533 réponses à ce sujet

[Red_Sonja]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

Fanservice characters concern me too. I mean look at how the duplicitous potential of EDI was squandered in favour of making her a sexy robot with huge boobs and ******!

[Maria Caliban]

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.

I don't consider DA 2's LIs to be any more or less fanservice than DA:O's LIs.

[Tirigon]

^ and still EDI was a memorable and interesting character.

Just because a woman (or robot, as may be) strifes to look sexually appealing does not mean she is a mere sextoy either.

[Dutchess]

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.

Why would the character become inconsistent if he/she was bi? You can just as easily call Morrigan or Alistair inconsistent if they fall in love with a dwarf one time, and another time with an elf.

[AkiKishi]

Tirigon wrote...

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.

I don't think she is. Her character concept is one that is designed to enable her to cover a lot of bases. It's pretty consistent , outside of her personality swings.

Lesbian romance that techically is not a lesbian romance... That's genius !

LoTSB was planned from outset I believe, part of her not being in ME2 was keeping her off the casuality list. The problem with characters like Liara (and to a lesser extent Anders) is they the writers force them on you in the same way that they force themselves on your character. Ignore them and you will miss out. That's not really a good thing, if you are going to do that,better to remove all the other LI's make her the only choice and use those extra lines up that were wasted on token cameos and romances.

In response to your answer.... What happens if you don't like Liara ?

[rapscallioness]

I just hope they go back to a more DA:O type of Alistair/Warden romance. I thought that was really well done. It progressed and shifted throughout the game.

From what I know of the BW games, I do believe that was one of, if not the best, romance subplot I've seen.

[DarkDragon777]

rapscallioness wrote...

I just hope they go back to a more DA:O type of Morrigan/Warden romance. I thought that was really well done. It progressed and shifted throughout the game.

From what I know of the BW games, I do believe that was one of, if not the best, romance subplot I've seen.

Fixed.

[AkiKishi]

renjility wrote...

Why would the character become inconsistent if he/she was bi? You can just as easily call Morrigan or Alistair inconsistent if they fall in love with a dwarf one time, and another time with an elf.

It would be inconsistent if they would only love a dwarf/elf if the PC was a dwarf/elf.

[Sutekh]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

I just hope they go back to a more DA:O type of Zevran/Warden romance. I thought that was really well done. It progressed and shifted throughout the game.

From what I know of the BW games, I do believe that was one of, if not the best, romance subplot I've seen.

Fixed.

And perfected.

[Red_Sonja]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

I just hope they go back to a more DA:O type of Leliana/Warden romance. I thought that was really well done. It progressed and shifted throughout the game.

From what I know of the BW games, I do believe that was one of, if not the best, romance subplot I've seen.

Fixed.

And again.

[rapscallioness]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

I just hope they go back to a more DA:O type of Morrigan/Warden romance. I thought that was really well done. It progressed and shifted throughout the game.

From what I know of the BW games, I do believe that was one of, if not the best, romance subplot I've seen.

Fixed.

Lol! Well, to be fair I never romanced Morrigan. I'm sure she's a fine woman.

But really I think overall the romance subplots in DA:O were superior to the DA:2 romances. I'd like them to go back to that type of thing.

[Maria Caliban]

Romances I've liked: Viconia, Jeheria, Silk Fox, Liara, Leliana, Morrigan, Isabela, and Merrill.

BioWare, if you can do something like that, I'd be pleased.

Romances I disliked: Ammoen.

BioWare, don't do stuff like that.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 04 mai 2012 - 05:51 .

[Sutekh]

BobSmith101 wrote...

renjility wrote...

Why would the character become inconsistent if he/she was bi? You can just as easily call Morrigan or Alistair inconsistent if they fall in love with a dwarf one time, and another time with an elf.

It would be inconsistent if they would only love a dwarf/elf if the PC was a dwarf/elf. 

But isn't that always the case, since they only fall in love with the PC, no matter their race? How do you know that in elf-playthrough, Morrigan isn't elfsexual, and dwarfsexual in the dwarf-playthrough?

[AkiKishi]

Sutekh wrote...
But isn't that always the case, since they only fall in love with the PC, no matter their race? How do you know that in elf-playthrough, Morrigan isn't elfsexual, and dwarfsexual in the dwarf-playthrough?

As part of her story she makes it clear shes not into certain things and has experiemented with others. When you take into account she's a shapeshifter it boggles the mind.Thinking on it now thats what I want in DA3 shapeshifted sex scenes, that would be awsume like watching Nat. Geo.

NPC (player is a dwarf) I have no interest in Elves.
NPC (player is an elf) You're hot let's do it !

Modifié par BobSmith101, 04 mai 2012 - 06:09 .

[jlb524]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Characters should be consistant personalities.

BobSmith101 wrote... 
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.

wat

How is it that bisexual characters lack consistent personalities?

