443 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

jlb524 wrote...

The DA2 characters felt more developed to me considering they each had their own personal mission that lasted throughout the game.  You just didn't get to hear about something that happened to them in their lives...you were their with them to see it all act out.

The DA:O companions were just kinda following the Warden around in order to stop the Blight..  Sure, some had one personal mission but it wasn't as in depth as what you see with the DA2 companions.

I still think most of the DA:O companions are kinda boring.

I would agree that DA2 companions had more pre-written personality and individuality.  They were far more likely to wander off and do their own thing without my input.

But I enjoyed the DAO companions more, because I got to play them more.  DAO's combat allowed me greater time to explore tactics for them, and the talent system let me customise them more to fit my view of how they should behave.  DAO's companions were more my characters can DA2's companions were, and that's what I want from the party members in a party-based game.

That Isabela kept skipping out on me whenever I spoke to the Qunari was endlessly irritating.  And I hated that Anders had a whole Guy Fawkes thing going on that I didn't know about.

I do not care about characters I do not get to play.

[Kidd]

Fandango9641 wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

This is a baseless statement. While for those who want to run the same character every time, the all-bi approach would indeed be preferable, that mindset is by no means a prerequisite to appreciate said design choice.

And honestly, I don't see why either me or you should consider our way of playing the "better" way.

How do you type so well with your fingers in your ears? There are two sides to this debate and neither are baseless (we just disagree is all).

Your general opinion might not be baseless, only the part I called out as baseless is where I feel as such. I am a strong supporter of all LIs being available to all genders, yet none of my Sheps/Hawkes/Wardens are anything alike. Different classes, views on religion, genders, sexual orientations, you name it. Hence, my existence (and one is never alone in such matters) proves your statement was wrong.

As for the rest of your opinion, I just don't agree one bit but I don't think you are by any means "wrong" from an objective stand point. Please don't put words in my mouth =)

jlb524 wrote...

Morrigan's the same...I've done the modded Female Warden/Morrigan romance and it seemed to fit rather well (made the final choice interesting and I rather enjoyed playing through it).  Only issue was being referred to as 'he' on occasion and the fact that she offered my female Warden the DR instead of suggesting Alistair do it.

I like what this would hint at

(if you don't get it; my avatar is an asari )

[TEWR]

David Gaider wrote...

Anders and Fenris explicitly discuss their views on mages and blood magic. If the player being a mage or not changed their views, that would indeed change their character to suit the player.

Tangent time!

So, while what I'm about to say doesn't have to do with sexual orientation*, it does have to do with romances.... somewhat.

I don't really see it as a valid option that Fenris can be in a happy-ish romance with a Blood Mage Hawke who may be doing spells that are progressively worse, yet he'll simultaneously chastise Merrill who is a blood mage in the simplest and most ethical form of the specialization: using only her own blood to power spells and never performing the more ghastly aspects. She even uses it for good purposes.

To call Hawke a good mage when Hawke may be taking blood from his allies and mind controlling his enemies but call Merrill a witch when Merrill is no more evil then Hawke was bad for me. It's one of DAII's flaws for me.

I think that he should take umbrage with Hawke even deigning to learn the arts -- from Merrill, ideally -- to remain consistent with his character ("ALL blood mages need to be killed or punished!")

And then if Hawke learns more talents, he will refuse to be in a relationship with him/her becaue he's learning more spells that can be considered "evil".

At the very least. At most, he would either leave the party because he will not be around two blood mages or say he'll keep an eye on Hawke's actions and if Hawke starts to become too much like Danarius -- echoing his comments when he's met -- he'll try to kill Hawke.

And though that one where he leaves the party would be consistent with his character, I wouldn't really like it. I like having all the companions I can in my group and also being able to pick what spells I want.

I do want consequences to my leveling up decisions though.

================================================================

*I've had time to mull it over, and I've come to the realization that having bisexual LIs doesn't bother me anymore. And I'd even enjoy it more, provided a few conditions are met (resources willing, anyway):

1) Never make the entire group of companions bisexual
2) Make the romance paths sufficiently different for each gender. Pronoun swaps and a line of information for one gender do not fit this criteria
3) Have some NPC romances. Some like DAO's "quick flings" and maybe... just maybe... if the resources allow for it an actual romance with someone outside of the group of companions.

