317 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

...Manipulative Anders? That would be a nice thought.

Sadly Anders sucks at manipulation. Him being up to something fishy in the Chantry was obvious. My Hawke only went along with it because the romance demands. (And for some reason it didn't matter if you helped him or not.)

[Viyu]

Ryzaki wrote...

...Manipulative Anders? That would be a nice thought. 

If he was honestly manipulative he wouldn't be acting so OOC before the deep roads expedition, and before Hawke has the status as Champion. Just sayin'.

[HSHAW]

Ryzaki wrote...

...Manipulative Anders? That would be a nice thought.

Sadly Anders sucks at manipulation. Him being up to something fishy in the Chantry was obvious. My Hawke only went along with it because the romance demands. (And for some reason it didn't matter if you helped him or not.)

Sometimes, NPCs are capable of doing things without player help.

[Viyu]

Which wouldn't be a problem if that hadn't characterized virtually the entire game.

[Vlondril]

Ryzaki wrote...

...Manipulative Anders? That would be a nice thought.

Sadly Anders sucks at manipulation. Him being up to something fishy in the Chantry was obvious. My Hawke only went along with it because the romance demands. (And for some reason it didn't matter if you helped him or not.)

Well, the emotional blackmail (If you loved me you'd do this!!) and the fact that he makes up a fake potion to get you to help him strikes me as pretty manipulative.  And maybe I'm just naieve (no maybe, I know I am, lol) but the chantry thing was a surprise to me!

[Beerfish]

Well they have improved the romances in that at least the rational ones are still in your party though not romanceable instead of them killing them off at the beginning of the game.

[Paeyne]

Vlondril wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...Manipulative Anders? That would be a nice thought.

Sadly Anders sucks at manipulation. Him being up to something fishy in the Chantry was obvious. My Hawke only went along with it because the romance demands. (And for some reason it didn't matter if you helped him or not.)

Well, the emotional blackmail (If you loved me you'd do this!!) and the fact that he makes up a fake potion to get you to help him strikes me as pretty manipulative.  And maybe I'm just naieve (no maybe, I know I am, lol) but the chantry thing was a surprise to me!

This was sort of my take on it.

I also think it is a bit fallacious to say that he can't be manipulating Hawke because he doesn't appear to be maniplulating Hawke throughout the game.  I have met a number of people in my life that act like your best friend until it is inconvenient or no longer advantageous for them.

It may even be that Anders really does care for Hawke on some level.  People who manipulate with the truth are far more dangerous than people who manipulate with lies.

I think that if Anders truly loved Hawke he would try and protect Hawke from what he was doing rather than emotionally blackmail and coerce Hawke into helping.  If he is willing to use Hawke after five years of being in a relationship I have little difficulty in believing he was doing it from the beginning.  ("No I won't help you.  <long pause.. wheels turning>  On the other hand... a favour for a favour does that sound fair?)

But, of course, this is all speculative.  We will never really know for sure what Anders was truly feeling unless one of the writers comes out and tells us.

[JayTheWolf]

 During my first playthrough, I found none of them appealing (despite Anders). I heard Anders was a romance option, and for the sake of not spoiling anything, I didn't read into it. When I finally saw and talked to him in-game, I was disappointed. All of the romance options didn't feel... romantic enough. They didn't feel like actual relationships, despite Anders' neediness. Sebastian felt like he didn't even want to talk to Hawke, Fenris was kind of abrasive, Merrill was too innocent to spoil, and Isabela... well, if I were a guy, I'd stay away from her. I'd prefer substance over sex. 

[Vlondril]

Paeyne wrote...

Vlondril wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...Manipulative Anders? That would be a nice thought.

Sadly Anders sucks at manipulation. Him being up to something fishy in the Chantry was obvious. My Hawke only went along with it because the romance demands. (And for some reason it didn't matter if you helped him or not.)

Well, the emotional blackmail (If you loved me you'd do this!!) and the fact that he makes up a fake potion to get you to help him strikes me as pretty manipulative.  And maybe I'm just naieve (no maybe, I know I am, lol) but the chantry thing was a surprise to me!

This was sort of my take on it.

I also think it is a bit fallacious to say that he can't be manipulating Hawke because he doesn't appear to be maniplulating Hawke throughout the game.  I have met a number of people in my life that act like your best friend until it is inconvenient or no longer advantageous for them.

It may even be that Anders really does care for Hawke on some level.  People who manipulate with the truth are far more dangerous than people who manipulate with lies.

I think that if Anders truly loved Hawke he would try and protect Hawke from what he was doing rather than emotionally blackmail and coerce Hawke into helping.  If he is willing to use Hawke after five years of being in a relationship I have little difficulty in believing he was doing it from the beginning.  ("No I won't help you.  <long pause.. wheels turning>  On the other hand... a favour for a favour does that sound fair?)

But, of course, this is all speculative.  We will never really know for sure what Anders was truly feeling unless one of the writers comes out and tells us.

