533 réponses à ce sujet

[ReallyRue]

wsandista wrote...

Should a Templar be an off-limits relationship for a Blood Mage? Should a devout Andrastian(almost certain I spelled that wrong) be off-limits to a heathen PC who attacks the Chantry? Should a former slave be off-limits to a slaver? Should an elf be off-limits to a bigot?

I believe that the answer to all of the above should be yes.

I agree, but unless Bioware actually decided to take this route, I don't see the point of restricting the sexuality of the LIs, and nothing else.

Either they should be available to everybody, regardless of gender, morals, personality, etc. Or, LIs should be restricted to certain genders, moralities, personalities, etc. Not just "let's restrict the gender 'for realism' but other than that, everyone wants you".

[Red_Sonja]

Tirigon wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Exactly my point
The NPCs should be who they are, not conform to fit the PC

If they change based on your character choice, they are still who they are.

Why does it lessen them if, in different playthroughs, they are different? I could see a problem only if they change during one playthrough.

That’s a fair question but, if consistency of characterisation is not important to you, what would your party members even stand for? NPC characterisation is a huge part of why people enjoy the games Biowares make; quite why anyone would want to dilute that in favour of self-centred fantasy is a mystery to me.

Modifié par Red_Sonja, 04 mai 2012 - 03:53 .

[wsandista]

BobSmith101 wrote...

wsandista wrote...
Well I do like me some Fire Emblem
But if I may there is a difference between a reformed bigot(yes I know I used bigot as an example, but not reformed bigot the bigot example was someone who constanly attacks other races) and someone who is sworn to combat (insert "evil" deed here). A Paladin will not love someone who sacrifices children to Cyric( or similarly horrible deed) simply because the Paladin is morally opposed to it. 

New one just been released in Japan.

I think that's valid. That's judging someone on their actions , not what they are. A Templar who travels with a Bloodmage that does not conform to the stereotype though, that would fit with the Lethe/Jill theme.

True, but do individuals preform their actions based upon who they are, or does who they are depend on their actions? Templars are hostile to blood magic because they generally find it to be a horrible deed. A Templar/Blood Mage romance would always be strained(to say the least) because the Templar would cnstantly be disgusted by the BloodMage using a power that the Templar finds evil.

[Zack_Nero]

Maybe less romances, I mean every character tries to be romance, in DA every character that was special or dlc were romancable. Also not have every character bi, that was just stupid. Also different character development, I mean it was shown in DA with friendship and rivaly romance but just at a deeper level. And last, maybe help companions romance each other, it was touch on with Bethany and Sebastian just actually let something happen

[whykikyouwhy]

Red_Sonja wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
It's always the same thing, really. If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them, but I honestly don't see why I shouldn't just because someone has decided that A/B is forbidden based on their own moral / logic construct. It's that "I don't approve of it, so nobody should have it" thing that keeps coming back again and again no matter the topic at hand.

Yeah, that’s nonsense. Having a misogynistic NPC doesn’t make a game misogynistic any more than it reflects the views of the person who happened to write that character. NPC’s should be different; they should have different values, priorities and motivations and I don’t want to see that undermined in favour of having them pander to the play style of a single protagonist. You say ‘If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them’ but it’s just as easy for me to say ‘if you want to play this kind of romance, roleplay a different character’! See how that works?

The depth, quality and consistency of characterisation is way more important to me than the ability to woo every single LI with a single character.

While it is possible to woo several companions with a single character, I don't think you can woo all in one playthrough (Anders and Merrill will cancel out other romances). I'm not sure how many players do that - certainly, you could play a Hawke that flirts with all of the companions, and certainly, some people may want to role-play in that manner.

The characters are, imo, rich and well-written. They do possess their own desires and motivations, their own goals, prejudices, fears and dreams. Some will discuss those things with the PC in full, some will only mention a handful of details when certain dialogue options/game choices are made. And some, like Aveline, will be pretty close-lipped about much of their lives. 

Romanced companions already are changed by the PC's actions - in their view of the world, or their ability and willingness to care for others. That stems from the bond formed with Hawke - the whole concept of having someone's back, of being supported and accepted by another person, the PC. You could argue then that a romance alone alters those characters - that they become something or someone else. But they remain the unique individuals that they were written as. I didn't see anything so altered that by Act 3, Isabela no longer seemed to be Isabela, Merrill was not recognizable as Merrill, etc.  

The ability for you, as the PC, regardless of gender, to romance any of these characters does not change the core who that they are. 

