itself for its “Character development” and “Attention to character”. However,
playing such releases as “The Old Republic “and “Dragon Age 2”, I can say
emphasis is being placed on all the wrong traits. While Bioware claims that
this is character development, I say it is a rather cheap attempt in order to
gain more attention and sales from a broader audience. The ‘traits’ Bioware is
so deadly focused upon are not those of a complete character arc, but rather
pronouncing traits more in common of an idealized male or female. In other
words, they are wish fulfillment characters.
For example, take a look at this profile of Corso Riggs, a
starter companion for SW:TOR.
"Corso Riggs is a cheerful, disarmingly optimistic
mercenary soldier. Raised as a rancher's son on the rough frontier of Ord
Mantell, Corso developed a mixture of naive innocence and primitive toughness,
wrapped with old-fashioned chivalry."
"In addition to his gung-ho enjoyment of a good, dirty
fight and his encyclopedic knowledge of weapons, Corso remains a ray of
sunshine in even the worst circumstances. He has no sense of his own mortality
and is absolutely convinced he's going to live forever. Corso also has a soft
spot for damsels in distress, even when it's clear they're up to no good."
"Likes: Protecting the weak, being nice to ladies,
punishing bad guys"
"Dislikes: Hurting for profit, hurting women no matter
what they did, working with Sith or Imperials"
Notice how some phrases are coined: “old-fashioned chivalry” “ray of sunshine” “soft
spot for damsels in distress”. Does this sound like a character fit for a space
opera, or rather a character meant to cater to a female audience? Now, I won’t
say that his morality is questioned, however, said morality is never questioned
enough.
Other characters, such as Torian Cadera, have their arcs
eliminated by their recruitment, rather than giving said character to expand
on. This puts their role on the
“What about Dragon Age 2? Those characters have complete
arcs!”
While true, Dragon Age 2’s romanceable characters emphases
traits that are either half-thought out or do things that are impractical for a
regular person. For example, Merrill chooses to restore a mirror that
essentially puts her entire clan at risk. Hawke, at a certain point, can either
help or refuse to help Merrill in this task, gaining her favor or distain. However,
such act almost has very little to do with the overarching conflict and is solely
focused on her character.
That’s not to say that romances shouldn’t be implemented,
but should be supplements to an already strongly established character and
rather adds to their arc, rather than replacing it altogether. For example, I
believe Kira Carsen from The Old Republic is a fine example of this. Her
struggle with darkness is complex. She clearly has a jaded view of the world,
but reacts positively whenever the MC responds with a helpful tone. It adds to
her background, and the romance is simply there, adding to an already
established arc.
In short, I’d rather see a well-developed complete arc of a
character that isn’t romanceable anyday over a romanceable, wish-fufilling
character that puts emphasis on all the wrong traits.
Arguements, Counter-arguments, opinions and debates are all welcome.
Modifié par Burnouts3s3, 18 juin 2012 - 02:10 .
Retour en haut
