I welcome all sorts of romances in-game, but that really depends on how they are dealt with. What I don't really like the idea of are those 'ninja-mances' (I think that's what they called it on the BioWare Social Network).
@Trondon80 How, how, how did you accidentally fall into a romance (any romance) in DA2? Seriously, how? It must take enormous effort to ignore the big shiney gold heart!
So let me tell you a secret on how to avoid romance in DA2. Do not pick the dialogue option with a big gold shiney heart!
The only way to start a romance with Anders is to pick a heart during his "questioning beliefs" quest in Act 2. If you flirt with him anywhere before that, it doesn't count. If you don't flirt with him in that quest romance will not start. I looked to see if there were any bugs of the type you described, but none have been reported (there were bugs in his romance, which were fixed, but not in its initiation.
@typo_tilly: Ironically enough, the symbols were implemented in DA2 because some players complained that DA:O's dialogue was unclear at some points (ie: they "accidentally" romanced a character by saying something they interpreted differently). So with DA2, the text is only an approximation of what Hawke will actually say, and the symbol indicates the intention behind it.
@Trondon How, how, how did you accidentally fall into a romance (any romance) in DA2? Seriously, how? It must take enormous effort to ignore the big shiney gold heart!
Because I found that there are at least two times in which the romance can be triggered. I assume this is for when a player decided to just go with the flow to ignore the first time. For example, on my first playthrough back when the game was released, I clicked on "I wish I could help," but I still got into a romance later. I had heard about all the discussion from other people about the so-called Anders ninja-mance, so I purposefully avoided anything that looked like a romance (I tend to ignore all potential romantic interests on my first playthrough). At one stage in his dialogue, there is a point in which you have only the options of actually initiating the romance or cutting it off. If you cut it off at this point, I believe it was said to alter how the game can end (I'm not sure about that). Whether that is a bug in the dialogue further along the line or something that was purposeful, I do not know. But literally 'being nice' to Anders can initiate the dialogue. I was told that if I wanted to avoid that romance, all I had to do was use the neutral/middle option. I keep meaning to go back and play it, but I don't have the time these days.
@Troodon80: I think you're misremembering. The dialogue you're referring to is in Act 3, where Anders asks you for a favor and your only options are to agree or refuse: it does have a very minor impact on how the endgame scenario plays out (because Hawke becomes peripherally responsible for what Anders does at the end) but that triggers whether you're in a romance with him or not. @callimachus is correct: you cannot trigger the Anders romance by choosing non-flirtatious dialogue options.
@Troodon80: I think you're misremembering. The dialogue you're referring to is in Act 3, where Anders asks you for a favor and your only options are to agree or refuse: it does have a very minor impact on how the endgame scenario plays out (because Hawke becomes peripherally responsible for what Anders does at the end) but that triggers whether you're in a romance with him or not. @callimachus is correct: you cannot trigger the Anders romance by choosing non-flirtatious dialogue options.
Perhaps it's just unpatched or something, but I find it odd that a lot of people - myself included - have had the issue where you end up triggering a romance unintentionally. You are correct that I misremembered, though. The option did have a heart. Apparently there is a part where Anders asks if his friendliness is making you uncomfortable. Someone else posted it on the BioWare Social Network. I don't understand why selecting "No" would trigger the romance. "No" is hardly a flirtatious reply, and yet it apparently is. It's this part that the comic actually references. In my mind, I didn't find any discomfort by his friendliness, but I also didn't expect that to initiate a romance.
The fact that people require a walkthrough in order to not initiate the romance and not gain rivalry points, and that the last option on the list to do so is clearly marked by a heart symbol, shows it's bad design however you look at it.
@Troodon80: That walkthrough is more about avoiding rivalry points than avoiding the romance itself, which I find rather odd for two reasons - not everyone takes the Friendship path with Anders, and even if you do, you can easily max out his Friendship points by the middle of Act 2. In this particular situation, players who aren't interested in Anders are meant to take the Rivalry hit and keep playing, and the subject of romance never comes up.
@Troodon80: That walkthrough is more about avoiding rivalry points than avoiding the romance itself, which I find rather odd for two reasons - not everyone takes the Friendship path with Anders, and even if you do, you can easily max out his Friendship points by the middle of Act 2. In this particular situation, players who aren't interested in Anders are meant to take the Rivalry hit and keep playing, and the subject of romance never comes up.