I've read many an argument that they are altered to the PC's whim, that they are cheapened by being perceived as bisexual, that any ambiguous sexuality is something that makes them less, that we should know exactly what their sexuality/sexual identity is at the get-go. And yet, if we look at real life and at our own world, how many of us know every intimate detail of our friends? That, even after years of knowing someone professionally or socially, we can say with certainty that they are X or Y or Z, and that we know when they learned to first tie their shoes, what their worst memory is, or what ice cream flavor they prefer. People have different comfort zones, different inclinations for what they want to share or not.

Game-wise, we get a finite amount of time to get to know these characters - and Hawke or whoever our PC is has still to chat with them a certain way, or handle certain quests to get them to open up and have some trust. So when we talk about realism applied to these wonderful creations of fiction, why do we need so very much declared? Why do we have to have every detail mapped out and available like some full security background check dossier? If, as the PC and player, you find a certain character interesting and think that a romance would be a great thing to role-play, then you still need to apply effort to get to know the character. I think for a lot of people, the romances are less about the singular gender aspect and more about the full character - the personality, the quirks, the beliefs and heroism. Those qualities are at the forefront, and I think for many, that's what drives the desire to pursue a romance. That's the freedom/availability that they want to keep - to be able to see that arc with someone who seems all sorts of awesome. 

IMO, depth, quality and consistency are not lost in that effort.

[Tirigon]

wsandista wrote...

It depends on what you mean by character choice
If you mean choices that your PC makes then yes that is fine
If they have a completly different outlook on life because of  your character gender, race, or class that isn't good because it changes who the character is

I dont think so. Many things change between playthroughs, for example who the Fereldan king is. If you import an elfen mage, both elves and mages are more respected than if you import a Fereldan noble warden etc.....


So why should the characters not change between playthroughs?

[Tirigon]

Red_Sonja wrote...


That’s a fair question but, if consistency of characterisation is not important to you, what would your party members even stand for? NPC characterisation is a huge part of why people enjoy the games Biowares make; quite why anyone would want to dilute that in favour of self-centred fantasy is a mystery to me.

Because they can still be strong and interesting characters, imo.

For me, each playthrough is different. If in my male playthrough Merril is straight and Anders gay, and with LadyHawke the other way round, that does not matter to me - because its different playthroughs.

[wsandista]

Tirigon wrote...

wsandista wrote...

It depends on what you mean by character choice
If you mean choices that your PC makes then yes that is fine
If they have a completly different outlook on life because of  your character gender, race, or class that isn't good because it changes who the character is

I dont think so. Many things change between playthroughs, for example who the Fereldan king is. If you import an elfen mage, both elves and mages are more respected than if you import a Fereldan noble warden etc.....


So why should the characters not change between playthroughs?

But that is an import from a previous game, you actually made those choices
Does that radically change the personality of the characters, no, that changes the setting

Characters should not change between playthroughs because characters should start out the same. What if Cullen was a blood mage supporter in one game and even more anti-mage than Meredith in another? That would break the character

[hoorayforicecream]

Red_Sonja wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Exactly my point
The NPCs should be who they are, not conform to fit the PC

If they change based on your character choice, they are still who they are.

Why does it lessen them if, in different playthroughs, they are different? I could see a problem only if they change during one playthrough.

That’s a fair question but, if consistency of characterisation is not important to you, what would your party members even stand for? NPC characterisation is a huge part of why people enjoy the games Biowares make; quite why anyone would want to dilute that in favour of self-centred fantasy is a mystery to me.

Because some people enjoy seeing characters grow. As tme passes and things happen, characters change. If you told beginning-of-DAO Morrigan that she'd become friends with someone and possibly fall in love, she'd probably scoff and call you an idiot. And yet at the end of the game, it's entirely possible that she be different from how she was when she started. This is inconsistent with who she is at the start, and yet it's still welcome because it was a believable change that occurred through interaction.

It's enjoyable to see someone change for the better, it's saddening to see someone change for the worse, and it's rewarding to be the one who helps that person change. This is also what I felt was severely missing in the Witcher 2's characters - I learned more about them as the game went on, but I never got to see them change. When done properly, I don't think of this as dilution. I think of this as development.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 04 mai 2012 - 04:14 .

[Sutekh]

Red_Sonja wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
It's always the same thing, really. If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them, but I honestly don't see why I shouldn't just because someone has decided that A/B is forbidden based on their own moral / logic construct. It's that "I don't approve of it, so nobody should have it" thing that keeps coming back again and again no matter the topic at hand.

