Aww, this video's great. Never saw this spliced version before.  And yes, 1000 Words does fit the Solavellan relationship really well.

 

Watching the video made me think, what if Solas and Lavellan's romance ended like Shuyin and Lenne's? Ugh! Now that would be tragic.   

 

Ugh, indeed!  I guess you get that whenever a Game Over happens... but yeah, JRPG angst is OP.  Although,

  X-2 has mixed reviews, but I liked some of the things they did with the story, like having the former damsel (who gets pretty powerful in the prior game) going out to rescue her guy.  Having a "post-triumph" story as an epilogue to get a happier ending is a nice way to balance the big stories and the more personal ones.

 

Agreed about the fact the lore aspect brings a lot there. I loved the Cullen romance and it was so fluffy (and I heard Cassandra's romance is quite nice too. I might need to do a male IQ for her. I love her), but there were none of the future game-lore aspects to it. I think that went into Bioware's thinking when they added Solas' romance in that last year too. I don't feel like we didn't get enough, but I definitely need resolution now.

It's funny - Cullen's romance addition feels like a bonus for the loyal fans since DAO; I recall seeing his DA2 forum thread count higher than either of the actual male love interests' at some point.  But Solas' - even though it was added later "to make it sadder" - feels like a more  "canon" romance that gives the player more access to the lore.  (Funny that the default world state has a Dalish Warden - elven heroes are favored?)

 

Cass' romance was good enough that I now favor her over Morrigan... which says a lot since I was and still am a big Morrigan fangirl. But Cass is just so... imperfectly perfect. I don't know, but she presses all my buttons. Badass, not afraid to be a ****** when she needs to, but has a surprisingly soft side under all of that.

Your love of Cass is an inspiration, and that's exactly why I like her too.  I could see the romance with her being another "canon" possibility because of the political angle (I'm working on making her the Divine this time around).  (not implying other romances aren't important, just that these two are really embedded in the story and world).

 

I'm new to these threads (was avoiding spoilers for my first playthrough), so maybe it's been talked about already...  Both Solas and Cass emphasize one theme I've seen for a lot of the characters - no one is who they seem to be:

 

Solas:

Cass: Closet romantic

Iron Bull: not just a meathead

Cole: not-spirit, not-human

Dorian: Tevinter patriot, but not eeeevil

Blackwall: 'nuff said

 

Question: not that I'd want to ever break up with anyone, but I haven't seen any breakup options with Solas.  Is it a glitch, or does he just own me?

Since we're sharing Final Fantasy music in relation to Solas and Lavellan, have you heard Erutan's (katethegreat19) own rendition of Suteki Da Ne? Lyrics are not a translation of the original lyrics but it's just as sad and heartbreaking. And the song itself is sung quite nicely. 

Oh, that song brings back memories!  Lovely cover. 

 

1000 Words from FFX-2 fits nicely too; there are slightly different lyrics for Japanese and English versions, but the sentiment works well - dreams, words used to cover lies, lonely years.  Maybe good for a post-game DLC inspiration.

 

Lyrics (International):

 

Someone did a fanvid splicing together Japanese and English in one of the game's big cutscenes; it gives a feel for how both songs sounded:

I absolutely love them too. They're tarot cards, and you can learn about their character if you know about Tarot card similarities... Very cool.

Also, spoilers/speculation:

 

I collect Tarot card decks (all purchased!) and would buy the deck if it were available.  I really hope they sell them at some point - are the Inquisitor's editions even still available?  The analyses I have read comparing the cards to various trumps have been very thought-provoking.

 

Regarding the card and certain elves... I just read some fascinating discussions about Sera's card: (spoilers ahoy)

 

http://forum.bioware...is-sera-really/

http://shispan.tumbl...peculation-more

 

I was most affected by Dorian's romance card change - it was the first card change I saw in my first playthrough (I was playing full immersion, no spoilers), so it caught me by surprise and I just stared at it for a while. 

