1536 réponses à ce sujet

[ladyshamen]

David Gaider wrote...
I once came up with a theory that our most popular characters were those who supported the player unconditionally, and even wrote a character to be deliberately sycophantic just to see if I was right. Turned out I was. There are always exceptions, of course, but by and large players prefer followers who are agreeable, supportive and amusing... and any variation from that will provoke hate in varying degrees.

I actually enjoy when a follower disagrees with my PC. Sometimes it makes me stop and really think about whats going on. They don't have to be hateful to disagree. And besides, you CAN have a loyal,loving always agreeable follower, it's called a Mabari.

[R2s Muse]

David Gaider wrote...

I once came up with a theory that our most popular characters were those who supported the player unconditionally, and even wrote a character to be deliberately sycophantic just to see if I was right. Turned out I was. There are always exceptions, of course, but by and large players prefer followers who are agreeable, supportive and amusing... and any variation from that will provoke hate in varying degrees.

Oh gosh, now I'm dying to know who that was...

EDIT: nice one, ladyshamen! Yeah, Dog, who was always at 100% approval. LOL

Modifié par R2s Muse, 25 avril 2012 - 04:34 .

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

I hope Tallis doesn't come back, it's not that she's a bad character or anything but we've had her in DA2 and she's got her own web series... There's such thing as an overload and for my personally it would feel like she was being forced down our throats.

And I've been left with the impression that, had Tallis been a male character, there'd be far more swooning and talk of how he needs to return as a full romance, etc. etc., from... certain corners of the fanbase.

I think that has more to do with how Mark of the Assassin concludes, and the role Tallis played in the narrative. It forced the protagonist to be pro-Qunari, even if he or she didn't want to. I honestly don't see this insistence in having Hawke simply do nothing in these situations, rather than allowing the protagonist to try to do something instead. Having Hawke remain passive, once again, rubbed some people the wrong way.

I think the reaction to Tallis would be different had the pro-Qunari plot railroad not been in effect.

[SamaraDraven]

David Gaider wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
edit:  I'd note that Wynne gets a fair amount of hate, despite not being religious.  Though quite a few people seem to think she is.

That's because any character that makes a suggestion is bossy. Any character that talks about themselves instead of asking about you or being concerned about your feelings is self-centered. Any character that even has problems is whiny (or emo, if they're male). Any character that gets angry about something is a jerk, and if they're objecting to something you did then they're even bigger jerks who deserve to have their heads cut off-- and good riddance.

I once came up with a theory that our most popular characters were those who supported the player unconditionally, and even wrote a character to be deliberately sycophantic just to see if I was right. Turned out I was. There are always exceptions, of course, but by and large players prefer followers who are agreeable, supportive and amusing... and any variation from that will provoke hate in varying degrees.

Which is not a reason to make all followers agreeable, supportive and amusing-- by any means. God, how boring would that be? But that's simply how it is. The PC in a video game is, by their nature, essentially a self-centered adolescent jerk.

That's a very valid point and well put. This is why I play several times and "theme" my PC into a certain kind of personality and let the reactions of the companions go how they may. I managed to earn rival status with Varric and he likes everybody!  My problem with a character being contrary to how my character is being played isn't that they disagree, it's they constantly bring up their views even in unrelated business or just in banter at. Every. Friggin'. Opportunity! I found Sebastian's sympathy toward others likable enough, most of the time. At least he was respectful and clever about his views when you hear him banter with most of the other NPCs but he DID take every chance to say something about his views, even if it seemed a bit out of place to be arguing about that subject right then. Anders did it too. Fenris made sly remarks against mages at every turn. The contrary characters I like the most were Aveline and Carver. If I kept Hawke on an even kiel, personality wise, I didn't always disagree or agree with those two. And I was genuinely surprised sometimes by their reactions to things my PC said or did when I thought I knew how they'd respond beforehand.

If contrary characters are hated by default, why is Shale much loved? Or Morrigan? I loved earning their respect for disagreeing with them even though it decreased the friendship level a bit.