Yeah, that’s nonsense. Having a misogynistic NPC doesn’t make a game misogynistic any more than it reflects the views of the person who happened to write that character. NPC’s should be different; they should have different values, priorities and motivations and I don’t want to see that undermined in favour of having them pander to the play style of a single protagonist. You say ‘If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them’ but it’s just as easy for me to say ‘if you want to play this kind of romance, roleplay a different character’! See how that works?

The depth, quality and consistency of characterisation is way more important to me than the ability to woo every single LI with a single character.

Oh, ffs.

Please, reread what I wrote. I specified "no change to the NPC personality." Which means in your game, if you don't romance the "forbidden " NPC, you would see absolutely no bloody difference. You understand that, right?

And nowhere did I say that a mysoginistic NPC means the writer or the game is mysogynistic (I can't even fathom how you could read that my post).

As for changing my roleplaying to preserve a characterisation that wouldn't be changed an iota anyway, you're kidding, right?

What I say is "Play as you like, and let me play as I like. What I do with my game is none of your business". What you say is "Play as I say or hit the road."

[Red_Sonja]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Red_Sonja wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
It's always the same thing, really. If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them, but I honestly don't see why I shouldn't just because someone has decided that A/B is forbidden based on their own moral / logic construct. It's that "I don't approve of it, so nobody should have it" thing that keeps coming back again and again no matter the topic at hand.

Yeah, that’s nonsense. Having a misogynistic NPC doesn’t make a game misogynistic any more than it reflects the views of the person who happened to write that character. NPC’s should be different; they should have different values, priorities and motivations and I don’t want to see that undermined in favour of having them pander to the play style of a single protagonist. You say ‘If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them’ but it’s just as easy for me to say ‘if you want to play this kind of romance, roleplay a different character’! See how that works?

The depth, quality and consistency of characterisation is way more important to me than the ability to woo every single LI with a single character.

While it is possible to woo several companions with a single character, I don't think you can woo all in one playthrough (Anders and Merrill will cancel out other romances). I'm not sure how many players do that - certainly, you could play a Hawke that flirts with all of the companions, and certainly, some people may want to role-play in that manner.

The characters are, imo, rich and well-written. They do possess their own desires and motivations, their own goals, prejudices, fears and dreams. Some will discuss those things with the PC in full, some will only mention a handful of details when certain dialogue options/game choices are made. And some, like Aveline, will be pretty close-lipped about much of their lives. 

Romanced companions already are changed by the PC's actions - in their view of the world, or their ability and willingness to care for others. That stems from the bond formed with Hawke - the whole concept of having someone's back, of being supported and accepted by another person, the PC. You could argue then that a romance alone alters those characters - that they become something or someone else. But they remain the unique individuals that they were written as. I didn't see anything so altered that by Act 3, Isabela no longer seemed to be Isabela, Merrill was not recognizable as Merrill, etc.  

The ability for you, as the PC, regardless of gender, to romance any of these characters does not change the core who that they are. 

I've read many an argument that they are altered to the PC's whim, that they are cheapened by being perceived as bisexual, that any ambiguous sexuality is something that makes them less, that we should know exactly what their sexuality/sexual identity is at the get-go. And yet, if we look at real life and at our own world, how many of us know every intimate detail of our friends? That, even after years of knowing someone professionally or socially, we can say with certainty that they are X or Y or Z, and that we know when they learned to first tie their shoes, what their worst memory is, or what ice cream flavor they prefer. People have different comfort zones, different inclinations for what they want to share or not.

Game-wise, we get a finite amount of time to get to know these characters - and Hawke or whoever our PC is has still to chat with them a certain way, or handle certain quests to get them to open up and have some trust. So when we talk about realism applied to these wonderful creations of fiction, why do we need so very much declared? Why do we have to have every detail mapped out and available like some full security background check dossier? If, as the PC and player, you find a certain character interesting and think that a romance would be a great thing to role-play, then you still need to apply effort to get to know the character. I think for a lot of people, the romances are less about the singular gender aspect and more about the full character - the personality, the quirks, the beliefs and heroism. Those qualities are at the forefront, and I think for many, that's what drives the desire to pursue a romance. That's the freedom/availability that they want to keep - to be able to see that arc with someone who seems all sorts of awesome. 

IMO, depth, quality and consistency are not lost in that effort.