The whole point about the discussion so far, at least where I'm coming from, is that I don't want rivalry points. I'd like an option whereby I can say to any romantic interest, not just Anders, "hey, look, I do like you, but not in that way," without sounding or acting like an arsehole about it, preferably early on so that it can develop as a friendship instead of coming to an abrupt end. Rivalry points, in my mind, suggest that the player said something to offend/insult/disparage, and it goes against my play-style in two ways.
1) I didn't have any discomfort when he asked about his friendliness towards the player. I thought he genuinely meant being friendly, so why would I say anything else other than 'no'? 2) I don't want rivalry points, I know that the points can be made up soon after, but offending isn't something I want to do, full stop.
The walkthrough is meant as a guide to not getting those rivalry points and avoiding the romance. It's in the title of the article "How to Not Start the Romance with Anders in Act 1."
Apparently, the only option here is to shy away from the romance or pursue it. The player pursues it simply by being nice and saying that they are not experiencing any discomfort by Anders' friendship. The player can take the opposite path and not pursue it basically by saying that they are made uncomfortable; which, in turn, sounds like homophobia, which happens to be the word that was thrown around a lot on the BioWare forums.
@Troodon80, look at this this way: Anders just made a pass at you. You rejected him. He was hurt. I think this is a rather natural and realistic portrayal of a character, most people are hurt when they are rejected. The amount of hurt he experiences (as expressed by rivalry points) depends on the amount of rudeness you express toward him. And the fact is, you CAN avoid rivalry points altogether, even if this is not easy. But that's actually quite natural - it's not so easy to reject someone without hurting them. If you are not rude, the bump in rivalry is small, and can easily be overcome (I actually managed to max Anders' friendship in the end of act 1 in most of my walkthroughs, or early in act 2 at the latest, in fact the only NPCs that are easier to max out are Varric and Aveline). As a curious note - it is easier for a female Hawke to let Anders down with no rivalry than it is for a male.
But I think we diverted from BG long enough...
Edit: Now that I read the "walkthrough" you attached, I must admit finishing that conversation without gaining rivalry is even easier than I remembered. Just press the refusal option. What? You want Anders to LIKE your rejection of him?
@Troodon80: Honestly? It sounds like you're more interested in metagaming than... well, gaming. You never want Rivalry points? Ever? Fenris and Sebastian will almost always have opposite reactions to your choices than Anders and Merrill; I'm rather sure Aveline and Isabela are the same; and Carver is practically impossible to please. A playthrough that achieves 100% Friendship with all party members requires that your main character be inconsistent to the point of ridicule.
There are points in the game where the decisions you make result in Rivalry points. It doesn't mean your party members are going to run off and betray you, or that you've blocked yourself off from content; unless you're in the last quarter of the game, you can make up for "losses" of Friendship with one or two subquests. Personally, I found the "give-and-take" of each character to be much more dynamic than the assumption that everyone must always be agreeable and friendly with you no matter what position you take...
@callimachus, how is that even a discussion point? Of course I don't expect him to be giddy and ecstatic about being rejected, but it's early in the game. Act 1. He's talking about being friendly, and the option of rejecting friendship comes along. Why would I do that? It's easy to say from a meta gaming point of view that this is a romance trigger, but like I say below, I didn't realise that when I first played the game.
@shawne, it's fine to say in hindsight, from a meta gaming point of view, that everything is fine, select option X and get the rivalry points. But when it's your first play-through, you don't know these things. I'm telling you what I found from a non-meta gaming point of view. I didn't realise that Act 1 was going to be the start of the romance. Like I said, I thought I was being open-minded, tolerant, and friendly. But, apparently, I'm supposed to be the opposite if I want to avoid his romance.
It's ironic that you should mention meta gaming, since everything you've said so far is meta gaming. Then you tell everyone else that it's easy to avoid, just do X, Y, and Z. When it's your first play-through, and you haven't researched this stuff (I tried very hard to avoid spoilers, but still heard that Anders romance was incredibly easy to initiate, as well as other minor tid-bits - but didn't have any more details on that issue to go on due to it being the second or third day the game was released), it's not quite so obvious.
I don't expect the characters to be agreeable with every decision I make, far from it, but when I get rivalry points for telling someone that I feel uncomfortable around them when I don't, I don't really see the point. Sure, I could see it after I played the game, but not on my first run.
I don't know about you, but I still think it's bad design to not have more options. I don't mind the option to romance him being there, I just want to let a potential romance down easy and before things escalate into some sort of drama.