 

The second emotional kick was seeing Blackwall's card change. 

 

I am not really a fan of the Rune of Fortune idea because it breaks the limiting of money in-game, and money is the ultimate finite resource for everything else - you have to choose between gear, potions, runes, and XP using money as the currency. 

Although I wouldn't advocate for it being banned, I do see potential for this type of feature to skew game design such that in order to complete the game at harder difficulties, you are basically required to use it.  That is something I'd rather not have - I don't think that DLC items/features should be required or mostly necessary to finish harder difficulties of a game because that suggests that skill is not enough to finish, and that gear is needed (see: WoW). 

Besides, why have RoF when there are infinite gold glitches? 

I love a good shapeshifting system/class. I also enjoyed The Fade's shapeshifting style; coming from having a Druid main in WoW, the style was very familiar to me. I wonder though if having class-imitating shapeshifting (ie: golem as tank, wolf as rogue, etc) would break the group class balance that BW wants to encourage though...

Rawgrim wrote...

This could be solved with a toggle, i belive. if people want it they can play with that toggle on.

I prefer a slider, personally...

I agree with the others who would only consider this if there were quickslots and hotkeyed weapon-set changes available.  But even then, having real-time inventory goes against the style of pausing combat.  You don't have to allow all gear access during combat (I agree that armor changes don't make sense; accessories are negotiable), but unless there were a highly intuitive and low-clutter inventory system, you're not actually modeling reality.

There is actually a run/walk toggle key; I mistook it for autorun and went "Yeah!". Then I realized that it only let me walk... which I never found useful in-game.

When I want to feel in control, I use W + r-click. But when I'm just traversing (such as to find that last dang elfroot), autorun would be very nice to have.

Yes please! I destroyed the W (and to a lesser extent, ASD) key on my last laptop from playing another game with a lot of running (WoW); I felt sheepish getting the keyboard replaced at the store because only gaming would mess up that set of keys.

I prefer manual key-based running because the "go to point" click option is just clumsy, vertigo-inducing, and gets easily blocked by terrain/avatars. Autorun would be wonderful.

Not that I agree with it, but I recall some older games had systems where you could perform abilities based on equipped gear (FF IX?) and sometimes you could eventually learn them for use without the gear. That made it somewhat plausible that your character would "forget" an ability.

One big philosophical question is whether magical abilities should be considered comparable to physical abilities, or if they should be held to a completely different set of rules. The former is easier to make fair; the latter can make for a more interesting game, but takes careful world-building and balancing.

I would love to have a greater variety of skills, especially non-combat skills, in RPGs. I wonder if the trend towards focusing on combat skills came about because more encounters were accomplished through combat rather than through non-combat means (while giving equal XP). I remember in my very first copy of the DM D&D handbook that players were to be awarded XP if they solved an encounter, and fighting was only one of many ways usually.

Combat is easier to adjudicate, as are binary skill checks (mentioned above). I suspect that it could be doable to make a game with more flexibility, but it may lose out on some other features. It would be great if BW could try this in some future game, maybe not even in the DA series.

addiction21 wrote...

Balduer's Gate did not have a "tactical camera" it just had a 3 quarter isometric view locked in and all you got.

It's the locked view that keeps me from wanting to replay BG; I loaded it up recently and felt really cramped. 

thats1evildude wrote...

I vastly prefer the crafting system in DA2, as I really hate micro-managing my inventory and would really rather just pay for the end product. Also, they opened up poisons and bombs to classes other than rogues, which was nice.

As somone who likes a good crafting system, I agree with this.  Since crafting is very limited in DA, I prefer the streamlined version in DA2 so it doesn't require extra headache to just make some healing potions.  I found it interesting too that crafting ultimately used gold, the limited commodity, so I had to think about whether I wanted to be more pot/rune/poison heavy or to save that money for "capital investments" (gear).  Interesting tradeoff for different playstyles.