I like you. Ok, when I say ‘woo every single LI’ I am of course talking about having them all available to a single protagonist as romantic options (although having them all at the same time does sound kind of fun)! I agree with almost everything you say whykikyouwhy  (it’s not lip service, I really do) but the following line troubles me:

The ability for you, as the PC, regardless of gender, to romance any of these characters does not change the core who that they are. 

Because it does. I’ve made the case as best I can, and on more than one occasion now, of the importance sexuality plays in helping to define many of the more successful characters of the DA universe. I’ve talked Isabella, Anders, Zev, Alistair and the rest but the point literally seems lost on those who place (to my mind) far too much emphasis on their ability to romance whomever they want. I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree at this point. I know where you are coming from, believe me. I just disagree.

Time permitting; I’ll pop back with something a little more thorough after I grab a bite.

[Sutekh]

wsandista wrote...

The LI's character determines what would be an aceptable pairing. Critera is that the LI would be disgusted by the actions of the PC. Templars would be hostile to blood magic, Devout Andratians would cringe at the sight of a heathen defiling a relic of their religion, a bigot could not romance an elf because the elf would always be sub-human in their eyes, and a former slave would probably be very angry(if not outright hostile) with the PC for supporting slavery.

There's examples of such romances in fiction, where attraction, physical or otherwise, is strong enough that the LI would question themselves, overcome it, or even possibly evolve (character evolution. Wonderful concept, that). And if not, then it fails. Any way, the NPC's characterization remains intact.

The option to not recruit NPCs is one I support, but if the PCs quest s extremly difficult, then they will probably be open to accepting help from those that they would normally consider enimes. (Amon Jero, Zevran, and Sarevok come to mind)

No. Either you say "characterization is so important that I wouldn't stand even the slightest dent in it, or you don't. No double-standard in the name of practicalities. If the ideology difference is so important that no consensus can ever be reached, no matter possible physical attraction or other traits of personality that would potentially spark a romance, then the NPC has no business being a companion, period. There's no reason to limit your holy characterization to romance. And I'd even say that regarding the example you gave, becoming a companion is way more questionable than becoming a LI, because there's not even the excuse of "Lurve Is Stronger Than Anything" to explain that.

It is not my moral logic I'm basing which romances should be forbidden on,

I wrote moral / logic as in moral or logic. 

it is that of the LI in question, like a Templar who is sworn to combat blood magic, willing to be with someone who regurlarly performs blood magic. Kind of like if a Lawful Good Paladin who is compelled to strike down evil where ever he finds it was in love with a Chaotic Evil Sorcerer who allys with demons and kills innocents. 

And yet, that would make for a beautiful and poignant story. And interesting venue to roleplay and explore.

ETA for clarification: I am not talking about sexual orientation here.

Modifié par Sutekh, 04 mai 2012 - 04:42 .

[Maria Caliban]

wsandista wrote...

So, if a gay man is uninterested in a woman, is it because of "arbitrary gender restrictions" or is it because he is who he is?

A character is not a person. Companions in BioWare games aren't romancable because they have sexual desires but because the writers think that players would enjoy romancing that character.

[Tirigon]

wsandista wrote...


But that is an import from a previous game, you actually made those choices
Does that radically change the personality of the characters, no, that changes the setting

Characters should not change between playthroughs because characters should start out the same. What if Cullen was a blood mage supporter in one game and even more anti-mage than Meredith in another? That would break the character

No it doesnt.

It would allow you to play the same game with a totally different experience, which means nothing but more game for your money.


And that aside - supporting bloodamges or hunting them is a very different thing, and much more important for the character, than sexual preferences which can easily change all the time.

[Red_Sonja]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Red_Sonja wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Exactly my point
The NPCs should be who they are, not conform to fit the PC

If they change based on your character choice, they are still who they are.

Why does it lessen them if, in different playthroughs, they are different? I could see a problem only if they change during one playthrough.

That’s a fair question but, if consistency of characterisation is not important to you, what would your party members even stand for? NPC characterisation is a huge part of why people enjoy the games Biowares make; quite why anyone would want to dilute that in favour of self-centred fantasy is a mystery to me.

Because some people enjoy seeing characters grow. As tme passes and things happen, characters change. If you told beginning-of-DAO Morrigan that she'd become friends with someone and possibly fall in love, she'd probably scoff and call you an idiot. And yet at the end of the game, it's entirely possible that she be different from how she was when she started. This is inconsistent with who she is at the start, and yet it's still welcome because it was a believable change that occurred through interaction.