Modifié par SamaraDraven, 25 avril 2012 - 05:03 .

[David Gaider]

SamaraDraven wrote...
If contrary characters are hated by default, why is Shale much loved?

Shale, like HK-47, had no internal conflict. They might occasionally insult you, but did so in an amusing fashion, and otherwise never really opposed anything you did. Especially if it was jerkish.

Or Morrigan?

Err... if you think Morrigan is universally loved, you probably haven't seen the "slap Morrigan mod".

Because, you know-- when a woman annoys you they deserve to be slapped. Apparently. <_<

[upsettingshorts]

There should be a slap Alistair mod.

You know, with like a rolled-up newspaper or something.

BAD ALISTAIR, BAD

[Dunquixote]

LOL. I'm not sure how I feel about Morrigan, though I know it made me want to slap her for suggesting the dark ritual whenever I play a character that's in a relationship with Alistair. I just shrug off the comments that I dislike, and enjoy her for being who she is. I don't tend to use her a lot in my travels, however.

Samara: From playing DAO so many times, there are certain decisions I can't see to move myself away from making. I still haven't gotten the siding with werewolves achievement, and I haven't sided with Keeper Zathrian. In dialogue, I tend to keep picking the either 0 gain or + friendship choices, depending on what I'm aiming for in my playthrough. For DA II, I haven't played it enough to notice any pattern in my decisions yet, though I did lose Isabella twice by accidentally picking the "wrong" choice. If it wasn't for the fact I didn't have Fenris with me one of the times and went in and lost badly to the Arishok, I would've been glad she wasn't with me.

[Wulfram]

I think you generally do pretty well in making sure that the parties diverse enough that people can fill a party with people they like. Which is what's important, I think.

The only awkward thing is when people feel the need to take a healer, despite not liking them.

[SamaraDraven]

David Gaider wrote...

SamaraDraven wrote...
If contrary characters are hated by default, why is Shale much loved?

Shale, like HK-47, had no internal conflict. They might occasionally insult you, but did so in an amusing fashion, and otherwise never really opposed anything you did. Especially if it was jerkish.

Or Morrigan?

Err... if you think Morrigan is universally loved, you probably haven't seen the "slap Morrigan mod".

Because, you know-- when a woman annoys you they deserve to be slapped. Apparently. <_<

I said "much loved" not "universally loved".

I think Shale had some internal issues. Mostly it was because she hated people thanks to how she was treated by the mage who used to have her control rod and the people in that village. But they weren't deeply exaggerated or explored issues. When she found out about her origin and was appalled, I picked "yes, you were once squishy too" and she took it in stride.

I've seen a lot of love for Morrigan. But no, I haven't seen the "slap Morrigan Mod". I don't grace the caveman mentality with my attention. <_< Have you seen the Thriller mod?

Wulfram wrote...

The only awkward thing is when people feel the need to take a healer, despite not liking them.

This sums up Anders for me.

@Dunquixote...  I find it difficult to break out of what I would choose as a person but I try to think of it as a character I'm portraying. I like to explore the different character interactions and once you played it one, it's kind of boring if you know how everything is going to go. But that's me. I prefer warriors and rogues to mages so I happily set the Arishok on his backside every time.

Modifié par SamaraDraven, 25 avril 2012 - 05:56 .

[AkiKishi]

ladyshamen wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
I once came up with a theory that our most popular characters were those who supported the player unconditionally, and even wrote a character to be deliberately sycophantic just to see if I was right. Turned out I was. There are always exceptions, of course, but by and large players prefer followers who are agreeable, supportive and amusing... and any variation from that will provoke hate in varying degrees.

I actually enjoy when a follower disagrees with my PC. Sometimes it makes me stop and really think about whats going on. They don't have to be hateful to disagree. And besides, you CAN have a loyal,loving always agreeable follower, it's called a Mabari.

You have two kinds of player.