[Arbryna]

Fandango9641 wrote...
I mean, Morrigans romance arc might very well be a decent ‘fit’ those playing a female protagonist, but the one ‘issue’ mentioned above is a pretty formidable one wouldn’t you say? 
 

*pokes head in*

Actually, considering Thedas is a world rife with all sorts of fantastical magics, and the fact that Morrigan is offering a ~dark magical ritual~ that will guarantee that she'll get pregnant this one night, ignoring where she may be in her cycle or any other factors that influence fertility/conception, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me that the ritual could have taken some part of a female Warden's "essence" in a way that didn't involve man fluids. But YMMV. 

*runs off to the romance thread where this discussion is actually relevant*

[Kidd]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Call me out by all means KiddDaBeauty, just be sure not to quote the views of someone who perfectly encapsulates my objections to an all hero-sexual cast of LI’s in the very same post. I mean, Morrigans romance arc might very well be a decent ‘fit’ those playing a female protagonist, but the one ‘issue’ mentioned above is a pretty formidable one wouldn’t you say?

“I want my pick of LI’s, regardless of how I choose to play, so make that aspect of their characterisation totally ambiguous”.

Less baseless than absolutely true wouldn’t you say?

Just because I make a happy joke to her in the same post does not mean I agree with her reasoning 100%, even though we're both "on the same side" on this matter. Not that I think her position is "less important" than yours and mine, mind you.

I think the apex of Morrigan's romance arc containing the horrible choice of having the LI of my character sleep with someone else in my party - one my character might not even remotly like (or perhaps actually liking that person would itself be a stronger problem?) - to become pregnant with them would be a very interesting choice. It's similar to how my first Warden had to ask her LI to cheat on her to save them both, but perhaps even more interesting since at least that Warden could pretend nothing ever happened after the deal was done.

So no, I remain of the position your line was baseless in the general sense. It is indeed true for some people, just like I said originally, but not everyone. Yet you worded it as if it was the very base of everyone's opinion, which it's not. Me personally adoring asari for their ability to have children with a woman is a complete aside and very irrelevant =)

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Riiiiiiight, so summarise your objection to not having an all hero-sexual cast of LI’s again for me please.

Can you explain how being herosexual makes them shallow as opposed to not having many oppurtunities to interact with them?  If I were going to point at one thing and say "this makes them shallow" it would be the fact that I get two or three chances to talk with them that actually becomes a conversation instead of text bubbles.  The fact that they might well romance me, or I them in another playthrough has no bearing on that, other than the fact that the inability to interact with them when they don't have a quest would still exist.

It's not like they don't have interactions with themselves when I'm not around:

"Why do you always win at cards"

"Because I cheat, Kitten"

This dialog actually gives a pretty good look at Isabela's character, since she will return something she won from Merrill in that dialog, telling her not to gamble things she doesn't want to lose.  These are things that I would prefer to find out about her through dialog, like I found out things about my Origins companions, but again, this has nothing to do with herosexuality, but a lack of oppurtunity to do so.

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Riiiiiiight, so summarise your objection to not having an all hero-sexual cast of LI’s again for me please.

Can you explain how being herosexual makes them shallow as opposed to not having many oppurtunities to interact with them?  If I were going to point at one thing and say "this makes them shallow" it would be the fact that I get two or three chances to talk with them that actually becomes a conversation instead of text bubbles.  The fact that they might well romance me, or I them in another playthrough has no bearing on that, other than the fact that the inability to interact with them when they don't have a quest would still exist.

It's not like they don't have interactions with themselves when I'm not around:

"Why do you always win at cards"

"Because I cheat, Kitten"

This dialog actually gives a pretty good look at Isabela's character, since she will return something she won from Merrill in that dialog, telling her not to gamble things she doesn't want to lose.  These are things that I would prefer to find out about her through dialog, like I found out things about my Origins companions, but again, this has nothing to do with herosexuality, but a lack of oppurtunity to do so.

Christ, are you actually taking the time to read what I’m writing here?

