the_one_54321 wrote...
Johnny Jaded wrote...
No one is arguing against more choice, just that characters be more realistic and analogous of the real world as they were in Origins. Though I concede that less choice would technically be a result.
Johnny speaks the truth. I'm interested in characters, not story place-holders.
Although, I would be willing to compromise if it meant that each character would get significantly more attention and a larger role in the scheme of the story.
Um, I am interested in characters as well.
This confuses me. In what ways are they placeholders because they are bisexual? Unless, T_O, you are going off on a general tangent rather than romance-specific, which is where the context of my post stems from?
I found the romanceable characters in DA2 every bit as fleshed out as DA:O's romanceable companions. In fact, I actually found them more explored and engaging in some ways over DA:O's folks.
Also, and this is a question in general that I re-ask and not specific to T_O or Johnny, why is having four bisexual companions not realistic? Not everything has to be 'realistic' in the sense that it plays out like our real world is. A fantasy world is not Earth. And thank goodness for that.
Brockololly wrote...
Ultimately, thats my main contention- they shouldn't be PC-sexual. Give the NPCs more defined preferences and defined traits. To me, that makes them more interesting characters and lays the groundwork for more potential conflict. Like how Samara shuts down Shepard since she's just not in her code. Or Aveline is more interested in that other guard. I want more reactivity from the NPCs towards the PC that I create.
<snip>
I want the NPCs to react to the PC I've created. So if that means I made a male character and Alistair is straight, not being able to romance him is a consequence to the choice I made in character creation of making my PC male. Or maybe if you give your PC blonde hair and blue eyes, some female NPC won't like you initially because her ex had blonde hair and blue eyes and you remind her of him.
Okay, if you'd like more Samara and Aveline opportunities, then place them upon the non-romanceable companions in the party. Wouldn't that suffice? Why do these kind of 'you can't get the story you wanted to see' strictures need to be placed upon the main romanceable characters?
If we are allowed the freedom to flirt with non-romanceable companions, whether our PC is straight, bi, gay, gnome, then letting them shoot the PC down for specific reasons works to illustrate the above just the same. No? If you have that freedom to try romancing these non-romanceable characters, then it would retain that sense of 'oh, okay, they're not available because of x, y, or z reason' you are speaking of. And there would be no need to collide into the real romanceable characters area. It would provide the same compare/contrast and opportunities to roleplay, imo. I'd be for it.
As for the other bit...I fear that is just shooting oneself in the foot as far as content and accessibility goes. Making it more and more difficult and prequisite-y isn't a good answer to anything, in my eyes. Can it provide more specific and unique interactions? Maybe... 'Oh, I hate you cuz you got blue eyes and blonde hair like my ex' if that's specific and deep enough of an interaction, I suppose. But when it comes to purely 'fluff' tertiary content like romances, that usually don't weigh heavily upon the story itself (whether due to story or budget), I don't think making them any more difficult or exclusive is much of an answer. Even for the sake of 'better traits.'
Though this brings up a somewhat related note that I've seen some posters comment on: about gender affecting things, or how society views a certain gender/gender in a relationship, sexism and homophobia etc. being parts of a game. To which I say: No thank you. People deal with this enough in their own real life that I don't find it particularly engaging, worthwhile, interesting, or enjoyable whatsoever in a fictional world. I am multiple minority on many fronts in real life, so having the Real World -ism's in a fictional world is like being slapped out of this medium's enjoyment purposes. I don't want to combat homophobia, sexism, human racism, and so on in a fictional world my PC is (and by proxy, me, the player) a part of but have little power to do anything about other than 'take it, because that's your station in life.' That's dreadful to me.
Having an NPC show bias or generalized hatred to something, whether politics or ideaology or gender or sexuality, I can bear with it since it is just this one-off character here and there. Not the entire world at large, or a society itself, or acts as a big plot point to suffer through. It's a fantasy world with dragons and gods and magic. I am certain many other things that can be woven into prejudices and problems and drama.
It's also another of the many reasons why I enjoy the DA franchise and like playing in it. It's not perfect, but it gets away from many of those -ism's and their baggage. Again, not always, but it definitely tries and tries to be open to the player. Sometimes I wonder if the people asking for such things to be included for 'drama' are people speaking from a place of privilege or are a minority status themselves. All I can say, it is definitely not fun for me to run into when I'm trying to enjoy my escapism time.
ETA: Oh goodness, typos. As well as to add: I'm fine with cameos, as long as they're more than just cameos for the sake of 'oh hey, that dude.' Like, a fugitive Anders (if he's around) cameo in an overall warplot of Templars vs. Mages, would make sense to me.
Modifié par Deviija, 03 avril 2012 - 03:37 .
Retour en haut
