237 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRevanchist]

Curlain wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Sir Jools wrote...

There is also another reason that makes "fixed", full-fledged characters preferrable. If during the first playthrough Dog (random, fuctional character) is straight, how would one justify it being gay or bi during the second or third playthrough? This would be a mood-killer and an immersion-breaker, as it would, indeed, make the character feel closer to sex objects ("sex dolls", to quote kylecouch) rather than characters with a (well-sculpted) personality of their own.

Just imagine. First playthrough, Alistair is the bastard prince. Next playthrough, Oghren is, while Leliana is the daughter of the Witch of the Wilds, and Dog is a lost paragon...

Because they weren't approached by Hawke and never questioned their preferences? Just a thought. 

And that is nothing like sexuality. It would be closer to hardening Alistair in one playthrough and not in another which you could already do. 

I hated the hardening mechanic, and never used it.  It also just gave you to much power over your companions (more then you could ever have over someone in rl unless some kind of abusive control relationship is going on), and when used reduced the feel of them as independent characters with their own personalities and wills.  As a result I refused to use it

Yea Alistairs hardening was the most hypocriticle thing I think I ever saw. "Don't let anyone push you around anymore! Be a man and suck it up!" Later at the Landsmeet. Alistair: "NO! I REFUSE TO STAND NEXT TO LOGHAIN AS A BROTHER! I can never forgive him for betraying and murdering my friends and the King!" Player Character basicly responds "stfu and do what I tell you to" .....really?....

[Arppis]

kylecouch wrote...

Curlain wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Sir Jools wrote...

There is also another reason that makes "fixed", full-fledged characters preferrable. If during the first playthrough Dog (random, fuctional character) is straight, how would one justify it being gay or bi during the second or third playthrough? This would be a mood-killer and an immersion-breaker, as it would, indeed, make the character feel closer to sex objects ("sex dolls", to quote kylecouch) rather than characters with a (well-sculpted) personality of their own.

Just imagine. First playthrough, Alistair is the bastard prince. Next playthrough, Oghren is, while Leliana is the daughter of the Witch of the Wilds, and Dog is a lost paragon...

Because they weren't approached by Hawke and never questioned their preferences? Just a thought. 

And that is nothing like sexuality. It would be closer to hardening Alistair in one playthrough and not in another which you could already do. 

I hated the hardening mechanic, and never used it.  It also just gave you to much power over your companions (more then you could ever have over someone in rl unless some kind of abusive control relationship is going on), and when used reduced the feel of them as independent characters with their own personalities and wills.  As a result I refused to use it

Yea Alistairs hardening was the most hypocriticle thing I think I ever saw. "Don't let anyone push you around anymore! Be a man and suck it up!" Later at the Landsmeet. Alistair: "NO! I REFUSE TO STAND NEXT TO LOGHAIN AS A BROTHER! I can never forgive him for betraying and murdering my friends and the King!" Player Character basicly responds "stfu and do what I tell you to" .....really?....

Aaaahhhhhh craaaaaaaaaap... Now I know where I went wrong there. I was wondering why he was acting like that all the suden!

[TheRevanchist]

No he acts like that regardless...but the point is...your PC tells him not to let people push him around...then turns around and tries to push him around...it's complete BS.

[TallBearNC]

kylecouch wrote...

Curlain wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Sir Jools wrote...

There is also another reason that makes "fixed", full-fledged characters preferrable. If during the first playthrough Dog (random, fuctional character) is straight, how would one justify it being gay or bi during the second or third playthrough? This would be a mood-killer and an immersion-breaker, as it would, indeed, make the character feel closer to sex objects ("sex dolls", to quote kylecouch) rather than characters with a (well-sculpted) personality of their own.

Just imagine. First playthrough, Alistair is the bastard prince. Next playthrough, Oghren is, while Leliana is the daughter of the Witch of the Wilds, and Dog is a lost paragon...

Because they weren't approached by Hawke and never questioned their preferences? Just a thought. 

And that is nothing like sexuality. It would be closer to hardening Alistair in one playthrough and not in another which you could already do. 

I hated the hardening mechanic, and never used it.  It also just gave you to much power over your companions (more then you could ever have over someone in rl unless some kind of abusive control relationship is going on), and when used reduced the feel of them as independent characters with their own personalities and wills.  As a result I refused to use it

Yea Alistairs hardening was the most hypocriticle thing I think I ever saw. "Don't let anyone push you around anymore! Be a man and suck it up!" Later at the Landsmeet. Alistair: "NO! I REFUSE TO STAND NEXT TO LOGHAIN AS A BROTHER! I can never forgive him for betraying and murdering my friends and the King!" Player Character basicly responds "stfu and do what I tell you to" .....really?....

