232 réponses à ce sujet

[Dasher1010]

Maria Caliban wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Part of it is small things reinforcing it, like the UI colors associated with friendship and rivalry.

Thank you!

I've been saying that they need to change the colors for years now. You can't use red to mean renegade, closed fist, and dark side, and then have a game where it doesn't have a moral component.

Change the colors and move the options around.

What about Green and Black?

[Maclimes]

Or just not color code it. The shapes should be plenty.

[TheWout]

There is no proper shape for kicking the man in the feels

[Maclimes]

TheWout wrote...

There is no proper shape for kicking the man in the feels

I wish there was a "Like" or "Upvote" button so I could express my enjoyment of this comment, without the need to actually type a response.

[Beerfish]

berelinde wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

bigbad1013 wrote...

Less eager? Anders came on to my male Hawke, once, and I turned him down. I don't see the problem with that. OP, have you never had someone come on to you WITHOUT you first telling them that it's okay? I honestly don't see what the big deal is.

That is not really the issue, it's that it was a departure from the way most other romances had progressed in the past.  It's not a big issue in the grand scheme of the whole game but it felt forced.

Did it? I thought it felt quite natural. Your character was supportive. Flirting happened. I found it to be a refreshing realistic, and a pleasant change from having to make the first move.

I never had a chance to be supportive, it was pretty well in the 1st converstaion you have with the dude.  It would feel just as forced if the 1st convo I had with Merril or Isabela after a one line convo they gave me the old heart dialogue option.

[Estelindis]

David Gaider wrote...

I suspect there's also an element of powergamers who cannot conceive of getting "negative points" for anything, despite the fact that you can easily earn maximum Friendship with Anders three times over during the course of the game.

Or at least this is their professed reasoning. I've always found it interesting how some people characterize Anders' brief disappointment as akin to shooting him in the head, or suggest that he is angry at you for the rest of the game-- or, alternatively, that he hits on you for the rest of the game even if you turn him down-- neither of which are remotely true... 

Personally, my Hawke did start the romance with Anders initially, but when we got to the "I'll just break your heart" speech she thought about it and said "Okay, then we're done."  And, as you say, it was quite possible to build up his affection again very quickly and remain friends.  The way I see it, if you love someone, you also respect them... so when their assessment of your relationship is that it'll ultimately lead to doom and depression, maybe you should listen to them.    Slightly contrary to what you say, he did later seem to try to break up Hawke and Fenris... but maybe he wouldn't have done so if Hawke and himself hadn't started that relationship in chapter one before nipping it in the bud; I don't know.  

I agree that a certain part of the problem is gamers' desire to "win" everything and thus avoid negative points.  I would have thought that the friendship/rivalry system would help to stop that, since you can "win" in either direction, but I guess not!

Honestly, I think that another part of the problem is that it would be nice to be able to disagree with characters while you both still see where the other is coming from... to be able to explain why you see things differently, rather than agreeing and getting approval or disagreeing and getting disapproval.  But that's just my two eurocents.

[TheWout]

I think the main reason why it is so overly easy to end up romancing Anders is because it would add a whole new level of drama and feels to his story arc.
Thereforce, it felt "forced"

I found him annoying throughout the game, so the endgame decision was easier for me.

[Beerfish]

"I suspect there's also an element of powergamers who cannot conceive of getting "negative points" for anything, despite the fact that you can easily earn maximum Friendship with Anders three times over during the course of the game."

That line is totally unfair to the player. It has nothing to do with being a power gamer. (And I've never head of anyone going power gamer over rep points) If player does something they feel they deserve negative rep for that's fine. If they get big negative rep for 'trying to to the right thing' that is flat out bad design. All you accomplish from that is to get the player to very much dislike the character in question, perhaps through no fault of the character him/herself but through the actions of the designer that slapped a huge consequence onto something that shouldn't have been that big of a deal. I would assume after a conversation that give rep you shouldn't feel like the game designer is trying to force you into one convo line or punish you if you do not take that line.