Why is this consistency required to avoid having 'shallow' characters in general?

I.e., it seemed to me that hardening Alistair and Leliana produced a changed version of those characters and thus were inconsistent when compared with the un-hardened version from another playthrough...why is that mechanic in a game such as this bad?

[wsandista]

jlb524 wrote...

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

Freedom of choice is bad when it violates the premise of the NPC, for example I do not think someone who defiled the Urn of Sacred Ashes should be allowed to romance Leliana. Leliana is a deeply religious person, yet one who violates the holiest relic of her faith may still romance her. If a character is written as a purely homosexual individual, having them as an option to be romantically involved with someone of the opposite sex goes against what they are. Should a PC of the opposite sex still be able to flirt with said character, absolutely, because that is the players choice. How the NPC reacts should not be up to the player.

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.

I think "character-development" would have sufficed. What non-LI have been strong enough characters to gain the same level of attention from a player as a LI(in DA)? I can only think of a handful: Varric and Loghain. If the writers make a character like Varric both homosexual and non-romanceable(doesn't roll off the tounge well I know) then I will be happy. But since few non-LIs are as well-developed I have my doubts.

On the same note, that there should be no special character development for an LI for someone who romances them, could be inferred by your statement.  

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?

I have never said that LIs should only be gender exclusive, I have stated several times that their should be choice-exclusive or class-exclusive LIs(such as No Templar LI for BloodMage). If you want an answer to that question, you should ask someone who thinks that should be the case.  

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.

Yes it (almost always) takes more resources to do things better, particularly time. It is almost universally agreed that DA2 was rushed. Maybe if they had done a better job to differentiate the romances, people like me who thought that having allbi homogenizes LIs would be warmer to the idea, but it was poorly implemented, IMO. Perhaps "everyone wins" was a poor choice of words. If the possibilities of romance are expanded(my idea had 6 per PC, compared to DA2's 4, not counting Sebass), then the likelihood of a player being satisfied with their choices increases. While some players may be upset because one of the 2 LIs incompatible with their PC, they still have a larger list of options than DA2.

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?

Morrigan is intrested in male wardens because that is how she is written for the game. Why is Zevran avliable to both sexs, becuse he was written as a bisexual who is intrested in both males and females. I used the gay man as an example becuse his sexuality is part of what makes him who he is. Just like a characters sexuality contributes to who the character is.

[wsandista]

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.

Yes, and then there are situations where the LI would see the PC doing something monstrous and attempt to stop them. Character Evolution is one thing, but having a character completely flip-flop is another. A Templar could see that not all Blood Mages are evil, but still wouldn't like the idea of a BloodMage summoning a demon or sacrificing a child.

If the PC with a Templar LI lets a demon posses someone, how do you think the Templar is going to react. Will they have a "well you just let a demon into this world to possibly cause great destruction, not to mention I'm morally opposed to such an act, but everything is just fine" talk. I don't, I expect the Templar to at least leave the party out of disgust. There are differences between disagreements and doing something that the character considers completely wrong.

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.

Grey Wardens. They recruit anyone who has skill to combat the Darkspawn because the Darkspawn can possibly wipe out everyone. Do you think all Waardens hold hands and sing songs? I'm positive that there is severe animosity between some wardens. The Wardens simply set aside their differences to combat the bigger threat.(this is responding to your companion being more questionable than LI)

As far as ideology being paramount, that all depends on the character, some place a very high priority on it(Qunari come to mind) and some can be loose with it. Characterization determines how static characters can be.

I wrote moral / logic as in moral or logic

My mistake then.

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

I think roleplaying the Paladin would involve killing the individual who sacrifices children(then again that is just what I imagine a Paladin doing, to eachs own). It would be a beautiful yes, I can just imagine a Templar weeping about how the person they love is a monster(NOT sarcasm), but the romance should be able to be called off or the Templar would choose either duty or love.

Modifié par wsandista, 04 mai 2012 - 07:07 .

[OMTING52601]

wsandista wrote...

Morrigan is intrested in male wardens because that is how she is written for the game. Why is Zevran avliable to both sexs, becuse he was written as a bisexual who is intrested in both males and females. I used the gay man as an example becuse his sexuality is part of what makes him who he is. Just like a characters sexuality contributes to who the character is.

You know, I think that's what I liked about Zev the most - the fact that he was honest about either/both from the beginning. His sexuality/availability had nothing to do with the gender of the warden. Unlike, for example, Kaidan(though I know Kaidan was initially supposed to be for either Shep - the m/m was cut in the final game) being available to MaleShep in three threw me off, since Kaidan has always been strictly straight to that point - in game. I'm much more interested in characters who come in fully developed - like Zev - as opposed to adaptive to the PC or made to be adapted to the players preference.