It's enjoyable to see someone change for the better, it's saddening to see someone change for the worse, and it's rewarding to be the one who helps that person change. This is also what I felt was severely missing in the Witcher 2's characters - I learned more about them as the game went on, but I never got to see them change. When done properly, I don't think of this as dilution. I think of this as development.

You make a good point. I guess I would be happy to concede that, if a PC could sell Morrigan on the value of love, they might reasonably be able to do the same to others. Interesting. That said, I'm certain I wouldn’t want that influence to extend to each and every NPC and on every conceivable subject....but something to think about for sure. Thanks.

[Red_Sonja]

Sutekh wrote...

Red_Sonja wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
It's always the same thing, really. If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them, but I honestly don't see why I shouldn't just because someone has decided that A/B is forbidden based on their own moral / logic construct. It's that "I don't approve of it, so nobody should have it" thing that keeps coming back again and again no matter the topic at hand.

Yeah, that’s nonsense. Having a misogynistic NPC doesn’t make a game misogynistic any more than it reflects the views of the person who happened to write that character. NPC’s should be different; they should have different values, priorities and motivations and I don’t want to see that undermined in favour of having them pander to the play style of a single protagonist. You say ‘If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them’ but it’s just as easy for me to say ‘if you want to play this kind of romance, roleplay a different character’! See how that works?

The depth, quality and consistency of characterisation is way more important to me than the ability to woo every single LI with a single character.

Oh, ffs.

Please, reread what I wrote. I specified "no change to the NPC personality." Which means in your game, if you don't romance the "forbidden " NPC, you would see absolutely no bloody difference. You understand that, right?

And nowhere did I say that a mysoginistic NPC means the writer or the game is mysogynistic (I can't even fathom how you could read that my post).

As for changing my roleplaying to preserve a characterisation that wouldn't be changed an iota anyway, you're kidding, right?

What I say is "Play as you like, and let me play as I like. What I do with my game is none of your business". What you say is "Play as I say or hit the road."

I reread your post and yes I misunderstood it. My bad. Soz.

[AkiKishi]

Tirigon wrote...

wsandista wrote...


But that is an import from a previous game, you actually made those choices
Does that radically change the personality of the characters, no, that changes the setting

Characters should not change between playthroughs because characters should start out the same. What if Cullen was a blood mage supporter in one game and even more anti-mage than Meredith in another? That would break the character

No it doesnt.

It would allow you to play the same game with a totally different experience, which means nothing but more game for your money.


And that aside - supporting bloodamges or hunting them is a very different thing, and much more important for the character, than sexual preferences which can easily change all the time.

My problem is more that you would have less Cullen per game. We all know that if you had a fixed protagonist rather than having to split male/female, that character would have a lot more lines. I think the same principle applies to characters who are different in any particular playthrough.

That's why I don't mind the written as bi characters, but I'm not fond of the everyone is bi design.

 

[Sutekh]

Red_Sonja wrote...

I reread your post and yes I misunderstood it. My bad. Soz.

OK Sorry for lashing out at you.

[rapscallioness]

Well, I hope they keep all the characters "PC-Sexual". Because sometimes I feel like a nut, Sometimes I don't.

That said, my Main wish for DA3 is that they add more dialogue. Idk about the other romance cuz for some reason I always end up w/Anders in the end, Lol, but it felt like 1/3 of the game had no more dialogue.

Act 3--Boom!--no more dialogue for you. "..we're better off focusing on the task at hand..". Bah!
Everything was over for a good 1/3 of the game. Friendship, or romance. I couldn't interact with them anymore.

So, I hope in DA3 they extend character interaction throughout the game. Romance, or not. That just got boring.

[Red_Sonja]

Sutekh wrote...

Red_Sonja wrote...

I reread your post and yes I misunderstood it. My bad. Soz.

OK Sorry for lashing out at you.

No bother (I can be a little too adversarial myself on occasion).

[jlb524]

wsandista wrote...
What if they do? DA3 is going to be about what the writers want it to be about. It's almost confirmed that Oralis and Tevinter will be visited, Orlais is more accepting of homosexuality than Ferelden( I believe someone quoted David Gaider saying that on this thread).

Having a gay character is a good way to have an insight into what being gay in Theds is like. Players feel closer to companins, even more so to LIs, so the purpose of a gay LI is to be able to have the most information on homosexulity in Thedas.

As I've repeated, that's fine.

