930 réponses à ce sujet

[whykikyouwhy]

What may be perceived as having a downside or being something negative is indeed subjective.

As it stands, limitations exist (in any game, I would wager) due to resources, and/or the story being told. One could say that the inability for Hawke to jump on a dragon and teach it to carry him over Thedas is a limitation, yet it's really something that doesn't make sense for the narrative. On a less humorous level, a good number of people would like to see more opportunities for conversation with NPCs, especially within a romance arc. But the resources may not be available to make that happen. It's a matter of working with what resources there are, and doing the best to ensure that players are treated fairly and can role-play as they see fit, in a world that is fleshed out and believable - a world people want to play in. I think Bioware has achieved that.

[bEVEsthda]

Abispa wrote...

I'll post something here that Quething put up in the ME3 s/s thread since it pretty much says what I believe better than some of my posts here. For completely selfish reasons I've cut out the part of her post where she whoops my ass for disagreeing with her position on one of the ME LIs.

Quething wrote...

I'm just incredibly sick of the argument that DA2's "all bi" system was unrealistic or bad. Nobody who makes it actually cares about realism. If they did, why aren't they bothered by Tali dating a pro-geth Shepard, or Liara falling for a hardline renedouche? Why doesn't it bother them that Sebastian and Fenris can fall in love with a mage Hawke or that Izzy will go for a boring goody-two shoes she complains about constantly? "Four bi people in the same circle of friends is unrealistic and immersion-breaking!" is just a pretty way of saying "I don't want gay cooties on the character I romance."

DA2 worked just fine. It was an elegant way to save resources, allowing every love interest to be well-developed and allowing men and women, queer and straight players alike to all have access to a plot-important, strong and well-written romance. If someone objects to that, they either have no understanding of the complexities of game design, or they don't think queer people deserve as much choice as straight ones. Either way the argument is simply wrong, and it bugs me that it's such a convenient way for people to claim that they're worried about character fidelity and helping us poor queers get the representation we deserve, when that's basically the complete opposite of what the DA:O or Mass Effect method actually does.

Just quoting this, in an effort to reinforce it, and provide some sort of lazy support.
Hero-sexuality works just fine. Because there isn't enough difference that it need to make any difference. In fact it can be made certain that it doesn't.

My personal feelings are also that people actually don't have any right to be bothered by this. They should maybe try to work with themselves, rather than the world around them.

[Vormaerin]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Aye, but he also has the good grace to acknowledge the part sexuality plays in helping to define Zev. It’s all a matter of personal opinion of course, but I reject on its face any argument which suggests there is simply no downside to implementing an all hero-sexual cast of NPC’s. Again, Bioware’s idea is a perfectly good one, but lets not pretend that it’s not without its own limitations.

Except that they've never implemented an all hero sexual cast of characters, so that's something of a strawman.   There are a few sorts of characters that wouldn't fit into an all herosexual party.   Sebastian, for example, would be tricky. 

But, of course, they haven't stopped making those sorts of characters.   They just don't define the sexuality of characters for whom it is not important.   Which is most people.   Merrill, Anders, and Fenris are the same persons whether they are straight or gay in a particular playthrough.

If we were forced to play mHawke and Fenris was gay and Merrill straight, would we be having this conversation?  Would we be if Fenris was straight and Merrill gay in a fHawke only reality?   I don't think so.   Because there is nothing about their character stories that is affected by that change.

[Vormaerin]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Again, one can agree with that (as I do) without dismissing the part sexuality plays in helping to define some of the more successful characters of the Dragon Age universe. If only a few here could do the same.

I may have missed a post somewhere, but I really can't recall anyone arguing that sexuality never matters to a character.  The bulk of these threads arise because a substantial number of people think that it matters to *every* character.

And, since bioware has never released an "all herosexual" game and never given any indication that they were about to start, it all seems rather overblown.

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Not that any of what you said is true, but you’re kind of making KDD’s point for him Robert:

I think their point is that it doesn't matter if you're mHawke, or fHawke, the game plays out the same way. 

Players react differently to female characters, but NPC's largely do not.

Homogeneity for the sake of those who care only about 'romantic choice' is what people are objecting to right? Don’t get me wrong, Bioware’s dilemma is such that I now support their approach to this particular problem, but my sympathy is firmly with them and people like KDD, not those who absolutely insist on having every LI available to a single PC.

