1536 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

n2nw wrote...

If noone had told you that Fenris was bisexual, would you have known unless you romanced him as a guy?

The issue stems from the dialogue essentially being the same with very few differences.

"Grrr, I'm angry! Mages, Hawke! Mages, Tevinter, Mages! Grrr!"
"Hello Fenris"
"Mages, Circles! Tevinter! Grrrr!'
"How's your evening?"
"MAGES!"
[flirt] "MAGES?!"
"You are [beautiful/handsome]."
"Awwww, thank you!"
"MAGEEEESSS!"

*This mocking is done in jest, I liked Fenris.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 03 avril 2012 - 08:06 .

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...
If you have to go on the forums or play the game twice to consider a character cheap, a place-holder, or fill-in-the-blanks, then the character is none of the above.

It affects my perception. It ruins the character for me. It makes me unhappy with the story telling.

Dave of Canada wrote...

n2nw wrote...
If noone had told you that Fenris was bisexual, would you have known unless you romanced him as a guy?

The issue stems from the dialogue essentially being the same with very few differences.

"Grrr, I'm angry! Mages, Hawke! Mages, Tevinter, Mages! Grrr!"
"Hello Fenris"
"Mages, Circles! Tevinter! Grrrr!'
"How's your evening?"
"MAGES!"
[flirt] "MAGES?!"
"You are [beautiful/handsome]."
"Awwww, thank you!"
"MAGEEEESSS!"

*This mocking is done in jest, I liked Fenris.

This too.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 03 avril 2012 - 08:08 .

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you have to go on the forums or play the game twice to consider a character cheap, a place-holder, or fill-in-the-blanks, then the character is none of the above.

Illusion of depth != actual depth.

[Dave of Canada]

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you have to go on the forums or play the game twice to consider a character cheap, a place-holder, or fill-in-the-blanks, then the character is none of the above.

Not really, not knowing there's no depth doesn't mean there's depth.

Edit: What TMP said.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 03 avril 2012 - 08:10 .

[slashthedragon]

Filament wrote...

Johnny Jaded wrote...

Where did I say that his relations with Karl don't exist if not mentioned to a female Hawke? I didn't. I said that as it does exist regardless of Hawke's gender, that it should be mentioned to Hawke regardless of gender and not solely to a male Hawke. And, if it was, that would be one less inconsistency with the character, making him more believeable as being bi, rather than feeling that his sexual orientation was retconned to make him available to anyone should they wish.

So you're only concerned with the 'inconsistency' in how he conveys himself, not in how he ultimately 'is'? Well, I can think of one reason he might not mention it to female Hawkes... Huge generalization, but it seems women don't tend to like hearing about a guy they're interested in having gay lovers. And Anders is being cautious at this point, so.

From a role playing viewpoint, I don't think you can assume that Anders slept with Karl if you romance him with a female Hawke.  This is because as female Hawke, you'd have no idea what Anders says in any other playthrough.  I know that as humans it is hard to seperate information like that, and we tend to take Anders' reveal in one playthrough as being cannon in all other playthroughs.  Anders could be heterosexual in a female Hawke playthrough, since he doesn't mention anything about other guys, Hawke would think he is straight.

[Maria Caliban]

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you have to go on the forums or play the game twice to consider a character cheap, a place-holder, or fill-in-the-blanks, then the character is none of the above.

Illusion of depth != actual depth.

For a fictional character?

They're already an illusion. They can't have 'actual depth.' They're either a deep character or they're not. If they're presented as deep and you perceive them as deep, how can you claim they're not deep?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 03 avril 2012 - 08:12 .

[Mmw04014]

n2nw wrote...

If noone had told you that Fenris was bisexual, would you have known unless you romanced him as a guy?  Does he hit on you?  Or do you simply have the option to flirt with him and take it in that direction?  (I honestly don't know as I haven't played as a guy.)   If the latter is true, then you should have no complaint about the NPC, only a complaint that you don't like knowing that you could make him bisexual (which would have been a pc-driven choice that you always have IRL - although in RL you don't have a sure thing).  If the former is true, I stil don't see the complaint so long as you can say, "thanks but no thanks."  I don't find that Fenris was any less of a character because a guy could romance him as well as a female.

I want to interact with characters that have defined attributes. If a character is bisexual, then he needs to be bisexual in all playthroughs, not gay in one yet straight in another.