As a curious note - it is easier for a female Hawke to let Anders down with no rivalry than it is for a male.
Which, in my mind, begs the question as to why it's so difficult with the male Hawke.
@callimachus, RE: Deviation from BG. I was originally replying to another person when this whole thing actually become a debate. I specifically reference Anders previously due to him being the only romance option I came across in my four play-throughs of Dragon Age 2 where you couldn't end it amicably from the onset without gaining rivalry points and/or saying something that didn't really feel 'right' at the time. As far as I can remember, Merrill gave the player rivalry points for refusing to do certain quests, but the option to turn her down at the start didn't come across as dickish (unless you specifically wanted to (yay for multi-choice)), and the same with Isabela. Why did Anders dialogue replies have to come across as being polarised?
As for Baldur's Gate, I'm can't talk about that. NDA and all <.< (which is part of the reason why I'm skirting around that being the topic, and was only replying to that original comic and comment).
All I said originally is that I wanted the romances to be done well, and that the player shouldn't come across as a rude or ignorant character unless that is the choice of the player (one of multiple choices that a player could pick). That applies to all games that have romances in them, not even just the Dragon Age series.
@callimachus, how is that even a discussion point? Of course I don't expect him to be giddy and ecstatic about being rejected, but it's early in the game. Act 1. He's talking about being friendly, and the option of rejecting friendship comes along. Why would I do that? It's easy to say from a meta gaming point of view that this is a romance trigger, but like I say below, I didn't realise that when I first played the game.
Except that that conversation has nothing to do with friendship... This has nothing to do with metagaming... I just do not understand for the life of me how you can mistake what he says as anything other than a flirty come-on... I immediately understood he was coming on to my character... And when you see all the hearts/broken hearts options, how can you not know you're in the middle of romance-town?
You know, now as I was writing the above, I suddenly had an epiphany, I never understood how people could confuse Anders (and Zevran's) dialogues as anything other than come-ons or flirts, but I think I got it. It's simple heterocentrism. Now, I don't mean to offend or insult anyone, heterocentrism is not the same as homophobia (although admittedly the two are related in some ways), heterocentrism is simply the assumption that everyone you meet is heterosexual. Try to imagine a woman saying what Anders is saying there (in the tone he is saying it there), and there is no way to confuse this with friends talk.
As for the woman thing, well... I guess Anders is more attracted to male Hawke than to female Hawke
Comments
i'm not denying your right to request what pleases you, but feature requests are open to debate among members of the forum. i simply think making romances optional via button is unnecessary, since they are optional content already.
many other arguments are either irrelevant or eye-rolling inducing border-line trolling (i'm not referring to you only). i think shawne dealt with those so i do not feel the need to repeat in my words what has already been said.
@Shawne I wish you a great read!
"That's absolutely false - the dialogue options that activate romances are clearly-worded, and breaking up runs along the lines of "We need to end this now". They'll ask why, and you have a whole bunch of options to choose from like "I'm interested in someone else", "I'm sorry, it's just not working" or "I don't want to talk about it."
I think it is too easy to get into a relationship in DA2 and that is why the I find the comic fun because of how it exaggerate how "Hi" is enough to bed Anders. It is a joke, it's meant to be fun. There is no need to break it down to how it is false, It is a comical exaggeration. Hope those words did not strike you as to "fancy".
@Shawne
"Then why are you discussing this here and not on the Modding subforum? Why pose this as a request to the devs?"
Obviously you did not read the full discussion. I/we were discussing romances and I said that I do not like how the Dorn romance works(or any for that matter) and later asked if there was any way the option to "turn off" romances could be integrated and if it couldn't I asked if any one know how to manually turn it off or if there is a mod for this.
@Shawne
"No, you are limiting your options. If you're unable or unwilling to deal with the fact that some characters exist as potential romances (despite that - as has already been pointed out - no one forces anything on you, this is a complete fabrication), you can choose from the 17 NPCs who are not potential romances."
In a way that is true, but I do not want to limit myself without compromising my story. That is why I requested this totally fair optional request that did not even have to be integrated, thanks to @dee.
@Shawne
"And here we are, discussing the merits of that request. What's the problem?"
You are saying I'm forcing this change on everyone? Which is untrue. If I would ask for a button in the game menu which would turn all humans green and it would be integrated. Would that ruin your game if it was by default turned off? No it will not. But If someone gets a crazy idea involving some green skin virus they could simply click that button and make their story come true.