And I don't have a problem with that.  Never have, since it's not like I'm actually Hawke, although sometimes, I wish I could be, it would make things a lot easier.  Anyway, my point is, and has been, as you know, that it doesn't matter.  If it carried over literally into each game, it may make more of a difference, but since the only way it does carry over, and to some, adversely affect the game, is when player knowledge intercedes character knowledge, it's not a game mechanics issue, but a personal one, and frankly, there's no way anyone is going to convince anyone else that they are right or wrong, since, as an opinion, it can be neither.  That's why I just walked away from our last interaction on the topic.

Having played a few variations of Hawke, I have seen no difference in how the companions are portrayed.  I have yet to have any of them throw themselves at my Hawkes repeatedly, despite claims that that occurs, except Anders if he's handled a specific way after specific events, and even that can be curbed.  I go into every game knowing I can romance, or not, any of 4 specific characters, and I've had just as many games with no romance as I have with any.  Which is why I still haven't completed one for the achievement.  At the end of the day, the plot specific elements will play out, and individual quests don't rely on being in a romance, so I'm not missing that content either.  Which means that whether I can romance any of them, or none of them, I'll still be able to play the same way.  Which, taken in context with this thread means there's no reason to change what's working.

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Yeah, I got a little snotty with you earlier and for that I apologise. Ok, so you are quite right in saying that, for the most part, companion reactions to Hawke don’t change a great deal depending on the players chosen gender, but what of the argument that suggests the game might actually be better (and our companions more convincing) if they did? Granted the demands of actually rolling out a system that had NPC’s reacting differently to a wide number of player chosen variables might be prohibitive, not to mention upsetting to those who (literally is seems) want nothing more than to have their pick of LI’s, but it’s still a shame to those of us who value strong, consistent characterisation over and above the ability to woo any given companion.

In any case I’m allowing myself to get drawn back into this one, despite conceding earlier that Bioware have probably got things just about right, all things considered. I'll end my final post on this subject (I promise) by saying again that I'm sorry for being a dick with you earlier - I really should know better.

No worries, it's the internet, and it happens, and I'm sure I've come across as less than amicable at times, I'm that way IRL, and it carries over sometimes.

I'm not sure what would change in their characterizations, since I don't take their sexual preferences into account when evaluating them as companions, instead of LI's.  I guess part of that is seeing them as herosexual instead of bisexual.  That may not seem like a big distinction, but as I commented earlier, if it carried over into subsequent games, it might be more of an issue, but since the only way it can, other than Isabela, who is blatantly try sexual, is if I carry it with me, and use it to judge the LI's.  I don't.

However, having said all that, if they had gone ahead and written them all bi, some party banter would be priceless, especially if say Anders found Fenris exciting/interesting, and Fenris was way not interested.  I don't know if that would add to their characterizations any, but it might be funny to see.  There's a banter between Merrill and Varric about his story telling that ends up with Merrill doing an impersonation of Varric that's horrible, but funny as hell, and adding sexual tension to that, and banters from other party members along the line of "you know you have nothing coming" with some dialog peppered here and there might spice up things too.

[wsandista]

TJX2045 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

To answer your question it matters because I create the PC. If I believe that my PCs sexuality matters to who he is as a character, then it matters in my game. Look at the male warden and Zevran conversations. The PC has has several options in dialogue with regards to Zevran. There are several dialogue options avliable for either orientation. If playing a strictly heterosexual PC, I can pick several options to illustrate that. 

You believe your PC's sexuality matters in your game...so roleplay like you said, as a straight male.

How does having a hero-sexual cast hurt this?  I can RP my character as gay and nothing that the female characters say to me that establish their character would make me assume that they are one way or another or bother me when they hit on me.  You don't go up to people and just know their sexuality.

You believe the PC's sexuality matters, so RP him as one who wouldn't accept a s/s advance.  Simple resolution there.

And if you could please tell me HOW a gay character would be different from a straight one characterization wise...yes, this is a serious question, because I want to know what you think the differences will be.

I roleplay more than ONE character, the straight male option was just an example. I'm sorry if you can't play as anything but one archetype but there are some of us that do, shocking as that might be.