I like to roleplay and see how characters react to my player. I can't do that if all the LI's are one-size-fits-all and they will twist and bend to fit whatever PC I choose. The choices I make become less meaningful because it doesn't matter if I chose something else, the character will still want me. It messes up the structure of who that character is, they cease to be a character and turn into what the_one says.. a fill-in-the-blank. I feel this applies to many different facets of a characters personality, not just sexuality, such as Anders not caring if Hawke is pro-mage or anti-mage. A characters integrity should not blow about like a weather vane.

[the_one_54321]

Mmw04014 wrote...
I feel this applies to many different facets of a characters personality, not just sexuality, such as Anders not caring if Hawke is pro-mage or anti-mage. A characters integrity should not blow about like a weather vane.

Absolutely!

That whole aspect of Anders doesn't make any sense at all. Only the attchment to Justice lends it any credence, and that itself is shifty due to the potential ending of Awakening. The entire thing was handled so badly, imo.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 03 avril 2012 - 08:16 .

[n2nw]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It made him/her a fill-in-the-blank, and I don't like that.

You keep saying that, but you're not explaining it.  How so?  If you just mean that it bothered you that they were either/or (something your PC wouldn't have known otherwise), then that's a personal stumbling block, not the game's.

Dave of Canada wrote...

The issue stems from the dialogue essentially being the same with very few differences.

But if you didn't know that outside the game, you wouldn't have known it *in* the game.  That's my point.  I don't think the sexual neutrality affects anything except the player's (not the PC's) perception of the character.

[the_one_54321]

n2nw wrote...
But if you didn't know that outside the game, you wouldn't have known it *in* the game.  That's my point.  I don't think the sexual neutrality affects anything except the player's (not the PC's) perception of the character.

I'm not a character in the game. I know all this info, and all this info affects my opinion of the game. I know that these "characters" are actually variable, fitting themselves to whatever character creation choices I make. And that ruins the "characters" for me.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 03 avril 2012 - 08:18 .

[Dave of Canada]

Characters should never fall apart on a second playthrough.

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

For a fictional character?

For any character.

I should elaborate, though -- what i meant was, the possible depth of character (or lack thereof) exists regardless of whether a random person is aware of that depth. As such, i don't think the argument "if you don't realize immediately the character is shallow then they aren't shallow" works well.

[n2nw]

Mmw04014 wrote...

I want to interact with characters that have defined attributes. If a character is bisexual, then he needs to be bisexual in all playthroughs, not gay in one yet straight in another.

I like to roleplay and see how characters react to my player. I can't do that if all the LI's are one-size-fits-all and they will twist and bend to fit whatever PC I choose. The choices I make become less meaningful because it doesn't matter if I chose something else, the character will still want me. It messes up the structure of who that character is, they cease to be a character and turn into what the_one says.. a fill-in-the-blank. I feel this applies to many different facets of a characters personality, not just sexuality, such as Anders not caring if Hawke is pro-mage or anti-mage. A characters integrity should not blow about like a weather vane.

Ah, now that's a definition.  Thank you.  And I agree with you on the non-sexual aspects.  An NPC's personality and ethics should remain the same *unless* you have the ability (or the leverage) to persuade them otherwise.  However, I don't see how gender preference takes away from anything except that the player now knows that they can romance them as anyone. 

Anders really liked the pro-mage people.  If he had really liked me on a 2nd playthrough as a mage hater, that would have made my choices meaningless.  That he likes me if I'm a guy or a girl doesn't change who he is or his choices.  He's still pro-mage regardless.

[Deviija]

the_one_54321 wrote...
No, but the romance aspect of the story is. You may have missed my last post since these went up around the same time.

If a companion is engaging in a relationship with the PC, shouldn't the relationship be focused on the PC-Companion tender moments and the plots and friends and issues going on?  I don't see where 'oh, I also like girls/guys' needs to come into play with that. 

That someone doesn't speak about their past same-sex loves, or their bisexuality, does not mean they are fill-in-the-blanks.  It could simply mean they are private people that do not care to talk about their past exploits and bedroom behavior.  It might not be prudent to speak of such things socially, or it might not be seen as important in the greater social scale of the world/country the plot takes place in, or any and many other reasons.  I am not trying to dilute the discussion with possibilities; my point is more that it is entirely possible that these characters have other reasons to share or not share something about themselves.  It doesn't make them fill-in-the-blanks. 