Really. I have known people in RL that need that to be done. They have little to no sense of self  and either need time to grow up and find themselves, some "event" to suddenly change who they are... or someone in their life giving them direction. It's sort of sad yes, but it is very realistic.

example: one of my RL friends.. he'd sooner die than make a decision on his own. he's so indecisive that you have to make the decision for him, and he'll do it. But then sometimes he'll throw a hissy fit and go off and do things his own way. He reminds me VERY much of Alistair lol
 
Alstair had a VERY weak personality.. and yes.. he needed a strong character to tell him what to do until he could "grow up" and do it on his own.

Modifié par TallBearNC, 05 mars 2011 - 10:01 .

[Razaroh]

chrissicross wrote...

sevalaricgirl wrote...

I have a problem when a bi character is making a pass at a character that I'm seeing in game, ie Zevran and Alistair talking about a tattoo. Zev said that he'd have to bathe Alistair in oils and massage them in.

Hmm, I thought that was pretty funny.

So did I. But then I was offended when Alistair agreed and they had sex behind my back.

Oh wait.

sevalaricgirl wrote...

Yes but the problem is when they're
openly bi like Zevran. He openly says that he'll do anyone. That is
when people have a problem. If there were no open references to
either/or then no one would have a problem either way.

Alistair flirts with Wynne, did that bother you? Isabela flirts with everyone. I foresee that you'll have a problem with her as well.

[Arppis]

kylecouch wrote...

No he acts like that regardless...but the point is...your PC tells him not to let people push him around...then turns around and tries to push him around...it's complete BS.

Ah, ok.

[Curlain]

kylecouch wrote...


Yea Alistairs hardening was the most hypocriticle thing I think I ever saw. "Don't let anyone push you around anymore! Be a man and suck it up!" Later at the Landsmeet. Alistair: "NO! I REFUSE TO STAND NEXT TO LOGHAIN AS A BROTHER! I can never forgive him for betraying and murdering my friends and the King!" Player Character basicly responds "stfu and do what I tell you to" .....really?....

Yep, I know allot of players complained that they could never talk Alistair into accepting Loghain into the party and never leaving the party, or players in a romance with Morrigan could never get her to change her mind about leaving either after the battle (if you went through with the Dark Ritual, or right at the moment she offerred it if you didn't) but I liked both events.  Because the characters acted in accordance with their personalities, and whether we as players (or our characters) agreed with their actions or thought they were stupid, we couldn't just get them to change their minds.  I hope DA2 has more moments where companions stay true to their characters rather then us being able to dicate what those characters should be.

Modifié par Curlain, 05 mars 2011 - 10:10 .

[TheRevanchist]

Razaroh wrote...

chrissicross wrote...

sevalaricgirl wrote...

I have a problem when a bi character is making a pass at a character that I'm seeing in game, ie Zevran and Alistair talking about a tattoo. Zev said that he'd have to bathe Alistair in oils and massage them in.

Hmm, I thought that was pretty funny.

So did I. But then I was offended when Alistair agreed and they had sex behind my back.

Oh wait.

sevalaricgirl wrote...

Yes but the problem is when they're
openly bi like Zevran. He openly says that he'll do anyone. That is
when people have a problem. If there were no open references to
either/or then no one would have a problem either way.

Alistair flirts with Wynne, did that bother you? Isabela flirts with everyone. I foresee that you'll have a problem with her as well.

Isabella is different...we all know shes a promiscuis **** already...so it's not really that immersion breaking.

[TheRevanchist]

Filament wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

No he acts like that regardless

No he doesn't, if he's unhardened he naively trusts you like he trusted Goldanna, and he either gets himself banished or executed as a result if you spare Loghain and "betray" that trust. If he's hardened he can handle the disappointment and become king even if you spare Loghain. The point was basically to make him less naive.

Whether the PC is being hypocritical doesn't really matter as far as that goes.

He only tolerates it if the marrige was pre-arranged...if its not he still flips out and leaves.

[Arppis]

Curlain wrote...

kylecouch wrote...


Yea Alistairs hardening was the most hypocriticle thing I think I ever saw. "Don't let anyone push you around anymore! Be a man and suck it up!" Later at the Landsmeet. Alistair: "NO! I REFUSE TO STAND NEXT TO LOGHAIN AS A BROTHER! I can never forgive him for betraying and murdering my friends and the King!" Player Character basicly responds "stfu and do what I tell you to" .....really?....

Yep, I know allot of players complained that they could never talk Alistair into accepting Loghain into the party and never leaving the party, or players in a romance with Morrigan could never get her to change her mind about leaving either after the battle (if you went through with the Dark Ritual, or right at the moment she offerred it if you didn't) but I liked both events.  Because the characters acted in accordance with their personalities, and whether we as players (or our characters) agreed with their actions or thought they were stupid, we couldn't just get them to change their minds.  I hope DA2 has more moments where companions stay true to their characters rather then us being able to dicate what those characters should be.