I have stated several times why I dislike hero-sexual or all-bi LIs. Here it is ONE MORE TIME

I dislike an all-bi cast because I see it as a continuing trend of transforming LIs into little more than sextoys by removing any chance they will reject the player. Note that I said continuing trend, I thought that it was wrong how LIs would ignore PC actions that went against everything they believed in and still be romanceable, as I have stated several times.

Herosexual is even worse, because it addition to the problem with all-bi, it changes the game world to accomodate the PC. It is like one of the siblings dying just because of Hawkes class, or IF Fenris loved mages if Hawke was one(not saying this happened). The game world should always be uniform at the beginning of the game and should only be shaped through player choices, not by player gender or class.

A gay character would be intrested in different people than a straight one. That is the difference between them. Would Cortez be the same character if he was willing to bang a female Shepard?

Modifié par wsandista, 10 juin 2012 - 04:28 .

[Ryzaki]

...*facepalms hard*

If you actually PLAYED the Fenris romance you'd know that "Fenris loves mages because Hawke is one." is absolute nonsense.

And yes actually Cortez would. It's not like that'd change his personality if he had a wife instead of a husband.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juin 2012 - 04:21 .

[wsandista]

Ryzaki wrote...

...*facepalms hard*

If you actually PLAYED the Fenris romance you'd know that "Fenris loves mages because Hawke is one." is absolute nonsense.

That was intended as an example of the world changing for the PC, I didn't actually mean that happened. I should change that to make it a bit clearer shouldn't I?

And yes actually Cortez would. It's not like that'd change his personality if he had a wife instead of a husband.

Personality isn't all their is to a character. Cortez is simply into men, that is part of who he is. Zevran would be quite a bit different if he was homosexual or heterosexual, as would Leliana.

[robertthebard]

wsandista wrote...

TJX2045 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

To answer your question it matters because I create the PC. If I believe that my PCs sexuality matters to who he is as a character, then it matters in my game. Look at the male warden and Zevran conversations. The PC has has several options in dialogue with regards to Zevran. There are several dialogue options avliable for either orientation. If playing a strictly heterosexual PC, I can pick several options to illustrate that. 

You believe your PC's sexuality matters in your game...so roleplay like you said, as a straight male.

How does having a hero-sexual cast hurt this?  I can RP my character as gay and nothing that the female characters say to me that establish their character would make me assume that they are one way or another or bother me when they hit on me.  You don't go up to people and just know their sexuality.

You believe the PC's sexuality matters, so RP him as one who wouldn't accept a s/s advance.  Simple resolution there.

And if you could please tell me HOW a gay character would be different from a straight one characterization wise...yes, this is a serious question, because I want to know what you think the differences will be.

I roleplay more than ONE character, the straight male option was just an example. I'm sorry if you can't play as anything but one archetype but there are some of us that do, shocking as that might be.

I have stated several times why I dislike hero-sexual or all-bi LIs. Here it is ONE MORE TIME

I dislike an all-bi cast because I see it as a continuing trend of transforming LIs into little more than sextoys by removing any chance they will reject the player. Note that I said continuing trend, I thought that it was wrong how LIs would ignore PC actions that went against everything they believed in and still be romanceable, as I have stated several times.

Herosexual is even worse, because it addition to the problem with all-bi, it changes the game world to accomodate the PC. It is like one of the siblings dying just because of Hawkes class, or if Fenris loved mages if Hawke was one. The game world should always be uniform at the beginning of the game and should only be shaped through player choices, not by player gender or class.

A gay character would be intrested in different people than a straight one. That is the difference between them. Would Cortez be the same character if he was willing to bang a female Shepard?

Aren't gender and class player choices?  While I don't disagree with some of your position, I don't agree with all of it.  It should be hard to get Fenris to romance a mage, but, it's not hard to get Fenris to fight for the mages, so really, it's shouldn't be impossible.  Regarding the LI's as being sex toys, I guess that depends on why you romance companions anyway.  If you do it solely for the watered down sex scenes, then I guess it doesn't matter how the game treats them.  Some people don't do it for that, and probably wouldn't mind no sex scenes at all, seems like I read one post about it just fading to black, which would be fine with me too.  For those people, who it is matters more than what they're getting.