Those who want the world to reflect their fantasy
Those who want the world to be important in it's own right.

I prefer NPCs to be their own people rather than puppets. As long as my character gets to be his own person in his ability to react to that.

[brushyourteeth]

David Gaider wrote...

Actually, I don't think that's accurate. The only character so far who's felt this way was Sten. Characters like Leliana and Sebastian expressed their thoughts on religion/spirituality but rarely proselytized. In fact, Sebastian was written to go out of his way to be accommodating... and yet it seems that some people have an allergic reaction to even the mention of religious views, and will interpret them as proselytization even when they're not intended as such. Which is good to recognize, I think, and it means that characters that we intend to be broadly sympathetic shouldn't be religious.

Mind you, we don't need all characters to be sympathetic. Some players are just gonna get upset, yo. Let 'em.

With respect, Mr. Gaider, I loved what you did with Leliana and especially with Sebastian. I loved that you guys weren't interested in painting religious people in a bad light simply because that's what people are comfortable with. If they chose to interpret those characters are being annoying or judgemental just because they were religious, they have that right I guess. But there are those of us that know better. I was really delighted with Sebastian's ability to state his beliefs without passing judgement. I also loved how you used Varric as an in-game example of the way that many fans would take him.

I guess what I'm saying is that I love how your characters can be as complicated as people we meet in real life. So even though I'm happy that you did it once, please don't let negative fan reaction about the religious characters that you've written stop you from making them the good guys in the future, at least some of the time.

[Dunquixote]

Wow.  Great points everyone.  I definitely agree with you there, Brush--though I haven't gotten the chance to use Sebastien yet =/.   That's why I like the video games that I play, even if it's story is not realistic and more a fantasy driven base, the realistic concepts like the set up of the early political systems of what medieval politics was actual like into the game or the fact that people all have different personalities and beliefs, that's what draws me to them.  I have just began thinking about what it is that has been making me play Dragon Age Origins so much, since it isn't like the other games I love like the Assassins' Creed series, Metal Gear Solid series, to name a few, which are set up in either a current, future, or past time with fictional elements mixed with historical or realistic to be true sometime in the future.  The fact that I love history and can apply my knowledge to the game, learn something from it, apply it to understand some concepts even in today's political/religious issues draws me into the stories.  Dragon Age, I do see it more in the set up than the story itself, but I can't say yet if that's what draws me in or the fact that this game's particular uniqueness is through the mixture of dialogue choices/actions that can end up affecting the game's ending in many ways, thus, allowing each playthrough a unique and fun experience.

Bob: That makes sense.  For me, I adapt my own preferences to what is in the game and was intended, and the blankness that they leave you to fill in the gap with your own ideas and assumptions.  Then, I connect both the intended with what my own ideas of what I imagine something to be like that they didn't go into detail at all about, and occasionally wish something was different or included than how they made it.  Mine varies with each concept.

Wulfram wrote...

I think you generally do pretty well in making sure that the parties diverse enough that people can fill a party with people they like. Which is what's important, I think.

The only awkward thing is when people feel the need to take a healer, despite not liking them.

I agree.  For me, that's what makes the story even more compelling to me as a player and much more realistic--for a video game that is.

I haven't had a healer I disliked though.  I can't say I completely disliked Anders; it was mostly the combat dialogue in DA II that annoyed me.   I wasn't fond of the healing in DA II either; I probably would have been better off most of the time without him (regardless how I made his tactics, something just wasn't working) and used potions instead

Sandra: I lately, if it wasn't for my fan fiction, I've been trying to make some different choices since I haven't seen every possible outcome yet. I will never pick choices like kill dog, no matter what, though; some of the choices that dig deep into the notion of "right and wrong," I cannot bring myself to pick the very obvious cruel choice.

Modifié par Dunquixote, 25 avril 2012 - 06:11 .