I'll say it again, my stance is:  if they feel the need to explore isses that require defining sexuality with LIs, then limitations would be needed (though, they could explore these same issues outside of LIs with other PCs).  If they are not doing this...I can not see any benefit to limiting romances over giving everyone the option to romance the Li of their choice.

You and others say that allowing this freedom of choice is bad no matter what in all situations because...? 

I'm not sure of the reason anymore.

wsandista wrote... 
It doesn't HAVE to be an LI, it is just preferable that it is, since generally a PC finds out more about a LI than another companion(Isabella in particular comes to mind).

The only possible problem here is that you'd probably have to romance them to get all their 'gay character development' (that sounds awful) whereas everyone could see 'what it's like to be gay in Thedas' if you use a non-LI that doesn't require following the romance path.

Typically, you find out more about LIs if you romance them.

wsandista wrote...  
Their options will be limited because because the potential LI is simply not interested in them.

Should a Templar be an off-limits relationship for a Blood Mage? Should a devout Andrastian(almost certain I spelled that wrong) be off-limits to a heathen PC who attacks the Chantry? Should a former slave be off-limits to a slaver? Should an elf be off-limits to a bigot?

I believe that the answer to all of the above should be yes.

I would have no problem if the devs want to increase the amount of time they spend on these romances in order to include loads of restrictions so you have to play a very specific PC to romance character X (though I think that would frustrate a lot of players who want to do romances).

I have a problem when the only restriction is gender...which has been the system used in the past.  Why only gender?

wsandista wrote... 
Have you heard the rumor that DA3 will have multiplayer? Assuming that is true, why don't the cancel the multiplayer and focus their resources on creating the best SP gameplay possible for DA3? If the rumor is false, then why don't the devs move more resources to character development? Yes I know resources are finite, before you jump on me for that.

But you proposed an 'everyone wins' solution that the devs have admitted takes more resources than their current solution.  I'm guessing you think it's worth it b/c 'everyone wins'?

Well, they don't....so I don't buy that line of thinking.

wsandista wrote... 
So, if a gay man is uninterested in a woman, is it because of "arbitrary gender restrictions" or is it because he is who he is?

Is Morrigan interested in the MaleWarden b/c she was programmed to be an available LI or is it b/c she is who she is?

[Tirigon]

BobSmith101 wrote...


My problem is more that you would have less Cullen per game. We all know that if you had a fixed protagonist rather than having to split male/female, that character would have a lot more lines. I think the same principle applies to characters who are different in any particular playthrough.

That's why I don't mind the written as bi characters, but I'm not fond of the everyone is bi design.

 

That is indeed the truth of it, and it is why we wont see anything like I described on a large scale (Anders keeping his homoerotic experiences secret nonwithstanding).

However, here the issue is not so much whether or not someone should be bi, or whether characters should change based on the player, but merely about how much situational content (that some players may never experience at all) the developers are willing - and able - to create.


But the way I see it, such a thing should not matter. A developer should go through with their vision - if they want to allow you creating vastly different characters, they owe it to you to also offer different content for these.

If they cant, or won't, do that, I prefer them to be honest about it and have a predefined character to start with.

After all, that is not an inherently bad thing - The Witcher is unarguably one of the greatest RPGs ever made.

[AkiKishi]

jlb524 wrote...

Is Morrigan interested in the MaleWarden b/c she was programmed to be an available LI or is it b/c she is who she is?

Characters should be consistant personalities. Making everyone bi, but allowing for the same number of lines makes every character more shallow. Quite different to characters who are written as bi as part of their character.

Thus we end up with fanservice characters.

[Maria Caliban]

jlb524 wrote...

The only possible problem here is that you'd probably have to romance them to get all their 'gay character development' (that sounds awful) whereas everyone could see 'what it's like to be gay in Thedas' if you use a non-LI that doesn't require following the romance path.

That sounds awful because it is.

The only reason being gay in Thedas would deserve it's own companion was if being gay in Thedas sucked. If being gay is fine or simply an oddity, there's no need for that sort of storyline.

[Tirigon]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Characters should be consistant personalities. Making everyone bi, but allowing for the same number of lines makes every character more shallow. Quite different to characters who are written as bi as part of their character.

Thus we end up with fanservice characters.

But is that inherently bad?

Liara is unarguably pure fanservice (hell, LotSB was basically created only because people wanted Liara and there was not enough of her in ME2), and still she is one of the best characters ever created. And judging by her popularity I am not alone with that opinion either.....


So if I may answer my own initial question: No. No, it is not bad at all.