But your point was they aren't used for anything more than that because they couldn't possibly evoke similar attachment etc. And there's no actual evidence of that -- when used in role of quest subjects, these characters evoke the same level of reaction the humanoid quest subjects do. And calling that attachment selectively "more than was ever intended" simply because it goes against your own theory forms nothing but circular argument, as it relies on that very theory to support itself. How do you know what was intended and why wouldn't it be intended for these characters to invoke any sort of emotional reaction?dan107 wrote...
My point stands. All the non-humanoid characters in ME are very minor background characters with hardly any dialogue. If they elicit some kind of attachement from you, I think you're reading into them a lot more than was ever intended.
Since when it started to make no sense for game developers to introduce new, unfamiliar things in their games?I'm arguing that it makes no sense for a game developer to invest significant amounts of resources into something that's unfamiliar and may be appreciated by a few vs. something that's familiar and will be appreciated by most.
Take Final Fantasy series as example. It's "series" in broadest sense, because each installment involves completely different cast, settings, mechanics. And often these factors are new and unfamiliar to the point they didn't appear in a game before. But it doesn't prevent these games from being successful, game after game.
Heck, take BioWare's own Mass Effect and consider how drastic changes they've made to it going from first game to the sequel.
Perhaps, again, you give the audience less credit than it deserves, and err on the side of being too conservative; thinking it's necessary and "makes sense" when it actually isn't?
Then you should have said so rather than leave my initial assessment without a comment. And to explain, i was referring to the idea of introducing characters with personalities made so stereotypical and shallow that they can be described with a single keyword.I disagree with the term "trite human stereotypes". A typical romantic relationship is not a "trite stereotype" it's a fact of life. At any rate, can you elaborate what exactly are you asking for here vis a vis romances? I think that's gotten lost in all the theoretical debate.
You have mentioned boredom before as something which should be avoided, and then refused to address my question how introducing nothing but more of the "same old" is supposed to help with avoiding that very boredom. And this is exactly what i'm asking for when it comes to the romances -- some sort of unpredictability instead of being able to tell from the get go what sort of character i'm facing and how things are going to proceed and end. Something that can be done by shaking up and breaking the stereotypes, not by repeating them verbatim "because people like their things typical and familiar".
But of course; If you simplify things enough then everything can be reduced to archetypes. Again though, it doesn't mean it only "makes sense" to just repeat these archetypes over and over intact, with no change to any aspect of the story at all in fear of alienating the audience. It also doesn't mean you cannot at least try to explore something new -- every change has started somewhere, and i'm fairly sure before that happened people were just as ready to cry their "nihil novi".The overarching themes are the same though.
ME2 isn't exactly great example here considering it simply doesn't offer the player much chance for interaction. You can't expect the players to slam their heads against the wall when they aren't actually given option to do that in the game. Even then, videos on Youtube and forum comments indicate that the players did follow that character's arc all way to its "sorry but i can't" conclusion.But the reason that they do is that she's clearly interested in the player, and they can almost have her. That's a world apart from her being simply uninterested. Again I point you to Samara in ME2 -- she's an example of possible one sided attraction like you suggest, and I don't see to many people slamming their head against the wall over her.
Speaking strictly on ground of the game relationships i'd disagree. Large parts of what can and cannot be done in these forms in players' own heads anyway. if a game can give them illusion there's more to it than there really is then it's not necessarily bad design. Of course, given it is a game there should ideally be a path to actually "win" it, but given even existence of that option wouldn't save frustration these who fail, i don't see it as mandatory.Keep in mind that this is a game, not a novel. Making a player believe that something can be done when it can't is just not very good game design. It will lead to frustration.
Of course, you could be looking at it from viewpoint that every player should be granted a win, to save them the potential frustration... but that (experiences being guaranteed for everyone) if anything turns game into a novel in my eyes.
I don't really consider Alistair and Morrigan to be such. They do have basic elements to them like everyone of course, but these elements are mixed in ways which create distinct enough personalities which can keep you guessing.And I note how you ignored my point of Alistair and Morrigan being quite cliche by your broad definition, and yet quite compelling for many people. Not too many posts referring to them as "trite human stereotypes".
Retour en haut
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
) but seems like a missed opportunity.