Would it appease that there would be a dialogue option to prompt the companion as to whether they had relations with people of the same-sex in the past?  At least this way a companion can say, 'Maker, that is none of your business' and not be accused of being fill-in-the-blank as you describe.   

[n2nw]

Deviija wrote...
 At least this way a companion can say, 'Maker, that is none of your business' ....

Darn.  I wanted the juicy details.

[Maria Caliban]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Characters should never fall apart on a second playthrough.

And a character expressing attraction to a man in one playthrough and a woman in another playthrough makes them fall apart?

Do you see Anders, Fenris, and Merrill as cheap characters? Do you feel they're fill-in-the-blank or place-holders?

It's one thing to say that it's something you dislike, it's another to say that a completely metagame consideration ruins the character.

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

For a fictional character?

For any character.

I should elaborate, though -- what i meant was, the possible depth of character (or lack thereof) exists regardless of whether a random person is aware of that depth. As such, i don't think the argument "if you don't realize immediately the character is shallow then they aren't shallow" works well.

At what point can I judge whether a character is shallow or deep? And does one variable make for a shallow character?

Because that's the actual claim here. Anders is deep unless you know that he shows interest in Hawke no matter the gender. Now he's no longer deep, or good, or whatever positive word you want to use for such a character.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 03 avril 2012 - 08:34 .

[Deviija]

n2nw wrote...

Deviija wrote...
 At least this way a companion can say, 'Maker, that is none of your business' ....

Darn.  I wanted the juicy details.

You'll have to do my sidequest first. 

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

At what point can I judge whether a character is shallow or deep? And does one variable make for a shallow character?

Usually, the more knowledge you have the more accurate your evaluation of the character is going to be. In all cases though, the character's actual state isn't going to change -- what changes is the accuracy of your evaluation.

Can a single variable make for a shallow character? I doubt we can get a single, unanimous view on that. In this particular case... this isn't the first discussion about characters' sexual orientations and possible interpretations of those, and how those interpretations can affect interpretations of characters themselves... and so i'm not too keen to rehearse that. My personal opinion would be, i can understand how this factor could make one view the characters in question as considerably weaker.

[Mmw04014]

n2nw wrote...

Mmw04014 wrote...

I want to interact with characters that have defined attributes. If a character is bisexual, then he needs to be bisexual in all playthroughs, not gay in one yet straight in another.

I like to roleplay and see how characters react to my player. I can't do that if all the LI's are one-size-fits-all and they will twist and bend to fit whatever PC I choose. The choices I make become less meaningful because it doesn't matter if I chose something else, the character will still want me. It messes up the structure of who that character is, they cease to be a character and turn into what the_one says.. a fill-in-the-blank. I feel this applies to many different facets of a characters personality, not just sexuality, such as Anders not caring if Hawke is pro-mage or anti-mage. A characters integrity should not blow about like a weather vane.

Ah, now that's a definition.  Thank you.  And I agree with you on the non-sexual aspects.  An NPC's personality and ethics should remain the same *unless* you have the ability (or the leverage) to persuade them otherwise.  However, I don't see how gender preference takes away from anything except that the player now knows that they can romance them as anyone. 

Anders really liked the pro-mage people.  If he had really liked me on a 2nd playthrough as a mage hater, that would have made my choices meaningless.  That he likes me if I'm a guy or a girl doesn't change who he is or his choices.  He's still pro-mage regardless.

I don't think gender preferences take away from a character as long as it is established and they are consistent no matter what gender you play. If a character is bisexual it should be obvious to the player no matter what gender is chosen. Sure, some people don't go chattering away about their sexuality to anyone on the street, but I think the writers are smart enough that they can handle creating more subtle ways to announce a characters preferences if that's in their personality. If the writers don't do this, it leads to situations like Anders. Some people argue he's bisexual no matter what, yet others (like me) believe the writers intentionally made his sexuality dependent on the player, which I don't like.

Modifié par Mmw04014, 03 avril 2012 - 08:52 .

[twincast]

[quote]David Gaider wrote...

[quote]Dejajeva wrote...
1. I think this goes without saying, as it's pretty obvious it's a pretty standard desire for most of us on here, but in general more interaction with our companions, like in DAo. Companions in DA2 were great, but I felt like it was very...scheduled. I'd like more backstory and more banter. [/quote]

This you will get, I think. It's less about having more interaction (as, in terms of overall volume, DA2 companions actually had as much interaction as DAO companions) but rather how it's presented.