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlleluiaElizabeth wrote...

Things like that, along with more subtle (or not so subtle, depending) conversations where Anders purposefully leaves you romantic openings, even when you haven't returned the initial flirting at the beginning of act 1. Yes, you don't have to act on them, but the fact he keeps doing it, its like... I dunno. Passive aggressive almost?

Anders? Passive-aggressive?  Judgemental?  

Never.

lol Well, I never said it was out of character. Just that I didn't like it.

[Fallstar]

Beerfish wrote...
That line is totally unfair to the player. It has nothing to do with being a power gamer. (And I've never head of anyone going power gamer over rep points)

Some of the DPS companions had rivalry effects which increased DPS more than the friendship effects did, and some people (the ones who were doing speed kills etc.) did exploit that advantage.

[Estelindis]

scyphozoa wrote...

I don't think the player should be able to romantically reject any companion and that companion just bounces back and is like "ok, because you were so polite about it, we're still totally fine." That Anders expresses hurt is a good, realistic depiction of human emotion. That is not a penalty, it is a response to the player's behavior. Characters should not be designed to only respond positively to player behavior or choices, they should respond in a way that is befitting of their personality and attitude. 

Well said.  :happy:

Mind you, my memory may be a little off...  but I don't remember Hawke's rejection of Anders as being very polite, actually...  Whether or not it was, I like the idea of being able to state that the PC isn't romantically interested in a companion without being a jerk about it.  Of course the companion can still be hurt and still disapprove, but it's important to give us the choice to at least try to cushion their feelings if we wish.  I also think it's important to have friendship paths as well as romance paths.  Personally, I think that's done very well in both Dragon Age games so far.  Long may it last.

[TheWout]

scyphozoa wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
That line is totally unfair to the player. It has nothing to do with being a power gamer. (And I've never head of anyone going power gamer over rep points) If player does something they feel they deserve negative rep for that's fine. If they get big negative rep for 'trying to to the right thing' that is flat out bad design. All you accomplish from that is to get the player to very much dislike the character in question, perhaps through no fault of the character him/herself but through the actions of the designer that slapped a huge consequence onto something that shouldn't have been that big of a deal. I would assume after a conversation that give rep you shouldn't feel like the game designer is trying to force you into one convo line or punish you if you do not take that line.

I think this perspective is still limited to the lense of "rivalry = punishment" or "friendship = the "right" way to play"

There is no "right" answer to give Anders when he hits on the player. It is entirely subjective. The player can choose to engage or to reject and the rejection is a polite statement, its certainly not mean or insulting. But Anders still expresses his disappointment. It is clear that his feelings and his pride have been hurt, and that is an absolutely reasonable response for someone being rejected. (Have been rejected, can confirm)

I don't think the player should be able to romantically reject any companion and that companion just bounces back and is like "ok, because you were so polite about it, we're still totally fine." That Anders expresses hurt is a good, realistic depiction of human emotion. That is not a penalty, it is a response to the player's behavior. Characters should not be designed to only respond positively to player behavior or choices, they should respond in a way that is befitting of their personality and attitude. 

However, how hurt can he really be when this all takes place in the VERY first conversation?

I'm coming here for a map, i killed thousands of people to get to you and you are going to get feely with me right of the bat?

[Wulfram]

scyphozoa wrote...

I think this perspective is still limited to the lense of "rivalry = punishment" or "friendship = the "right" way to play"

If you're on the friendship path - and, given the dialogue choice that leads to the "infamous" Anders flirt, you almost certainly are or will be - then rivalry is most certainly a punishment.

Of course, if you're on the rivalry path, then friendship is a punishment.

[Vilegrim]

David Gaider wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
On a slightly related note, and since David is here... Hey David, didn't you say at some point that you specifically wrote a male companion to be as subservient and agreeable as possible to the player, and he ended up being the most popular male character ever?