But if that person asked for an in game npc to come up to your character when you entered Naskel and ask if you want the green plague in their game. That would force it on you and possibly ruin your story even if the options would be as simple as "yes" or "no".
@Shawne
"BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. You are asking to implement a possible state of gameplay in which plot variables that already exist never trigger. By definition this removes a choice the player faces when a potential romance comes into play: do you activate the romance or reject it? That's a roleplaying decision you make in-game and in-character. If it never comes up, that is one less choice you can make."
(Hope you don't mind me capitalizing your two first sentences)
So my opinion is wrong? Or is my request wrong? Or is it wrong that I ask for this?
I would like the option to make the romances optional and thus allowing my own story to play. That allow infinite amount or stories and infinite amount of options.
I can't be wrong. It's as simple as that, because I do it pretty much all the time and while doing it I bumped into this problem and asked for a way to solve it without it touching my story.
@Shawne
"...an optional component of the game bothers you, you don't want to deal with it..."
If I have to deal with it it's not optional, may be the closest thing we'll ever get to "fact" in this discussion of opinions that will never be forced to interact beyond this pointless rambling.
But I like Dorn and I like Neera but I don't like that they are "fixed" into how they are, I want the option to make them more moldable.
You really do not seem to like even the option of options? Kinda reminds me of asperger syndrome. To despise any kind of liquid through processes because it may bring change. But that is just as off topic as HPD or HPPD.
But as I already said, I have my fix now, again thanks to @dee and hopefully your game or mind did not take any damage.
But as a little tip here is the immortal words of Morpheus:
"Set your mind free"
I sincerely hope that this discussion is over since we do not seem to agree on any plane, no doubt because my opinion is wrong but hey, that is also an opinion, yours in fact. If that is not just my opinion.
That really reminds me of some discussion I had... Wonder when? Let us move on.
"Because you're wrong. It's as simple as that"
Mature? Rational?
Really? I do not care what side you take that is totally up to you or anyone but just, really?
When did i fall down to insults (Are you referring to me?)? If so please i beg you, quote me on that so I can correct my intention.
How could making something easily "removable" limit choice? If anything it will open up at least two possible stories for every romance that is "removable".
This is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact. And as a statement of fact, it is incorrect: removing triggers for plot variables that already exist means the player has fewer choices, not more. And if the romances weren't already optional, I'd concede you have a point of concern. But they are, and you don't. So we're going to stop here.
and "Because you're wrong. It's as simple as that" comment does not stand by itself as you make it out to be. as far as i can see, it is followed with arguments.
Anyway, Dorn is supposedly bisexual (don't know because I haven't (and probably won't) play with him - not because of sexuality but because of alignment). No knowledge of the others. Anyway, if it isn't added, I'm sure it's moddable.
You are right, let us finish here. I do not seem to be able to explain to you what "I" exchange the removed romances for and how they it fills the void just as good as a professional story. May just fail since just like I could probably never explain the feeling of hunger to someone who never felt it.
On the "fewer choices", I will try to explain it by this metaphor, hope it works:
If you only allowed yourself to eat chicken and nothing else, you will only experience the taste of chicken and every time you eat you will only have the option of eating chicken.
But if you for once allowed yourself for four days to eat anything else but chicken you will lose the choice of eating chicken. But that will open you up to eating other things like fish, tomatoes, cucumber, pork etc. So by removing your vow of only eating chicken you will have countless more "options" to chose from.
So to translate this to baldur's gate(ish):
At least once under every playthrough with Dorn in your party, he will hit on you. But if you would have an option to remove that repeated event his character would be open to change. You could make a story of how he falls for Viconia and how the relationship between Dorn and the Pc grows to that of siblings or that of great friends or partners in crime etc. The options are limitless even if you lost the option to bed him.
But if it is not an option the story will always begin the same way: Dorn hits on you and then goes for Viconia, Dorn hits on you then become your most trusted friend, Dorn hits on you and then he gets mad at you for how you are too nice to everybody and challenges you to a duel which ends with the Pcs death. But because of Dorns pact of power with a demon the demon manages to steal and infuse the essence of bhaal from the pc into Dorn and since both the pc and Dorn are lookalikes Dorn takes over the Pcs role and fights Sarevok in his place to no ones but the now dead party's knowledge.
(This will be my next playthrough!)
But just like how you one day can chose to eat chicken again, you can still bed Dorn or Neera to get the "option" that you for some reason seem think will be lost?