[R2s Muse]

This discussion reminds of the reasons I've heard for why, for example, Varric would never be a LI. In some sense he is that guy that pretty much always agrees with Hawke and supports her and is a great friend to her. By and large, he seems to be one of the most popular DA2 companions. And, yet, for these exact reasons, he'd be too boring for a game romance, which needs its intrinsic drama to be interesting storytelling.

Would this then suggests that "broadly sympathetic" characters are less likely to be LIs?

[Jessihatt]

brushyourteeth wrote...
With respect, Mr. Gaider, I loved what you did with Leliana and especially with Sebastian. I loved that you guys weren't interested in painting religious people in a bad light simply because that's what people are comfortable with.

Agreed. Even if sometimes they annoyed me, it wasn't due to their beliefs.
And we do also have the religious zealots such as Mother Petrice.
I like the balance.

I wouldn't mind a religious companion.
Especially if they were a Templar.

(Even better if they were Cullen )

[Reznore57]

I don't think I ever totally dislike a companion on DAO or DA2.Sure sometimes they annoyed me or makes me want to slap them (male and female alike ^^) but they 're not all black or white.
Take Sebastien , he's not one of my favorite but sometimes he's hilarious despite himself.His battlecry makes me laugh and in Legacy he has a banter about his shining armour bringing the makers' light ,it was really funny.
There's always something more about them , like Sten , badass warrior who likes cookies and painting...

As long as there are those details that don't make them one dimensional character , it's ok.

For DA 3 , I 'd like to have a companion who challenges my authority as a band leader.Sten did that a bit ...Maybe getting in a group of people who already have a leader and take his/her role .And a companion who's a huge coward could be fun , there's a lot of fighting and gore going on , and nobody fainted yet , i'm disappointed .

[Dunquixote]

Ooo, I like that idea, Rez.

[Wulfram]

As an aside, it seems like Merrill doesn't get criticised for her religious beliefs. Despite talking about them a lot.

Well, actually she's criticised for being a crazy obsesssed blood mage, and in fact her crazy obsessed blood mageness could be considered an outgrowth of her faith. But it never seems to be her religion that is focused on.

edit:  A healer wasn't actually necessary in DA2.  I think if the game had done better at convincing people of that, quite few would have enjoyed the game more.

Not sticking the super nice haste and heroic aura in with the healing might have helped too.

Modifié par Wulfram, 25 avril 2012 - 06:31 .

[Dunquixote]

I did like Merrill at first because she reminds me of myself (only, I'm not That naive); I apologize probably more than she does.

Edit: I was rather disappointed with the mage class in DA 2.  I loved playing as a caster in most games.  I admit, I liked some of the blood mage abilities in DA 2.

Modifié par Dunquixote, 25 avril 2012 - 06:34 .

[ladyshamen]

I find people fascinating in real life, so I guess that's why I enjoy getting to know the characters in a game I'm playing. Bioware, IMO, have excellent writers that make me WANT to get to know everyone. No, I didn't just love all the characters, but there were none I hated. Everyone is annoyed by something. Leliana's voice made me want to grind my teeth. I still had her in my party with certain PC's. I like the way the Dragon Age games have dealt with religion,as in RL, some people are, and some don't give it much thought. I say, keep the diversity!

[LobselVith8]

Wulfram wrote...

As an aside, it seems like Merrill doesn't get criticised for her religious beliefs. Despite talking about them a lot.

Anders criticizes Merrill for her Dalish views, and tries to impose his Andrastian views on her. He expects her to see spirits and demons as two seperate classes of denizens of the Fade, as "Children of the Maker," while she doesn't share that view because she's Dalish.

Wulfram wrote...

Well, actually she's criticised for being a crazy obsesssed blood mage, and in fact her crazy obsessed blood mageness could be considered an outgrowth of her faith. But it never seems to be her religion that is focused on.

I thought Merrill was criticized for being proactive about the plight of the Dalish, where she extrapolated information from the shard and studied the lore on the Eluvian before deciding that it could possibly help the People, and being a blood mage? I don't see blood magic as evil. Duncan also pointed out that some Grey Warden mages use blood magic to give them an edge against the darkspawn.