However, regarding all bi, we don't have that now.  In my last post, I expressed that I wished maybe we did, since that could lead to some interesting party banter/situations.  However, even being herosexual, there are circumstances that can exclude having any romances at all.  I have 4 games currently running, with 3 finished games, and I have yet to get the romance achievement.  If it were as easy as people are trying to make it sound, I don't think I could have accidentally done this.  Note that my first game, I probably could have finished the romance, if I had played just for that, instead of playing the way I realistically saw my Hawke handling the situation.  I really do think that romances and romance options are blown out of proportion to the importance of the game itself.  In the end, they aren't that big of a deal.

[Ryzaki]

wsandista wrote...
Personality isn't all their is to a character. Cortez is simply into men, that is part of who he is. Zevran would be quite a bit different if he was homosexual or heterosexual, as would Leliana.

Uh...not really. Zevran was raised in a brothel and to be an assassin so his being able to sleep with both genders is yes part of his backstory it's part of his job (being able to seduce targets) same with Leliana.

Cortez meanwhile is pilot. His sexuality has NOTHING to do with him being a pilot. It doesn't affect his backstory in any way other than some gender flips. So no...him being into men isn't a part of personality. It's not like that for everyone.

(and to be honest the fact that some people got from Leliana and Zevran that there needed to be an "explanation" for bisexuality made me bash my head against the wall. Not saying you but that's the vibes I got on the DA2 forums after release (same with ME series actually). )

Robert could've easily have been Rayna and the story would't have changed one iota outside gender pronoun flips. That's it. Nothing would change.

You can't do that with Leliana and Zevran.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juin 2012 - 04:38 .

[wsandista]

Ryzaki wrote...

wsandista wrote...
Personality isn't all their is to a character. Cortez is simply into men, that is part of who he is. Zevran would be quite a bit different if he was homosexual or heterosexual, as would Leliana.

Uh...not really. Zevran was raised in a brothel and to be an assassin so his being able to sleep with both genders is yes part of his backstory it's part of his job (being able to seduce targets) same with Leliana.

Cortez meanwhile is pilot. His sexuality has NOTHING to do with him being a pilot. It doesn't affect his backstory in any way other than some gender flips. So no...him being into men isn't a part of personality. It's not like that for everyone.

(and to be honest the fact that some people got from Leliana and Zevran that there needed to be an "explanation" for bisexuality made me bash my head against the wall. Not saying you but that's the vibes I got on the DA2 forums after release (same with ME series actually). )

Robert could've easily have been Rayna and the story would't have changed one iota outside gender pronoun flips. That's it. Nothing would change.

You can't do that with Leliana and Zevran.

His prefernce would. I haven't run my fem Shep through ME3(doubt I will ME3 was too bad to replay), but someone told me it was like the Traynor sitution with him where he says he isn't interested. I see his relationship changing with a female(and male!) Shepard if he was heterosexual(or bisexual) and that would be different than how he acts as a homosexual.

That is one of the stupidest things I have heard on these forums. Zevran and Leliana are bi because that is what they like. Why would explanation be needed? Id there some kind of ritual n Thedas people go through to gain their sexuality? Some people just need an anvil I guess.

[jlb524]

wsandista wrote...

To answer your question it matters because I create the PC. If I believe that my PCs sexuality matters to who he is as a character, then it matters in my game. Look at the male warden and Zevran conversations. The PC has has several options in dialogue with regards to Zevran. There are several dialogue options avliable for either orientation. If playing a strictly heterosexual PC, I can pick several options to illustrate that. 

Funny, I've never been able to tell a male LI that my female PC is a lesbian....

Conclusion:  the Zevran/Alistair romances were watered down crap.

wsandista wrote... 
I dislike an all-bi cast because I see it as a continuing trend of transforming LIs into little more than sextoys by removing any chance they will reject the player.

I was never rejected in DA:O either.

Morrigan never ever ever ever rejected my lesbian PC.

wsandista wrote...  
Herosexual is even worse, because it addition to the problem with all-bi, it changes the game world to accomodate the PC.

Yeah...they shouldn't add certain morality choices either just to accomodate certain PCs.

wsandista wrote...
His prefernce would. I haven't run my fem Shep through ME3(doubt I will ME3 was too bad to replay), but someone told me it was like the Traynor sitution with him where he says he isn't interested

Nope.

I never heard him say that.

Modifié par jlb524, 10 juin 2012 - 04:48 .