Zev was bi long before the Warden. Leliana seemed to like girls more, but she appreciated a good boy too, LOL! Isabella enjoyed anything long before Hawke. Fenris was a blank slate who didn't remember if he'd ever even been attracted to anyone before Hawke. Those characters were whatever they were before coming into the story, which never made me feel like their fluid sexuality was there as 'fanservice'. 

Others, like Anders - who was shamelessly into women in Awakening - or Kaidan, those switch ups kind of leave me disinterested, romantically at least, FWIW.

[jlb524]

wsandista wrote...
Freedom of choice is bad when it violates the premise of the NPC, for example I do not think someone who defiled the Urn of Sacred Ashes should be allowed to romance Leliana. Leliana is a deeply religious person, yet one who violates the holiest relic of her faith may still romance her. If a character is written as a purely homosexual individual, having them as an option to be romantically involved with someone of the opposite sex goes against what they are. Should a PC of the opposite sex still be able to flirt with said character, absolutely, because that is the players choice. How the NPC reacts should not be up to the player.

Why do you assume an all bi cast will violate 'the premise of the NPC'?

How exactly does that work?

We aren't talking about a situation where you have a clearly homosexual PC ( "hey, I'm gay and won't date a member of the opposite sex") all of a sudden dating a member of the opposite sex half-way through the game.  I have no idea why you keep bringing that point up over and over again...that's not the same thing as what BW did with DA2.

I don't see how my choice to romance either Isabela or Merrill as a female violated either of their character premises.  If it did, explain how.

wsandista wrote... 
I think "character-development" would have sufficed. What non-LI have been strong enough characters to gain the same level of attention from a player as a LI(in DA)? I can only think of a handful: Varric and Loghain. If the writers make a character like Varric both homosexual and non-romanceable(doesn't roll off the tounge well I know) then I will be happy. But since few non-LIs are as well-developed I have my doubts.

On the same note, that there should be no special character development for an LI for someone who romances them, could be inferred by your statement.  

I don't know why you'd infer that.

My point was, because of the way these things typically work, you will miss out on charcter dev if you do not do a romance with a character (I'm not saying that this shouldn't be the way it works)...however, this isn't an issue with non-LI NPCs.

wsandista wrote...  
I have never said that LIs should only be gender exclusive, I have stated several times that their should be choice-exclusive or class-exclusive LIs(such as No Templar LI for BloodMage). If you want an answer to that question, you should ask someone who thinks that should be the case.  

But you support the DA:O system, no?  I thought you stated that you wanted to go back to that one?

Then you say things like this:

wsandista wrote...   
Maybe if they had done a better job to differentiate the romances, people like me who thought that having allbi homogenizes LIs would be warmer to the idea, but it was poorly implemented, IMO.

Were the DA:O Lis homogenized as well to an extent b/c any class could romance Alistair (even Blood Mages) and dwarves could romance anyone, etc?

wsandista wrote...   
Perhaps "everyone wins" was a poor choice of words. If the possibilities of romance are expanded(my idea had 6 per PC, compared to DA2's 4, not counting Sebass), then the likelihood of a player being satisfied with their choices increases. While some players may be upset because one of the 2 LIs incompatible with their PC, they still have a larger list of options than DA2.

I just cannot understand how you can complain about the DA2 romances being subpar b/c they were rushed (and the game was rushed) but then suggest they add in more romance options and more work just to allow for 'diversity' of options (i.e., exclusiveness) when there's no reason to do so within the DA setting.

wsandista wrote...   
Morrigan is intrested in male wardens because that is how she is written for the game. Why is Zevran avliable to both sexs, becuse he was written as a bisexual who is intrested in both males and females. I used the gay man as an example becuse his sexuality is part of what makes him who he is. Just like a characters sexuality contributes to who the character is.

Well, if they don't write 'male LI X' as gay but bisexual then we won't have the hypothetical problem you brought up in the last post, now will we?

I don't know why you keep focusing in on this idea that there will be clearly defined homosexual/heterosexual characters that open up to become bisexual due to the players whims and that's why the DA2 system is bad.

In DA2 the LIs were either bisexual or their sexuality was vague.

This didn't happen.

Merrill:  I only like men because I'm totally straight!

FemHawke:  But I'm so sexy...you cannot resist me!

Merrill:  Okay!  *hops in bed with Hawke*

Modifié par jlb524, 04 mai 2012 - 07:32 .

[FieryDove]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Red_Sonja wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

I just hope they go back to a more DA:O type of Morrigan/Alistair/Zevran/Leliana/Warden romance. I thought that was really well done. It progressed and shifted throughout the game.

From what I know of the BW games, I do believe that was one of, if not the best, romance subplot I've seen.

Fixed.

And again.

Fixed back.

No no no! Now its fixed!