This added flexibility will just add, since it is just an "option" to make it removable. And if you just want to eat chicken on every playthrough or at least smell it, you still have the option to do so.
Nothing to lose, only to gain.
But as I said I have this implemented and my story is flowing without any rocks to hinder it, even if it can flow past them, nothing will no longer disturb its shiny surface.
Would still like to have the option pick up the stones without taking a bath in code but If no one cares about the stones enough to make them easy to remove then I can without too much trouble remove them myself before every adventure trip as I already said. This was secondly just a matter of convenience that I though other would also be interested in.
Furthermore, if you listen to the lecture given by David Gaider at GDC (http://gdcvault.com/play/1017796/Sex-in-Video) he says that according to the statistics gathered by Bioware and EA from the games 24% of the people who played DA played a gay romance at least once. That's 12 times 2%...
Why do you think Dorn will hit on you? He doesn't in BG:EE. Ever. The closest you get is him wondering if the two of you might have something in the future, and that only happens if you consistently choose dialogue options that are flirtatious and/or flattering. If you don't, then he and the PC have exactly the relationship you describe (ie: partners in crime).
Why do you think that removing the romance will magically make him develop a storyline with Viconia? That's content you'd have to script in addition to removing the romance. Who gets to script that content? You? Because while you seem to have a very elaborate scenario in mind, you make some rather broad assumptions about how people play BG2. Suppose Viconia isn't in the party? Suppose there are no women in the party at all? What happens then? (The answer, of course, is: Exactly what happens if you don't flirt with Dorn: the romance isn't triggered and his storyline continues.)
Most importantly, how exactly does a non-interactive relationship between two NPCs allow the player greater depth of roleplaying? You have no input on Khalid's and Jaheira's marriage, or Korgan's crush on Mazzy, there are no choices to be made there. But I suppose as long as it's not happening to your character against your will (as if that's something that can happen in a RPG, ever), that's perfectly justified?
You're trying to make an issue out of something that is entirely within your ability to control. If you don't want to romance NPCs, don't initiate romances. If you're worried specific NPCs will "force" your character into compromising situations, don't take those NPCs with you. If you want characters tailor-made to your specifications, create your own party and venture forth.
Do you know what all these options have in common? They require you to make active decisions rather than flip a switch. Almost like you're "playing a role in a game", as it were.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. To each their own playthrough. That's a rather unfortunate turn of phrase coming from someone who needs an "off" switch to avoid dealing with fictional romances.
... I didn't even want a romance... I thought I was just being nice up until that point.
I want a way to let my companions know I'm not interested, but in a nice way, and not a way that just abruptly cuts off any future dialogue. I tried telling Aerie that it wasn't a good time, or I wasn't interested, and it killed all her dialogue off after the third of fourth time. What I would really like is for a friendship line to continue if you let a character down without any drama.
Anders romance is easy enough to fall into, actually, and I did it once by accident, then again to find out where it triggers. I still haven't been able to find out exactly where, but it seems to trigger at some point where the reply isn't actually marked by a heart; rather it is just the 'good' option (to avoid it, you should pick the neutral option on just about all of Anders' dialogue). It appears that if you are nice to Anders all the way along, that's enough to be taken as being interested in having a romance. The problem is once you start on that path, even unknowingly, it's difficult to tell a character that you're not interested because, assumedly, it's like you've been leading them on. Applies to all romantic interests, and it's not really something I'm fond of. I'd like an option where it's clear that it's the point of no return and, at that point, you still have the option to turn them down nicely.
I welcome all sorts of romances in-game, but that really depends on how they are dealt with. What I don't really like the idea of are those 'ninja-mances' (I think that's what they called it on the BioWare Social Network).
So let me tell you a secret on how to avoid romance in DA2. Do not pick the dialogue option with a big gold shiney heart!
The only way to start a romance with Anders is to pick a heart during his "questioning beliefs" quest in Act 2. If you flirt with him anywhere before that, it doesn't count. If you don't flirt with him in that quest romance will not start. I looked to see if there were any bugs of the type you described, but none have been reported (there were bugs in his romance, which were fixed, but not in its initiation.
The fact that people require a walkthrough in order to not initiate the romance and not gain rivalry points, and that the last option on the list to do so is clearly marked by a heart symbol, shows it's bad design however you look at it.
1) I didn't have any discomfort when he asked about his friendliness towards the player. I thought he genuinely meant being friendly, so why would I say anything else other than 'no'?