[Ryzaki]

@jlib: I was never able to tell the females my male Warden was gay either. The only time my PC's able to say he/she's homosexual is with a s/s LI if even then. ...what's with that? You can reject the s/s LIs with a "I'm straight" but not the o/s LIs with "I'm gay" unless you've already initated a romance with a s/s LI (Like Liara and Kaidan in ME1). =/

@w: What is it then 2 or 3 lines of dialogue? From what I've seen of the Traynor scene they skip the chess playing and go straight to the shower scene if you romance her. You got a youtube vid?

As for heteroShep I didn't see much of a different from my gay Shep that turns him down/is already in a relationship. You just skip one part of the scene. That's not a major difference to me. Other than that he treats Shep exactly the same. (admittedly I only watched youtube vids of FemShep I can't play her as I've already said).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juin 2012 - 04:57 .

[wsandista]

jlb524 wrote...

Funny, I've never been able to tell a male LI that my female PC is a lesbian....

Conclusion:  the Zevran/Alistair romances were watered down crap.

Then you should take that up with the writers.

I was never rejected in DA:O either.

Morrigan never ever ever ever rejected my lesbian PC.

That is a problem I have with DAO. I have stated it several times. Instead of quoting one sentence and assuming my position, maybe you should look at previous posts where I have stated LIs should react to the PCs actions.

Yeah...they shouldn't add certain morality choices either just to accomodate certain PCs.

No they should not. The game world should always be the same at creatio for every character.

Nope.

I never heard him say that.

Do you have a link?

@R

Modifié par wsandista, 10 juin 2012 - 04:57 .

[Abispa]

Male Hawke and female Hawke do not exist in each other's game, therefore s/he has no idea what Merrill does in the other's game. Why would Merrill's hero-sexuality matter? The only way I can see a s/s critic's argument against hero-sexuality as valid is if the player plays every gender and sexuality of character from beginning to end and wants a totally different LI each time.

I'm sure there are players who are obsessive enough to do just that, but I'm also sure that if Bioware/EA has ANY data indicating that DA:O players by an large played every sexual persuasion through the game that making a large cast of exclusive LIs would be a priority. Straight hero's can have their straight romance/friendship with Merrill or Fenris and enjoy it as such so long as the player doesn't obsess over their LIs snuggling up to the same gender in another player's game.

I do find it interesting that blatantly false charge that "bi" characters lack depth has, at times on this thread and others, been made by the same players who are unhappy that Anders isn't the same character in DA2 that he was in DA:A.

Let's see. In DA:A the local government official, the Warden, grants Anders immunity from Templar prosecution and gives him Grey Warden status. Now he can not only move openly and (comparatively) freely as an apostate, he is giddy and rubs the Templars' faces in it and is extremely friendly and chatty the the Warden who "saved" him.

And during his time as a Warden he meets Justice...

Zoom ahead to DA2. Aside from the difficulty of coordinating timelines between the two game, Anders has come to Kirkwall. His only support is a rag tag bunch of mercenaries whose leader is either an apostate or sibling to one. He has absorbed his friend, Justice, and together they see mages not only segregated from society but deprived of rights and dignity that would shock even a mage raised in the Circle of Fereldan. He is saddened. Enraged. And with Justice his state of mind hardens over the course of the game.

It is "realistic" that Anders, even though he is the same person, is a different character in DA2. The situation is different and his character reflects that. Why complain? Why is this character development not seen as depth and realism? Because his evolution isn't completely guided by the player to the player's liking?

No, THAT change, that character independence, doesn't count. What matters is his sexuality.

As for his "suddenly" becoming "bi," be careful about enforcing your headcanon on others. No, I didn't see him as "bi" in DA:A, but then his sexuality didn't matter since I didn't need him to seduce Darkspawn into submission. Some players have said they can easily interpret his playful banter with male Warden and Howe as flirting. I didn't interpret it that way when I played the game originally, but after seeing DA2, it clearly isn't a stretch, nor does it seem forced.

IRL I have had several situations arise where I completely misread the actions of others that took a new light once I found out they were gay. I don't have gay-dar IRL, so I don't find it "unrealistic" to discover a character's sexual tastes days, months, or years after meeting them, even if they aren't "in the closet."

[robertthebard]

wsandista wrote...

Yeah...they shouldn't add certain morality choices either just to accomodate certain PCs.

No they should not. The game world should always be the same at creatio for every character.