I think it's alright to be able to talk people out of doing things. BUT it shouldn't be too easy.

[TallBearNC]

kylecouch wrote...

Filament wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

No he acts like that regardless

No he doesn't, if he's unhardened he naively trusts you like he trusted Goldanna, and he either gets himself banished or executed as a result if you spare Loghain and "betray" that trust. If he's hardened he can handle the disappointment and become king even if you spare Loghain. The point was basically to make him less naive.

Whether the PC is being hypocritical doesn't really matter as far as that goes.

He only tolerates it if the marrige was pre-arranged...if its not he still flips out and leaves.

From what I remember the only way to actually MARRY him (without a mod) was to be a female, HUMAN, noble AND you had to harden him. Then he would marry you, but only after some convincing. If you were female non human, he would keep you on as a companion/lover but not a queen.

So he tollerated non pre arranged marriage as long as it fit into his (or the laws) view of who could be queen and who he could and could not marry

[tomas819]

I wonder what would have happened if Bioware had made all of the LIs in DA2 straight but then offered DLC companion characters that were exclusively m/m or f/f romanceable. Say, for the sake of argument, that Anders, Merrill, Isabella (well, maybe not Isabella!), and Fenris are all straight and are written that way.

My best guess is that the DLC sales (i.e., the now gay Sebastian and his female counterpart) would have still been profitable and that the backstories and character development and dialog for ALL of the romanceable characters in the game would have been more consistent and interesting across the board. This might have even made their DLC backstories and personal quests more interesting, frankly. Any and all romances, of course, would still be totally optional.

This kind of approach would have eliminated the ambiguity regarding Anders, etc., problems in story-telling, and the general implausibility of "the rampant bi-ness in Ferelden" that seems to be bothering some people.

[panamakira]

Everybody is "Hawke-sexual", so I'm cool with that~

[CheeseEnchilada]

 I think the core of this debate is just how we view games. Do we want our character set in stone with true-blue personalities? Or do we want to hold the reins and have more freedom? That is set for the individual; the real question is how Bioware's decision is going to affect the storylines in general.

Will there be different dialog for a male/female PC? Will they even bring up their sexuality? Hell, are the romances even that deep to begin with? We haven't played the game, so we don't know the answers to these questions yet. But then, it's really the only route they could take if they wanted to expand options. I like the idea of separate characters with set sexualities (two straight two gay two lesbian two bi for example) but even taking resources out of play, it likely wouldn't work that well. There'd be lots of talk of "I want to romance X but she's a lesbian" or "Character Y is straight? Oh man." And modding would commence. This is a way to make everyone happy. Whether or not it's 'realistic' is up to the way you view games, and there's nothing wrong with that. 

Really, the only way I would complain is if all of the romances were horribly shallow (Kelly Chambers shallow). And it would be less "argh why are they bi?!" and more "Bioware, why'd you drop the ball on the writing?"

Modifié par CheeseEnchilada, 05 mars 2011 - 10:18 .

[TallBearNC]

tomas819 wrote...

I wonder what would have happened if Bioware had made all of the LIs in DA2 straight but then offered DLC companion characters that were exclusively m/m or f/f romanceable. Say, for the sake of argument, that Anders, Merrill, Isabella (well, maybe not Isabella!), and Fenris are all straight and are written that way.

My best guess is that the DLC sales (i.e., the now gay Sebastian and his female counterpart) would have still been profitable and that the backstories and character development and dialog for ALL of the romanceable characters in the game would have been more consistent and interesting across the board. This might have even made their DLC backstories and personal quests more interesting, frankly. Any and all romances, of course, would still be totally optional.

This kind of approach would have eliminated the ambiguity regarding Anders, etc., problems in story-telling, and the general implausibility of "the rampant bi-ness in Ferelden" that seems to be bothering some people.

That would have worked for good money.. but then you'd have bi/gay people screaming that they were discriminated against. Or even some straight people saying their game play options were taken away.

Now if they were a free game play DLC, then that's another story. Then you have a game thats done in XXX fashion, and people who like that. Then the rest can just get DLC that mods the game along with voice overs, etc

Now that I think about it... the only way BW could truely have made people happy would be to do this:

1) Make a DIVERSE party make up. Some straight, some bi, some gay. So we have a lil there for everyone. People have set personallities. You can't change them, get around it, etc
2) THEN have DLC, at launch, for like $9.99-$15 that will make ALL of them romancable with full story lines to go along with it including voice overs, etc.