Receiving "quests" to inform the player that there was new dialogue seems like it had the opposite effect of what was intended-- rather than being a convenience, some people saw it as affecting their agency. They no longer felt like they had chosen to speak to the companion, but rather that the companion had chosen to speak with them... so they could only interact with that companion on their terms. So, fair enough. Most likely what we will do is go back to the old method of letting the player initiate dialogues, and keep any telegraphing of a companion's "availability" to something more subtle (like a change in animations).[/quote]
"Yay!" is all I can think of saying to this. :happy:

[quote]David Gaider wrote...

Part of that is also having interactions with the companion that are completely separate from the scenes-- so, the ability to ask the follower questions and/or have smaller things that the player can choose to do like kiss a romance or joke with them, etc.
[/quote]"Yay!"²
I have to add though that as much as I love li'l cutesy gestures whenever, I also want to be able to have a healthy sex life again (with a prompt asking if you also want to watch the (ME1-style!) sex scene(s) again, please) instead of a single clothed immediate fade to black.

[quote]VampOrchid wrote...
Loved the way the map system worked in DA2. Keep that. That's good.
[/quote]No, thank you. It's atrocious.

[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...

[quote]Deviija wrote...
This confuses me.  In what ways are they placeholders because they are bisexual?[/quote]
Because they aren't bisexual. They are variables. Gender neutral sexual orientation place-holders. They fill whatever roles the player wants them to fill, in any given playthrough. (with the exception of Isabella, who was obviously bisexual) None of them talk about being bisexual. They just always happen to be hot for Hawke. That's not a character. It's a fill-in-the-blank.

Let me throw the flipside on this and say that if they actually wrote bisexuality into the character (as with Isabela) then I would not be bothered by it.
[/quote]Agreed, in essence.

[quote]Dessalines wrote...

I always thought that was were the funnier issues concerning Dragon Age 2 was how everyone could romance
everyone. I thought they did that in response to people complaining in Dragon Age that they could not romance this or that person. Check the forums for Dragon Age 1, you will see the complaints.[/quote]Obviously. Thinking back I always find it funny how after DA:O's release they were saying they'd never do "everyone's bi".

[quote]umwhatyousay wrote...

[quote]Dejajeva wrote...

If Bioware starts turning in game events into showing prejudice from NPCs against gays and lesbians I'll be very disappointed. There's enough of that in real life.[/quote]

I like it when characters display homophobia (and it's portrayed as a character flaw, duh), like Gamlen. Mass Effect was supposed to take place in a less sexist future, but (I felt) they messed that up so it aggravated me even more. Dragon Age's world is not supposed to be more enlightened than contemporary Canada, and it makes the game feel more real. Not that realism is the be-all and end-all. These narratives are kind of contrived so that as many people as possible can enjoy them, and I think that's a good thing. I'd take all-bi LI's over some bi-LI's and more acknowledgement that the characters live in a homophobic (and sexist/racist/whatever) society any
day.

As far as what in DA3? Lots of stuff that's already come up, like female Kossith. I would definitely enjoy having more meaningful friendships. I wanna learn about the other countries in Thedas a bit more. I'd like to meet more people from Rivain and Tevinter.[/quote]I can't think of any homophobia in the real world that doesn't ultimately stem from the (authors of the) Pentateuch and since we don't have access to the whole Chant of Light Thedosian attitudes can obviously go any which way. I'd prefer attitudes resembling pre-Abrahamized cultures in regards to sexuality (including pictures on walls and trinkets that would sadly earn it a silly M rating in a heartbeat), minus the often amost as bad misogyny, but as long as no-one gets killed or imprisoned for his or her sexuality or gender identity I'm not all too picky.

[quote]umwhatyousay wrote...

[quote]Mmw04014 wrote...

Yeah, we have different definitions of the word. I don't think it stops at gender, but includes anything, such as appearance, actions, race, etc. The further Bioware can get away from that the better, in my opinion. They can then create more defined characters with their own thoughts and opinions outside the influence of the almighty PC.
[/quote]

Bioware is not going to calculate whether or not some NPC finds your character hot. I don't think it's a big deal.[/quote]Of course not, but it would be awesome.

[quote]umwhatyousay wrote...

[quote]slashthedragon wrote...