I can't get behind this either, since doing that would mean that you only had one option for all of the Origins treaties, and for Redcliffe and associated subquests.  So which ones would it be?  Would you always have to side with the elves, pick Harrowmont, and side with Templars?  Does Connor have to die every time, or Isolde?  Because if you side with the Templars, you can't save him any other way.  These are all choices that affect the game world, some of them more drastically than others, such as siding with the Templars.  What would be the point of playing the game then?

Modifié par robertthebard, 10 juin 2012 - 05:07 .

[wsandista]

robertthebard wrote...

wsandista wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

]Yeah...they shouldn't add certain morality choices either just to accomodate certain PCs.

No they should not. The game world should always be the same at creatio for every character.

I can't get behind this either, since doing that would mean that you only had one option for all of the Origins treaties, and for Redcliffe and associated subquests.  So which ones would it be?  Would you always have to side with the elves, pick Harrowmont, and side with Templars?  Does Connor have to die every time, or Isolde?  Because if you side with the Templars, you can't save him any other way.  These are all choices that affect the game world, some of them more drastically than others, such as siding with the Templars.  What would be the point of playing the game then?

They shouldn't add choices simply to accommodate certain PCs. They should have choices that match and support the story, not just provide fanservice.

[robertthebard]

wsandista wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

wsandista wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

]Yeah...they shouldn't add certain morality choices either just to accomodate certain PCs.

No they should not. The game world should always be the same at creatio for every character.

I can't get behind this either, since doing that would mean that you only had one option for all of the Origins treaties, and for Redcliffe and associated subquests.  So which ones would it be?  Would you always have to side with the elves, pick Harrowmont, and side with Templars?  Does Connor have to die every time, or Isolde?  Because if you side with the Templars, you can't save him any other way.  These are all choices that affect the game world, some of them more drastically than others, such as siding with the Templars.  What would be the point of playing the game then?

They shouldn't add choices simply to accommodate certain PCs. They should have choices that match and support the story, not just provide fanservice.

I don't disagree, but aren't romances just fanservice anyway?  They neither add nor take away from the story.  You can do all of the companion's side quests w/out romancing any of them, if you handle them correctly.   Which is as it should be.

[wsandista]

robertthebard wrote...

wsandista wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

wsandista wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

]Yeah...they shouldn't add certain morality choices either just to accomodate certain PCs.

No they should not. The game world should always be the same at creatio for every character.

I can't get behind this either, since doing that would mean that you only had one option for all of the Origins treaties, and for Redcliffe and associated subquests.  So which ones would it be?  Would you always have to side with the elves, pick Harrowmont, and side with Templars?  Does Connor have to die every time, or Isolde?  Because if you side with the Templars, you can't save him any other way.  These are all choices that affect the game world, some of them more drastically than others, such as siding with the Templars.  What would be the point of playing the game then?

They shouldn't add choices simply to accommodate certain PCs. They should have choices that match and support the story, not just provide fanservice.

I don't disagree, but aren't romances just fanservice anyway?  They neither add nor take away from the story.  You can do all of the companion's side quests w/out romancing any of them, if you handle them correctly.   Which is as it should be.

We get into difficult terrain here. You should be able to find out everything about any companion without romancing them as well as do side quests.

As for fanservice, it all depends on the LI. If Cullen is an LI, then I would absolutely consider that fanservice. If another Templar was an LI then it gets murky. 

[robertthebard]

wsandista wrote...

We get into difficult terrain here. You should be able to find out everything about any companion without romancing them as well as do side quests.

As for fanservice, it all depends on the LI. If Cullen is an LI, then I would absolutely consider that fanservice. If another Templar was an LI then it gets murky. 

This is what gets me about these conversations, and the polarized ends of them, since to me, they are all murky anyway.  They are fun, but they are going on besides what else is going on, not because of.  Now, if they were directly tied to the plot, I could see getting worked up overmuch about them, and it's not like I haven't a time or two anyway.  However, in the grand scheme of Origins, unless you're playing female HN, and want to be queen, romances are overall unimportant to what's going on.

ETA:  Sorry, forgot something I wanted to touch on here:  My last GF didn't know much about my relationships prior to her.  We were together for about 4 years.  That didn't drive the wedge between us, however, in as much as other issues.  The fact that I won't speak to those issues says that no, we don't need to know everything there is to know about our companions, since she didn't know everything there is to know about me.

Modifié par robertthebard, 10 juin 2012 - 05:30 .