I'd like to keep cross-class combos and the Friendship-Rivalry system, though that could require some fine-tuning.

Agreed here - the ccc made it feel more like a party-based game and less like a "some random people thrown together" game.  The one downside was that I tended to favor a main party with one substitution since you wanted to build for certain CCC effects; I don't have a problem with that per se, but it made companion quests (where you had to take someone) a bit tougher because there was less coordination. 

I really liked Friendship-Rivalry from a philosophical perspective, but I agree with other discussions about adding a general "affinity" meter to show how much the companion actually respects you.

I also liked archery (as experienced through Varric only so far) much more than in DA:O, as well as the more interesting Mage trees (Shapeshifting was a waste).  Skill upgrades was nice too - again, it made you think about how you wanted your character's build to go and it allowed for more customization.

Funny, I had a college friend who also wanted to put more restrictions on magic use (such as a fail rate for all spells in D&D 3E, even for Magic Missile).

Choosing a set of spells before leaving town works well for high-roleplaying style games, where you can get XP and "defeat" enemies without necessarily killing them. It would be nice to see more options like that in some games (not necessarily DA) at some point, but nerfing damage dealing in high-throughput games doesn't fit. Would warriors get tired and run out of sword-swings?

I prefer to have a couple choices of set armors that do different things - like one set for speed and one for more damage. Having only one set per act (with a hidden set bonus) made me feel obligated to go for the set pieces and not bother with individual armor pieces.

I used to start with archer characters, but DA:O broke me of that tradition. Now I start with DW (warrior or rogue) in DA games; I feel like I have the best control over the battlefield. Gender will depend on open-mindedness of romanceable NPCs.

OP: I enjoy playing some games with that style of combat, and I recommend The Witcher* to get a good combat system of the style you're looking for. Fable* is pretty good too. Elder Scrolls* (Oblivion, Skyrim) is a lot more involved, but also would offer features you're looking for.

For something more like DA but more dynamic, I recommend Divinity II: Ego Draconis - there is a good amount of dodging, different styles of fighting and special abilities. Extra bonus: You get to be a dragon for some parts of the game.

Basically, the intensive action-combat elements you list tend to work better in single-character games where you don't have to manage a party. I'm all about game-pluralism - I'm not saying "GTFO". I'm just suggesting ways to get your fix for that where you'll get what you really want. Then we can enjoy DA3 for what it is.

*I've only played the first of these series, but it sounds like the later games follow in the style.

I agree with Gaider's perspective on the romances, and hope that he continues to aim for the balance he talks about. I don't want passive "cuddle bunnies" in DA, and I don't want collectible playmates. The positioning of romance in these games is good - there is enough to make it fun to engage in on the side of the plot, but not so much that it overwhelms the game. As far as the variety and selection of LIs go - I like that not everyone is romanceable. It would be easy for this to go really narcissistic if too many NPCs could be romanced; there are nice mods out there for that as well as more sex/romance-focused games.

I'm also okay with some tragic romance, but please don't go 100% Joss Whedon on us (as in, your LI dies as soon as you acknowledge your love). That would be too much.

Addendum: I also like that Gaider sees romances as one way to emotionally engage a player in the game and with the NPCs; it serves a purpose in the game experience rather than being just a feature.

FreshIstay wrote...

Very different. Women' s sexual anatomy the very organ that gives them sexual pleasure and brings life into this world is designed to be penetrated. I understand this doesnt mean all Women want that but it doesnt change the design, If my penis is inserted into a vagina a pregnancy can occur and life created. Men' s sexual anatomy is designed to penetrate, there's no receiver organ. Your butt is part of your digestive system, it' s a place where old food youve eaten leave' s in the form of a stinky lump. I understand guys can be jerks, but life is created by Man approaching Woman or vice versa. Man is not Woman, Woman is not Man. IMO when a man has been penetrated he has entered into a form of submission to another man, thus his masculinity is lesser, not to mention it' s reviling where the picther has put himself. Same for Women and Women IMO. but thats just sex, Love is much more then sex and anyone should be able to Love who they want and I wont fight against them, it' s our own goddamn right as human' s. 