There would probably be two other bi characters though.
[/quote]

What? Why? At least two other bi characters of the same gender? That's only happened when they've all been bi, hasn't it?
[/quote]Ideally there should be one homosexual, one or two bisexual and one or two heterosexual love interests of each sex. Of course the more well done ones, the better, but while six LI's sounds doable, ten does not. As long as we're stuck with four LI's, though, I'm grudgingly fine with every one of them being bisexual, it being the lesser evil so to speak.

Anyway, what I would seriously love to see would be a) non-romanceable queer companions and more helping along with companions' love lives (both with third parties and with other companions) -- ideally, but not necessarily, including both in one. Ashley and Kaidan's budding romance getting cut short really pulled on my heartstrings and seeing my buddies Garrus and Tali secretly hook up was heartwarmingly adorable. I'd just want some more player agency in it to enrich the experience. And in regards to Aveline's quest line; covertly clearing their patrol path was just plain silly to the point of being utterly immersion-breaking, but other than that particular screw-up it was close to perfect. ♥

Modifié par twincast, 03 avril 2012 - 08:58 .

[Brockololly]

SirGladiator wrote...

There isn't anything in Morrigan's character that says she couldn't romance a female, its stated quite clearly that she (and Flemeth) slept with many Templars, and Templars are certainly not a male-only profession, so its far more likely that she's slept with women than that she hasn't.

Yeah, I'd love to see that line where Morrigan says she sleeps with Templars cause I really don't remember that. Honestly, I'd be truly curious to see that line. She states that she's slept with many men before, but I don't recall her saying anything about sleeping with Templars. You're just making quite the stretch there considering Morrigan makes zero insinuations that she's into other women, but on the contrary we have concrete proof she's into men. Hell, she is creeped out by Leliana and her leering.

[Cat Fancy]

twincast wrote...

I can't think of any homophobia in the real world that doesn't ultimately stem from the (authors of the) Pentateuch and since we don't have access to the whole Chant of Light Thedosian attitudes can obviously go any which way. I'd prefer attitudes resembling pre-Abrahamized cultures in regards to sexuality (including pictures on walls and trinkets that would sadly earn it a silly M rating in a heartbeat), minus the often amost as bad misogyny, but as long as no-one gets killed or imprisoned for his or her sexuality or gender identity I'm not all too picky.

Really? I can.  What about, like, China? Homophobia's a thing in a lot of places, and it was well-before Christianity and Islam were established (I don't think Judaism ever had the influence those two religions had, but I could be wrong). Greek and Roman beliefs on homosexuality were influenced by all manner of totally gross misogyny and homophobia. I think the writers have said that the Chant of Light doesn't really talk about homosexuality (maybe I'm wrong), but there's some evidence that the Thedosian cultures we've seen are a bit homophobic. Not majorly so, like maybe frat-douche plus disappointed, biological-grandchild-wanting parent levels. Perfect analogy.


I also like the idea of companions getting 2gether, very much enjoyed that in ME3.

[the_one_54321]

n2nw wrote...
An NPC's personality and ethics should remain the same *unless* you have the ability (or the leverage) to persuade them otherwise.  However, I don't see how gender preference takes away from anything except that the player now knows that they can romance them as anyone. 

Anders really liked the pro-mage people.  If he had really liked me on a 2nd playthrough as a mage hater, that would have made my choices meaningless.  That he likes me if I'm a guy or a girl doesn't change who he is or his choices.

It's the exact same concept!!!

Either the character is always the same character, or the character is a variable. It applies to all aspects of the character. All aspects.

Dave of Canada wrote...
Characters should never fall apart on a second playthrough.

This is a quote to live by. Every time I play the game, each character should be the same person I started with in every other playthrough.

(if they change through the course of the game, well that's part of telling a story, so long as it fits with who they are at the start)

Modifié par the_one_54321, 03 avril 2012 - 09:24 .

[Deviija]

the_one_54321 wrote...
It's the exact same concept!!!

Either the character is always the same character, or the character is a variable. It applies to all aspects of the character. All aspects.

It is the same character.  You are just expecting to be told/shown something no matter what dialogue or path you take.  That Anders tells my SnarkyHawke he loves raspberries, while my DiplomaticHawke never sees that dialogue... it doesn't make it variable.  It makes it a missed response due to dialogue choices.  Anders can still love raspberries, my DiplomaticHawke just may never know about it.  And it doesn't have anything important to do with anything unless we're having tea and pastries with raspberries. 

He still is the same character, regardless of missed information by the player/PC.