2) I don't want rivalry points, I know that the points can be made up soon after, but offending isn't something I want to do, full stop.
The walkthrough is meant as a guide to not getting those rivalry points and avoiding the romance. It's in the title of the article "How to Not Start the Romance with Anders in Act 1."
Apparently, the only option here is to shy away from the romance or pursue it. The player pursues it simply by being nice and saying that they are not experiencing any discomfort by Anders' friendship. The player can take the opposite path and not pursue it basically by saying that they are made uncomfortable; which, in turn, sounds like homophobia, which happens to be the word that was thrown around a lot on the BioWare forums.
If you are not rude, the bump in rivalry is small, and can easily be overcome (I actually managed to max Anders' friendship in the end of act 1 in most of my walkthroughs, or early in act 2 at the latest, in fact the only NPCs that are easier to max out are Varric and Aveline).
As a curious note - it is easier for a female Hawke to let Anders down with no rivalry than it is for a male.
But I think we diverted from BG long enough...
Edit: Now that I read the "walkthrough" you attached, I must admit finishing that conversation without gaining rivalry is even easier than I remembered. Just press the refusal option. What? You want Anders to LIKE your rejection of him?
There are points in the game where the decisions you make result in Rivalry points. It doesn't mean your party members are going to run off and betray you, or that you've blocked yourself off from content; unless you're in the last quarter of the game, you can make up for "losses" of Friendship with one or two subquests. Personally, I found the "give-and-take" of each character to be much more dynamic than the assumption that everyone must always be agreeable and friendly with you no matter what position you take...
@shawne, it's fine to say in hindsight, from a meta gaming point of view, that everything is fine, select option X and get the rivalry points. But when it's your first play-through, you don't know these things. I'm telling you what I found from a non-meta gaming point of view. I didn't realise that Act 1 was going to be the start of the romance. Like I said, I thought I was being open-minded, tolerant, and friendly. But, apparently, I'm supposed to be the opposite if I want to avoid his romance.
It's ironic that you should mention meta gaming, since everything you've said so far is meta gaming. Then you tell everyone else that it's easy to avoid, just do X, Y, and Z. When it's your first play-through, and you haven't researched this stuff (I tried very hard to avoid spoilers, but still heard that Anders romance was incredibly easy to initiate, as well as other minor tid-bits - but didn't have any more details on that issue to go on due to it being the second or third day the game was released), it's not quite so obvious.
I don't expect the characters to be agreeable with every decision I make, far from it, but when I get rivalry points for telling someone that I feel uncomfortable around them when I don't, I don't really see the point. Sure, I could see it after I played the game, but not on my first run.
I don't know about you, but I still think it's bad design to not have more options. I don't mind the option to romance him being there, I just want to let a potential romance down easy and before things escalate into some sort of drama. Which, in my mind, begs the question as to why it's so difficult with the male Hawke.
@callimachus, RE: Deviation from BG. I was originally replying to another person when this whole thing actually become a debate. I specifically reference Anders previously due to him being the only romance option I came across in my four play-throughs of Dragon Age 2 where you couldn't end it amicably from the onset without gaining rivalry points and/or saying something that didn't really feel 'right' at the time. As far as I can remember, Merrill gave the player rivalry points for refusing to do certain quests, but the option to turn her down at the start didn't come across as dickish (unless you specifically wanted to (yay for multi-choice)), and the same with Isabela. Why did Anders dialogue replies have to come across as being polarised?
As for Baldur's Gate, I'm can't talk about that. NDA and all <.< (which is part of the reason why I'm skirting around that being the topic, and was only replying to that original comic and comment).
All I said originally is that I wanted the romances to be done well, and that the player shouldn't come across as a rude or ignorant character unless that is the choice of the player (one of multiple choices that a player could pick). That applies to all games that have romances in them, not even just the Dragon Age series.
You know, now as I was writing the above, I suddenly had an epiphany, I never understood how people could confuse Anders (and Zevran's) dialogues as anything other than come-ons or flirts, but I think I got it. It's simple heterocentrism. Now, I don't mean to offend or insult anyone, heterocentrism is not the same as homophobia (although admittedly the two are related in some ways), heterocentrism is simply the assumption that everyone you meet is heterosexual. Try to imagine a woman saying what Anders is saying there (in the tone he is saying it there), and there is no way to confuse this with friends talk.
As for the woman thing, well... I guess Anders is more attracted to male Hawke than to female Hawke