Go take Sexual Anatomy 101 and get back to me.  Specfically, look for an organ in females starting with "c" and rhyming with "Doris" and in men starting with "p" and rhyming with "great".  Also, check the stats on sexual activity - gay sex is not just about what you think it is, and the majority of anal sex occurs in straight couples (a lot of guys apparently think girls just **** rainbows, and quite a few guys like being pegged).

See, when I hear perspectives like this, it makes me even more in favor of seeing s/s couples in game since it promotes more enlightening discussions like these! 

FreshIstay wrote...
What I was referring to was being hit t on by another man, in which my point stands, it's offensive for a man to make advances on me, it imply' s i look like i want to be penetrated or that i would put myself inside a filthy place....offensive.
However anyone chooses to live is fine, sexuality doesnt define someone' s character IMO, My Uncle has a Husband and I love them both, I just find thought of homsexual sex disgusting and resent being advanced upon by members of my own gender. Off topic...

Fascinating.  I wonder what it means when a man makes advances on a woman in your worldview...

Plaintiff wrote...

Underneath our synthetic skin, we have shiny black scales. Our vertebrae
protrude in a series of sharp spikes, extgending all the way to the
tips of our prehensile tails, and our jutting brows conceal glands just
above our eyes that can spray noxious acid with enough force to tip a
cow. While also melting the flesh from its skeleton in a matter of
seconds.

^This is beautiful. 

ElitePinecone wrote...

Besides, two guys is by definition twice the masculinity. It's a veritable beacon of wholesome manliness.

^ as is this.

Back to topic (probably a lost cause):  Someone earlier mentioned enjoying eavesdropping on bystanders - I like doing that too.  Including some bits of dialogue that serve as Rorschach tests for players (some would see them as s/s relationships, some would see them as platonic friendships) would be a great thing to have.

There should be a minstrel group in one of the taverns: The Darkspawn Chieftans.

RetroActiv wrote...
I definitly think you're reaching a bit with the "harem fantasy" accusation. There just wasn't nearly enough to it to dig that deep.  Nevertheless of course it's your opinion not to like it and naturally it would  merely be an option for those who are interested, "harem fantasy" or no. At the very least it's a lot more tasteful than tumbling with prostitutes or having meaningless one night stand orgies which are options currently available. My PC never partakes in such behavior but still I don't think it should be restricted just because i don't like it.

While it may not necessarily be "harem fantasy," there is definitely a bias in seeing MFF or FMF relationships as "normal" and even attractive while MMF, MFM are seen as "abnormal" or disgusting (I've heard "the Devil's Threesome" used before).  And looking at media (even across cultures - see Tenchi Muyo), there is definitely a higher visibility of multiple females settling down and accepting the need to "share" a male while the inverse is very rare (and usually involves lots of fighting).  So it is reasonable to critique the predominance of a particular script for MFF/MFM setups in media.

(Fair warning: I have counterarguments to the "it's historically accurate and biologically grounded" approach and I'm not afraid to use them)

whykikyouwhy wrote...

People aren't requesting these things because they have been slighted. They feel these things are important to their game experience. These forums are filled with threads about options players would like to have in future games, things they would like to see. 

Perhaps you are reading the reasoning behind their stance as having the tone of being slighted - but really, what I'm seeing are players explaining, quite soundly, why they think something would have value. It's not necessary that everyone agree with the points and requests being made, but nor should their opinions be dismissed as something wrong, or far-fetched, or as some sort of desire to be indulged. We all have different aspects and features we'd like to see in the game. We share the common bond of enjoying the game, but have different approaches to how we want to play.