Exactly!  On my first play through, it was like "lalalala making a potion for Anders to cure himself of being an abom".  I never asked any questions, and I assumed that he was going to the chantry for some ingredient/some sort of ritual to finish off the exorcism.

During the dialogue after blowing up the chantry, he says something to the effect of "I didn't want to involve you." and I just think, if you didn't want to get Hawke involved, why did you either prey on her trust, or browbeat her into helping you?  He is indirectly involving Hawke in the death of innocents, and that's a pretty extreme betrayal.

I do think Anders truly cared for Hawke, regardless of the manipulation, but that there are no means that are beneath him when it comes to furthering his cause.

Once again, there are some great ideas being thrown around in this thread! 

[David Gaider]

I would just ask the Devs at Bioware if they would want a relationship with any of these people. 
 
If the answer is no, then I would suggest the next game's romance options not swing between the scary to the insane. 
 
If the answer is yes, then there are several relationship counselors I can recommend and urge you to contact them without delay.

I'm going to give you a non-answer and say that it's a rare character in fiction who is both a romance as well as someone you would want to romance in real life and take home to meet the parents. That's why it's fiction.

I can think of something that might be interesting to make into a romance for all the DA2 characters. As it is, however, we're only going to be able to a limited number, so we picked the ones we found most interesting and went with those. If the assumption is that people would be happier if we picked X instead of Y, you'd be wrong-- there'd be people complaining that Y couldn't be romanced instead.

That's simply how it works. Romance is such a personal, subjective thing, they're never going to appeal to everyone-- and I wouldn't even begin to try. If I tried, you'd end up with the romantic equivalent of vanilla pudding... and while some people might like vanilla pudding, I certainly ain't about to write it.

[mesmerizedish]

David Gaider wrote...

If I tried, you'd end up with the romantic equivalent of vanilla pudding... and while some people might like vanilla pudding, I certainly ain't about to write it.

But that's why Bethany's your sister.

[hoorayforicecream]

A couple of development questions for David Gaider then... when you write the romances, do you specifically aim for specific archetypes from the get-go? I always thought you did, since it helps define a character personality early on, and also avoids potential crossover between romances. I assume that the main goal with the romances is to have them be as different/distinct, yet satisfying, as possible from each other. Is that the case?

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 14 mai 2011 - 03:25 .

[Maria Caliban]

I like vanilla pudding. And tapioca pudding. Chocolate pudding. Banana pudding. Caramel pudding.

[mesmerizedish]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I like vanilla pudding. And tapioca pudding. Chocolate pudding. Banana pudding. Caramel pudding.

I'm sensing a "pudding" theme, here...

[Maria Caliban]

Can you imagine offering someone four types of pudding and them not being able to enjoy any of them? I think someone just needs to admit they're not a pudding person.

[mesmerizedish]

Sage advice, but some people will just keep insisting that they haven't been served the right pudding. I daresay if they tried to make their own pudding, it'd be really bad pudding, and they still wouldn't be happy. Buy they will continue to clamor for the perfect pudding.

As joke, Mr. Gaider will write that perfect pudding. BUT IT WILL HAVE RAISINS.

[hoorayforicecream]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Can you imagine offering someone four types of pudding and them not being able to enjoy any of them? I think someone just needs to admit they're not a pudding person.

I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't like pudding.

Edit:

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

As joke, Mr. Gaider will write that perfect pudding. BUT IT WILL HAVE RAISINS.

Then it wouldn't be the perfect pudding anymore, would it? 

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 14 mai 2011 - 03:43 .

[Maria Caliban]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Sage advice, but some people will just keep insisting that they haven't been served the right pudding. I daresay if they tried to make their own pudding, it'd be really bad pudding, and they still wouldn't be happy. Buy they will continue to clamor for the perfect pudding.

And there's nothing wrong with wanting a specific pudding. Some people are pickier than others. Maybe you think butter pecan pudding is the greatest pudding ever, that's fine! What I disagree with is the idea that anything other than butter pecan is horse manure pudding, and that the chef only makes non-butter pecan because they suck and/or are insulting you.

I mean, I recall the howls of outrage when Isabela was announced as a possible desert. The mere idea that pirate pudding might be on offer was deeply offensive to some.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't like pudding.

Pudding is awesome.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 14 mai 2011 - 03:45 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I mean, I recall the howls of outrage when Isabela was announced as a possible desert. The mere idea that pirate pudding might be on offer was deeply offensive to some.
 

Pirate pudding my favorite flavor. It just steals my breath away.

[mesmerizedish]

Pirate pudding is awesome. True story.

[Paeyne]

David Gaider wrote...

I'm going to give you a non-answer and say that it's a rare character in fiction who is both a romance as well as someone you would want to romance in real life and take home to meet the parents. That's why it's fiction.