[Maria Caliban]

In a game where you can be a blood mage, it would be a bad idea to have a romancable companion who hates blood mages and would kill them on sight. If you're going to have a romancable templar, you make them so they're against blood magic but willing to ether make an exception or become less strict on the matter.

That's common sense.

[FieryDove]

Maria Caliban wrote...

In a game where you can be a blood mage, it would be a bad idea to have a romancable companion who hates blood mages and would kill them on sight. If you're going to have a romancable templar, you make them so they're against blood magic but willing to ether make an exception or become less strict on the matter.

That's common sense.

We had two in DA2 who hated Blood mages. I don't know, perhaps in 3 general NPC's (and companions) will notice if we are a BM or not. Time will tell I guess. Will be interesting if it happens!

Modifié par FieryDove, 04 mai 2012 - 08:16 .

[jlb524]

I don't have a problem with the blood mage thing.

If it bothers you, then don't romance Fenris/Anders/whoeverhasanissuewithit with a blood mage.

For others that want to roleplay a "love conquers all" story where the anti-blood magic person falls in love with the blood mage...then more power to them.

There's also the whole "hate the sin not the sinner" angle.

[Sutekh]

wsandista wrote...

Yes, and then there are situations where the LI would see the PC doing something monstrous and attempt to stop them. Character Evolution is one thing, but having a character completely flip-flop is another. A Templar could see that not all Blood Mages are evil, but still wouldn't like the idea of a BloodMage summoning a demon or sacrificing a child.

If the PC with a Templar LI lets a demon posses someone, how do you think the Templar is going to react. Will they have a "well you just let a demon into this world to possibly cause great destruction, not to mention I'm morally opposed to such an act, but everything is just fine" talk. I don't, I expect the Templar to at least leave the party out of disgust. There are differences between disagreements and doing something that the character considers completely wrong.

Please, leave those goalposts where they stand. They're comfy there

I said nothing about a Templar accepting, let alone approving, demonic craft or human sacrifice to demons or whatever. Actually, when I said "the romance fails", I was thinking about this kind of situation. And it's also why such a romance should be difficult, and not just about clicking hearts or delivering cheesy pick-up lines. If I want my Evil Blood Mage to romance Mr Shiny Templar, I must roleplay the convincing, the seduction, but also accept that if I don't change my Evil Blood Mage ways, it can't work. This romance is interesting because it's difficult and challenging, forbidden and tragic (unless the Templar is Cullen, in which case all bets are off -- just kidding ).

But I can also be a Not-Evil Blood Mage type (not to start a debate on the evilness of Blood Magic, just bear with me), who doesn't possess people unless it's for the greater good, or practice a Dalish type blood magic, like the Vallaslin and such. I could then try to convince my Shiny Templar that Blood Magic isn't inherently evil etc...

Now seeing that we're talking about a computer game, forbidding Templar/Blood Mage would probably be done by checking a flag (PCIsBloodMage) and then blocking all possible romance dialog lines, just because someone has decided that a Blood Mage can never romance a Templar, while I can roleplay it another way.

See? I don't ask for the Templar to become a Blood Mage lover because he bangs me. It takes two to tango, after all

Grey Wardens. They recruit anyone who has skill to combat the Darkspawn because the Darkspawn can possibly wipe out everyone. Do you think all Waardens hold hands and sing songs? I'm positive that there is severe animosity between some wardens. The Wardens simply set aside their differences to combat the bigger threat.(this is responding to your companion being more questionable than LI)

The wardens are wardens. Only in Awakening did we ever play an all-wardens team, and I doubt it will be the case in The Next Thing. Characterization-wise, a warden is a warden first, so it makes sense. In a standard team, if you don't accept romance because of ideology, then you shouldn't accept teaming up either because it dilutes the characterisation even more. Without minimal attraction or chemistry - and out of the wardening context - there is absolutely no reason for that teaming to happen at all.

As far as ideology being paramount, that all depends on the character, some place a very high priority on it(Qunari come to mind) and some can be loose with it. Characterization determines how static characters can be.

Which is why romance shouldn't be forbidden. Either the NPC evolves, and all si well, or they don't, and the romance fails. But at least, the romantic journey it's still there, even when it led to nothing (or despair and sorrow, depending).

I think roleplaying the Paladin would involve killing the individual who sacrifices children(then again that is just what I imagine a Paladin doing, to eachs own). It would be a beautiful yes, I can just imagine a Templar weeping about how the person they love is a monster(NOT sarcasm), but the romance should be able to be called off or the Templar would choose either duty or love.

And that leads me to the arbitrary nature of criteria. You think that the paladin should kill the witch. I might not. Maybe my reasons are silly, maybe they're absolutely sound, but what you think shouldn't have any incidence on my game. So, in your game, kill the witch. In my game, I roleplay my witch romance. I might end up choosing duty or end up choosing love. But I should have the choice.