I'd like to add another angle to this (great clarification) comment.  We are shaped by our media even as we shape it - so what we see on TV, in movies, and in games contributes to our sense of what is "normal".  This is part of why diversity in media representations is a good thing, rather than having the same monotonous ideas of beauty, power, and culture reiterated over and over: it makes us more creative and open-minded and appreciative of difference.  And having passive background "noise" that is slightly different from what we're used to seeing makes a big positive difference - look at car commercials, for example. 

Until recently, most couples portrayed in those were heterosexual and homoethnic (same ethnicity).  But every now and then one will come up that shows a mixed ethnicity couple, or even a gay couple shopping for the car and driving together.  Most people won't actively notice it, but it's a huge shift.  As someone of multiethnic descent, it was a strange feeling to see something I hadn't realized was missing, so I can only imagine how powerful it is to LGBTQ people to get to see LGBTQ representations in a game that are just there - not to be interacted with, not a commentary, but just part of the normal peoplescape.  And if it inspires discussion and questioning of prior perspectives, all the better - that's good media to me.

re: terminology. Unfortunately, the term "monogamy" is misused when "monoamory" would be more accurate (there is the uncomfortable implication that all loving relationships are destined to become marriages). I suspect that "polygamy" tends to represent one man and multiple women because of its political history in various cultures (I think there is only one culture in Tibet that currently practices polyandry).

There are different layers to this that should be hashed out:

1) Threesome/Foursome/Moresome: I don't see this as polyamory - it's a configuration of sex. And while some polyamorous units may engage in sex this way, my understanding is that there usually are timeshares where someone spends time with a primary partner and secondary partners separately.

2) Seeing multiple people: this would be the equivalent of making the romance flags invisible to other companions/NPCs - maybe like an open relationship or casual dating. If you don't talk about it at all, then I don't see it as something serious/committed (strong open relationships use good communication at least about the fact that it's open).

3) Committed polyamory: this would require acknowledgement and probably a discussion by the involved NPCs, as well as an in-character resolution/acceptance. This would require extra scripting and, while not impossible, would need some writing to cover outcomes.

I'm not against having the last available at some point as an option, but it would be tricky to implement. Perhaps if BW wanted to be inclusive, they could start with having one of these relationships in the background of a quest NPC's story.

Hooray for being back on topic!

Although in terms of resources, it wouldn't be any more costly/difficult to include s/s couples in the background, it could require more careful scripting and setting up because there is a tendency to see f/m couples as romantically involved (even if they're not) and s/s couples as non-romantic. So while you could have a f/m couple standing closely together and conversing happily to imply a pairing, the same would not be so apparent for a s/s couple.

However, if you can leverage specific cues, whether of a location or of objects/attire (like wedding bands, though on BW claw-hands that presents a whole other aesthetic problem) then it is easier to subtly communicate that status. But the downside is that it could look more forced (and thus provoke the ire of those offended at the mere existence of "teh ghey").

One example I think of is in Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica where in one of the last episodes he shot scenes inside an omnisexual strip club. In his commentary, he said that he intentionally filmed all combinations - f/f, m/m, f/m, m/f - but in editing all male strippers were cut out and most female patrons were cut as well, making his attempt at variety look very heteronormative. In this type of setting, it is easy to imply different sexualities without much work because we already know there is sexual communication happening.

I'd rather not have all s/s background NPCs hang out at the brothel, so while I can't speak for others, I think it would be reasonable to hope for a variety of background NPC setups - a few more obvious ("Are you sure your parents are okay with me? The wedding is next week!") and some more subtle and/or ambiguous ("We'll buy the whole pig for dinner tonight.") to allow for open interpretations (followed by a few Word of God blog/twitter responses to fan questions). It would take a little more creativity on the writing, but I would hope it would be an interesting challenge.

That's what dev tools are for, or an open source game design platform. When I feel like I know more than the professionals I'm buying a product from, I go out and create my own game with all the sliders I like.

Or I go run a tabletop RPG where I have godly power over everything.