I can think of something that might be interesting to make into a romance for all the DA2 characters. As it is, however, we're only going to be able to a limited number, so we picked the ones we found most interesting and went with those. If the assumption is that people would be happier if we picked X instead of Y, you'd be wrong-- there'd be people complaining that Y couldn't be romanced instead.

That's simply how it works. Romance is such a personal, subjective thing, they're never going to appeal to everyone-- and I wouldn't even begin to try. If I tried, you'd end up with the romantic equivalent of vanilla pudding... and while some people might like vanilla pudding, I certainly ain't about to write it.

I have to admit that I wrote the original post in a manner that I like to pretend is wit, but I think it does express to a certain degree my main problem with all of the romances.  In many ways they were so entrenched in their position and their use as a vehicle to progress the story that I found it difficult to empathize with any of them.

Certainly I am not looking for vanilla pudding.  I can get gratuitous romance from the Fable series.  OOOoo your married.  Gee you have some kids.  How nice.  Romance for its own sake is pretty bland and not worth my time.

The romances in DA2 seemed to me to be lacking in anything really romantic.  I readily admit that is an entirely subjective opinion and you can take that opinion for what its worth.  I would never argue that my opinion is any more important than anyone else on this board (to anyone but me).

I just feel that the romances in DA:O were done better because I felt empathy for those characters in spite of their flaws.  The Alistair romance was very sweet and well written.  The Zevran romance had sort of a naughty charm to it.  The Lelianna romance seemed natural.  I never romanced Morrigan so I can't speak to it.

I would never argue that romances in a fantasy game should be like real life, but I would argue that characters in a fantasy game look for the same thing from romance that we do in real life:  intimacy, bonding, support, commitment, passion, love.  Despite some excellent writing in spots, I didn't really see many of those dynamics portrayed.

Such things as Anders struggle between what he feels he must do and his love for Hawke or Isabella slowly trusting in Hawkes love and protection and a lessening of her fear of Castillon would have gone a long way to make the romances seem more natural.

It does come down to a question of empathy for me.  It is because I felt so little empathy for the companions that I have so little connection to them.  Whether it is my reaction to the writing or the writing itself is a matter of debate.  Like many things, the answer is probably some where in the middle.

[David Gaider]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
A couple of development questions for David Gaider then... when you write the romances, do you specifically aim for specific archetypes from the get-go? I always thought you did, since it helps define a character personality early on, and also avoids potential crossover between romances. I assume that the main goal with the romances is to have them be as different/distinct, yet satisfying, as possible from each other. Is that the case?

We don't aim for archetypes specifically, but they tend to fall into them primarily because that's what characters do. If anything, we strive to make romances cover different ground from each other... so if we had two characters that fell into the "femme fatale" type, we'd either only make one a romance or we'd strive to differentiate the other more. Even then it's more about what the writer feels inspired about, as opposed to hitting a particular target.

Archetypes are useful, but in my experience if that's all you have when you start a character ("this guy's the elf, because we need an elf" or "this one will be the 'bad girl' because we already have a 'good girl'") then it really shows. I don't write that way, and nor do any of the other writers I work with.


...and evidently I've derailed the thread into pudding.

That's okay, I guess. Pudding's not a terrible place to be.

[upsettingshorts]

This might just be the unexpected amount of booze in my system talking but...

...DG, I'm seriously having a hard time figuring out what Fenris' role in the story was in DA2. I recall a post of yours from a while back about how all companions - especially and specifically Fenris - were getting one in this game... and he doesnt seem to have one.

Honestly, he reminds me a lot of... Thane, in that he's there - has his fans, and indeed is definitely appealing to some folks, but could be removed entirely from the narrative and... nothing would change.

Does that strike you as a fair criticism? Or am I missing something?

[David Gaider]

Paeyne wrote...
It does come down to a question of empathy for me.  It is because I felt so little empathy for the companions that I have so little connection to them.  Whether it is my reaction to the writing or the writing itself is a matter of debate.  Like many things, the answer is probably some where in the middle.

I can see that. I would say, however, that this is a spot where the overall story and the characters sort of blend together. I think some people treat them as the same thing, and that's probably fine because they tend to inform each other... if you're connected to the characters, you'll connect to the story. If you're connected with the story, you'll connect with the characters.

In many ways, the DA2 story is pretty unforgiving. There isn't a lot of room for empathy. That is, of course, going to be subjective like you said-- but I can definitely see how someone might not connect with one or both. That's not to say there's a "right" way to do it, or that we set out to write some kind of existential drama... but we were definitely getting away from "adventure romp" and the lighter tone associated with that. For some people, that's not necessarily a good thing.

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Does that strike you as a fair criticism? Or am I missing something?

Fenris's role in the story is pretty clear, isn't it? He's the only voice in the group that is clearly critical of the mages, and who speaks from the voice of experience. I think some of his dialogues are a must-read for those people who like to go on about how mages have it so much better in Tevinter, or how mages ruling themselves would clearly have much better results than the Chantry.

That said, he's not tied into the plot as much, but that's why he's optional.