To confirm, I’m not saying that making an NPC hero-sexual in the manner of Anders makes him shallow; I’m saying that setting sexuality affords a level of depth to characterisation that would otherwise be missing if it were to be removed entirely! To support my point I’ve talked Isabella, Zev and Leliana, I’ve talked about David’s approach to writing his favourite romance arc and I’ve talked about the problems I have with having NPC’s reinvent themselves to suit the romantic whims of each and every player!

I agree that having more opportunities to converse with ones party would be great, but that’s an entirely separate issue isn’t it? So, do you understand where I’m coming from now or do you want me to draw you a picture, Kitten?

Since the characters in question will react the same way to the same stimulus in any individual play through, just as the Origins companions will, barring, of course that unlike Origins, you won't be rejected on a romance if you have enough influence to start it, yeah, draw me a picture.  Just because BioWare chose to veer away from excluding somebody based solely on gender doesn't mean any one of the companions lost anything.  So draw me a really detailed picture and show me how anything other than lack of oppurtunity to explore them, a restriction that would exist even if they fit into neat little boxes of "clearly defined sexuality", makes them shallow.  I've been asking for that since I started reading this branch of the discussion, and so far it's been "because I said so", or "generic lines are generic".  Exactly what difference does it make to depth if you never get to explore any depth?  Do draw that picture, ok?  After all, if it can be laid out plainly, maybe everyone that goes "WHAT???" every time this comes up would understand it.  It's not like I'm some country bumpkin that won't understand logic.  Which is why I continue to question how metagaming knowledge affects roleplaying a romance with any specific NPC with any specific gender.  It's not like Anders, for your example, isn't going to blow up the chantry if he's specifically gay, or straight.  Everything that makes them who they are is clearly defined, in as much as the limited dialogs allow, in every playthrough.  Personal problems, as indicated by DG, since you do want to bring him up, are hardly the game's fault.

[Kidd]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Riiiiiiight, so summarise your objection to not having an all hero-sexual cast of LI’s again for me please.

I prefer a hero-sexual cast cause it allows me choice. It means that it's more likely I will find an LI that fits with any character I create. LIs are a big portion of the game to me, yet I prefer not to create my characters to fit a specific LI (rather I pick the LI that fits my chosen personality). Sometimes that means I'm looping content instead of finding new content - ie I've yet to play through Aerie's romance in BG2 even though I've had way more than four bhaalspawns since the release of the game - but I'm okay with that since obviously this is the way I prefer to play.

My favourite example is my very first Warden I created in DAO. She was of the magi origin, and didn't think Jowan really did anything bad. She wasn't too happy about the "it's for your own good"-ness of the Circle to begin with, and it certainly didn't get any better. Templars were horrible people second only to darkspawn, and their religion wasn't all that to her either even though she had previously been a believer.

Then came the time for her to find an LI. Alistair didn't fit her concept very well, even though he technically wasn't a templar any longer. Leliana was all over that whole Maker thing, and that was pretty ugly. Zevran didn't really seem to have an opinion on the matter at all, so he wasn't that interesting to my character concept. Morrigan though? Yeah, that would've been a perfect fit. Just the kind of person my Warden would start looking for answers with, and possibly bond with romantically.

Morrigan disapproved a lot as my Warden kept going forward. But eventually they turned to the same page overall any way. This would've been a very interesting romance arc, if only... well if only it was one. Since my character was created female at character generation, my choice was stripped away from me before I even knew about the choice.

I ended up forcing my character into an arc where she took a liking to Alistair which I otherwise wouldn't have done, and overall it was still an entertaining playthrough, but that could've gone a lot better had Morrigan not been locked away. Much more organically. Of course I could've just accepted missing out on enjoyable content, but I preferred not to, especially since I never really considered DAO's actual game play that fun to begin with.

And honestly, I don't see how Morrigan would be any different from the way she is now had she been available for female PCs, at all. My Warden and her made fun of men who were always ready to think the best of a woman if she seemed attracted to him, and that could very well have happened in a romance arc as well.