[Dunquixote]

Blood magic being "evil" depends on the user's intentions with it, and the summoning demons part, except for the fact it can backfire on you like it did with Uldred, it pretty much can looked at almost like a different type of warlock like in wow. Or am I making a bad comparison, after all they're two different games.

[Wulfram]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Anders criticizes Merrill for her Dalish views, and tries to impose his Andrastian views on her. He expects her to see spirits and demons as two seperate classes of denizens of the Fade, as "Children of the Maker," while she doesn't share that view because she's Dalish.

I mean criticised on the forums, not in game

I thought Merrill was criticized for being proactive about the plight of the Dalish, where she extrapolated information from the shard and studied the lore on the Eluvian before deciding that it could possibly help the People, and being a blood mage? I don't see blood magic as evil. Duncan also pointed out that some Grey Warden mages use blood magic to give them an edge against the darkspawn.

She's proactive about the plight of the Dalish in a way which is very much shaped by her religion - the idea that the way to fix things is to reclaim their past culture and thus bring their gods and their immortality back.

[slyborg]

David Gaider wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
edit:  I'd note that Wynne gets a fair amount of hate, despite not being religious.  Though quite a few people seem to think she is.

That's because any character that makes a suggestion is bossy. Any character that talks about themselves instead of asking about you or being concerned about your feelings is self-centered. Any character that even has problems is whiny (or emo, if they're male). Any character that gets angry about something is a jerk, and if they're objecting to something you did then they're even bigger jerks who deserve to have their heads cut off-- and good riddance.

I once came up with a theory that our most popular characters were those who supported the player unconditionally, and even wrote a character to be deliberately sycophantic just to see if I was right. Turned out I was. There are always exceptions, of course, but by and large players prefer followers who are agreeable, supportive and amusing... and any variation from that will provoke hate in varying degrees.

Which is not a reason to make all followers agreeable, supportive and amusing-- by any means. God, how boring would that be? But that's simply how it is. The PC in a video game is, by their nature, essentially a self-centered adolescent jerk.

I had no problem with Wynne, but I think some of hate comes from "Mom Syndrome." In the soap opera version of DAO I can see my female mage yelling "stay out of my life, mom!" *slams tent flap* when Wynne questions her relationship with Alistair. A lot of gamers are probably trying to escape naggy parents and hate being told what to do in game. 

I like companions that are questioning, however. A lot of people rag on Kaidan and Ashley from ME because they were accusatory on Horizon and say Garrus and Tali were Shepard's "only true friends" but that is crap. True friends call you on your BS, they don't coddle you. I don't mind Varric's concern for Hawke starting a relationship with Anders, because most friends would be concerned. I think a lot people misconstrue this as bossiness because they want to believe their PC is epically awesome, unlike their own fragile egoed selves.

[Jessihatt]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't see blood magic as evil. Duncan also pointed out that some Grey Warden mages use blood magic to give them an edge against the darkspawn.

I think blood magic is evil when a demon is involved. I think in the codex it said that a deal with a demon isn't necessary to perform blood magic.
Merrill is stupid because she did make a deal to learn more about her people's past and thought she was clever enough to outwit it and it cost her Keeper's life (and possibly as a consequence, her clan).

That said, I wouldn't mind a blood mage or a demon-deal-maker in my party, just as I wouldn't mind a Templar.
I want both sides of the Templar/Mage war in my party and onside in DA3.
It'd make for interesting conflict.

[Dunquixote]

I agree. Having different perspectives even in a video game can be quite a helpful and valuable thing, if you're the sort that likes to apply critical thinking to it.  You can learn a lot from a video game and the story itself that you can apply to aspects of even everyday life.   Also, in the game, it can help you understand the characters' structure of their beliefs and why they behave the way they do.

Modifié par Dunquixote, 25 avril 2012 - 07:01 .