This way you avoid people screaming that there's been discrimination (because there wasn't any).
This also makes people happy who like a more structured story and characters because they don't have to get that DLC
The people who want to just "do everything" (like I do), CAN get what we want, officially, w/o player mods

To me, would seem the only way to make as many ppl as happy as possible with the DA game series.

[TallBearNC]

CheeseEnchilada wrote...

 I think the core of this debate is just how we view games. Do we want our character set in stone with true-blue personalities? Or do we want to hold the reins and have more freedom? That is set for the individual; the real question is how Bioware's decision is going to affect the storylines in general.

Will there be different dialog for a male/female PC? Will they even bring up their sexuality? Hell, are the romances even that deep to begin with? We haven't played the game, so we don't know the answers to these questions yet. But then, it's really the only route they could take if they wanted to expand options. I like the idea of separate characters with set sexualities (two straight two gay two lesbian two bi for example) but even taking resources out of play, it likely wouldn't work that well. There'd be lots of talk of "I want to romance X but she's a lesbian" or "Character Y is straight? Oh man." And modding would commence. This is a way to make everyone happy. Whether or not it's 'realistic' is up to the way you view games, and there's nothing wrong with that. 

Really, the only way I would complain is if all of the romances were horribly shallow (Kelly Chambers shallow). And it would be less "argh why are they bi?!" and more "Bioware, why'd you drop the ball on the writing?"

Even I have to agree with this

[TallBearNC]

Well I'm off. I'm trying to beat Two Worlds 2 before Tuesday

[TallBearNC]

Sir Jools wrote...

TallBearNC wrote...

tomas819 wrote...

I wonder what would have happened if Bioware had made all of the LIs in DA2 straight but then offered DLC companion characters that were exclusively m/m or f/f romanceable. Say, for the sake of argument, that Anders, Merrill, Isabella (well, maybe not Isabella!), and Fenris are all straight and are written that way.

My best guess is that the DLC sales (i.e., the now gay Sebastian and his female counterpart) would have still been profitable and that the backstories and character development and dialog for ALL of the romanceable characters in the game would have been more consistent and interesting across the board. This might have even made their DLC backstories and personal quests more interesting, frankly. Any and all romances, of course, would still be totally optional.

This kind of approach would have eliminated the ambiguity regarding Anders, etc., problems in story-telling, and the general implausibility of "the rampant bi-ness in Ferelden" that seems to be bothering some people.

That would have worked for good money.. but then you'd have bi/gay people screaming that they were discriminated against. Or even some straight people saying their game play options were taken away.

Now if they were a free game play DLC, then that's another story. Then you have a game thats done in XXX fashion, and people who like that. Then the rest can just get DLC that mods the game along with voice overs, etc

Now that I think about it... the only way BW could truely have made people happy would be to do this:

1) Make a DIVERSE party make up. Some straight, some bi, some gay. So we have a lil there for everyone. People have set personallities. You can't change them, get around it, etc
2) THEN have DLC, at launch, for like $9.99-$15 that will make ALL of them romancable with full story lines to go along with it including voice overs, etc.

This way you avoid people screaming that there's been discrimination (because there wasn't any).
This also makes people happy who like a more structured story and characters because they don't have to get that DLC
The people who want to just "do everything" (like I do), CAN get what we want, officially, w/o player mods

To me, would seem the only way to make as many ppl as happy as possible with the DA game series.

Ok, this idea sounds better, altho it is dangerously close to prostitution, since one would have to pay to dry-hump their favourite character despite the latter's original sexual orientation.

Sample script...

Male PC - *coy*so, Alistair, do you like, err, fish, or cupcakes?

Alistair - *blushes*Oh, so... when you said "close friend"... By the gods! You meant...? Aw, I really am sorry, but I thought we were just good friends, so, well, I like cupcakes, to use your words...

Male PC - *slip 15$ into Alistair's breastplate*

Alistair, with new, falsetto voice over - well, fish can't be that bad, can it? I mean, we're already "close friends" after all, and I see not why we shouldn't get a little closer...

(just to lighten the mood, btw  )

LOL! That is funny. After careful thought I kind of have to agree with many people in this thread... just slapping "bi" on all the characters seemed to be a knee jerk reaction due to feedback from DAO. If they REALLYdid design them all bi, and have RICH personalities, stories, quests you can do for them, etc... then great. Otherwise, I think my above posted idea would have worked the best. But I can't really complain. BW is *trying*. What we are seeing in DA2 is them listening to player feedback. If there is to be a DA3, I hope they can strike a true balance to make as many of us as happy as possible. From the conservatives all the way to the people who want to do anything that walks LOL

[TJPags]

Hey, just make every single NPC romanceable and bi.

That should make everyone happy, right?