There, detailed enough for you? =)

EDIT: I suppose a tl;dr version of this would read something along the lines of "I prefer to think of the LIs as very useful tools for crafting my own stories." Didn't really think that summarisation through, but perhaps it might be accurate ^^

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 04 juin 2012 - 01:58 .

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ok, baby steps it is. Do you concede that having Leliana, Isabella and Zev be explicitly bisexual lent anything to the strength of their characterisation?

No, because no matter how hard I try as a Warden, I can't romance them on both genders at the same time.  Of course, as a heterosexual male with gay friends, sexuality does not come into play when considering whether a person is deep, or shallow.  There are things in their character that do define them.  The primary difference being, in Origins, and I have conceded this point time and time again, I can interact with them a lot more, and learn more about them.  I would have no reservations about inviting any of them to a party at my house, except I wouldn't play cards against Isabela.

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ok, baby steps it is. Do you concede that having Leliana, Isabella and Zev be explicitly bisexual lent anything to the strength of their characterisation?

No, because no matter how hard I try as a Warden, I can't romance them on both genders at the same time.  Of course, as a heterosexual male with gay friends, sexuality does not come into play when considering whether a person is deep, or shallow.  There are things in their character that do define them.  The primary difference being, in Origins, and I have conceded this point time and time again, I can interact with them a lot more, and learn more about them.  I would have no reservations about inviting any of them to a party at my house, except I wouldn't play cards against Isabela.

So, pointless talk about card games with Isabella notwithstanding, you are saying what exactly? I ask whether having Leliana, Isabella and Zev be explicitly bisexual lent anything to the strength of their characterisation and you say "No, because I can't romance both genders at the same time". What? Whhhhhhhhhhattttttt?

As for the point you keep making about sexuality not defining NPC’s, I’ll just have to say again that I agree. Not that I should keep having to do so!

Because a person's sexuality is not what defines them.  It is one small part of who they are, although some are more flamboyant, or open about it does not mean that someone that isn't is shallow.  It just means that somebody is being judgemental because they chose to not disclose that information.  Yes, my Warden is aware that Zevran and Leliana are bisexual.  Do I think this makes them more or less than they could be?  No.  Asked and answered, even if you chose to ignore it.  What I am waiting for is your picture.  I guess since my world views don't fit into your neat little box, you are now unable to draw it?  Isn't this, like the inability to see the forest for the trees with the DA2 companions sexuality, more your problem than mine?

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ok, baby steps it is. Do you concede that having Leliana, Isabella and Zev be explicitly bisexual lent anything to the strength of their characterisation?

No, because no matter how hard I try as a Warden, I can't romance them on both genders at the same time.  Of course, as a heterosexual male with gay friends, sexuality does not come into play when considering whether a person is deep, or shallow.  There are things in their character that do define them.  The primary difference being, in Origins, and I have conceded this point time and time again, I can interact with them a lot more, and learn more about them.  I would have no reservations about inviting any of them to a party at my house, except I wouldn't play cards against Isabela.

So, pointless talk about card games with Isabella notwithstanding, you are saying what exactly? I ask whether having Leliana, Isabella and Zev be explicitly bisexual lent anything to the strength of their characterisation and you say "No, because I can't romance both genders at the same time". What? Whhhhhhhhhhattttttt?

As for the point you keep making about sexuality not defining NPC’s, I’ll just have to say again that I agree. Not that I should keep having to do so!

Upon further consideration, I have a question for you:  If as you say at the end of this post, NPC sexuality doesn't matter, how can you put forward, in the same breath, more or less, that being openly bi makes them better?  You are coming across as their sexuality doesn't matter so long as they are willing to disclose that information to you.  There is a big difference between the two, and the fact that you harp on it continually states a contradiction to the claim that it doesn't matter.  This really gets to the point of redunancy since, in any single game, the only companion that you know for certain is trysexual is Isabela in 2, as sexuality isn't openly discussed by any of the rest of them.  So again, it appears that you don't have a problem with NPC sexuality, so long as you know where they stand, but when you don't, they are shallow.

[David Gaider]

It's partly my fault for engaging someone on the subject, but this thread is pretty much no longer about Felicia's interview is it? It is completely and irrevocably off topic, with those involved going round in circles. Shutting it down.