Not quite. I hypothesized whether making a character completely servile and supportive of every single thing that player does would, in fact, make him more popular-- based on the fact that many of our more popular characters, like Minsc or HK-47 or, heck, even Varric-- don't actually oppose the player in any fashion.

The result was Deekin. You can make of that what you like.

Deekin was..well didn't keep him as a companion very often.

[Renmiri1]

Oh look is this thread again...

At least Rawgrim is not comparing being flirted by a man to eating rat poison this time

/facepalm

[CELL55]

David Gaider wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
On a slightly related note, and since David is here... Hey David, didn't you say at some point that you specifically wrote a male companion to be as subservient and agreeable as possible to the player, and he ended up being the most popular male character ever?

Not quite. I hypothesized whether making a character completely servile and supportive of every single thing that player does would, in fact, make him more popular-- based on the fact that many of our more popular characters, like Minsc or HK-47 or, heck, even Varric-- don't actually oppose the player in any fashion.

The result was Deekin. You can make of that what you like.

I know he isn't a character you wrote, but what about Wrex from Mass Effect? Even in the first game, he directly opposes your character at Saren's base- an encounter that may leave him dead. And yet he was and continues to be one of the most popular characters in the series.

I think that you may be oversimplifying the concept or be overanalyzing a coincidence. Sure, Minsc, HK-47 and Varric don't directly oppose the player, but that's not why I loved them. I loved them because they were hilarious. Minsc was a boisterous bruiser, HK-47 was a comical sociopath, and Varric and Wrex were both pretty snarky. What do you think?

[Maria Caliban]

scyphozoa wrote...

I think this perspective is still limited to the lense of "rivalry = punishment" or "friendship = the "right" way to play"

There is no "right" answer to give Anders when he hits on the player. It is entirely subjective. The player can choose to engage or to reject and the rejection is a polite statement, its certainly not mean or insulting. But Anders still expresses his disappointment. It is clear that his feelings and his pride have been hurt, and that is an absolutely reasonable response for someone being rejected. (Have been rejected, can confirm)

Except 'you hurt my feelings' shouldn't give rivalry points.

[CitizenThom]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TheWout wrote...

That's not how it worked and you know it.
And there is no need to play the homophobia card, since we are talking about a videogame.

He hit on you, assertively, once.  He also takes it relatively badly if you shoot him down.  

But you both can move on.  It's not that hard.

Also there totally is a need to play the homophobia card, if that's the motivation.  We'll have to see.

TheWout wrote... 

You fail to see the real problem, and that is that the character seemed to be written by a straight guy imagining what homosexuals are like. (Over eager and flaunting their sexuality from the get-go)

Hahahahahah.

Nah, it's called characterization.  Anders is a man of action, and doesn't deal well with non-acceptance.  These are aspects of his character that remain consistent, including relationships.

Is the word homophobia covered by Goodwin's Law yet?

[Maclimes]

CELL55 wrote...

Sure, Minsc, HK-47 and Varric don't directly oppose the player, but that's not why I loved them. I loved them because they were hilarious. Minsc was a boisterous bruiser, HK-47 was a comical sociopath, and Varric and Wrex were both pretty snarky. What do you think?

This. Minsc, JK-47, Kang, Shale, Anders (DA:A version), and Varric are my favorite characters from each of Bioware's games. Why? Because they're hilarious. 

[jlb524]

 

Maclimes wrote...

Or just not color code it. The shapes should be plenty.

As long as, 

Friendship =/= happy shape
Rivalry =/= mean shape

then it could work. 

TheWout wrote...
I think the main reason why it is so overly easy to end up romancing Anders is because it would add a whole new level of drama and feels to his story arc.
Thereforce, it felt "forced"

I thought this thread was about not romancing Anders vs. finding it easy to get into a romance with him.

I didn't find it 'easy to end up romancing Anders' because I never chose that path.  I did find it pretty easy to avoid it though.

[Renmiri1]

My experience in this kind of threads is the more rope you give to people who protest about being flirted by the same sex, the more they show their homophobia. I have yet to be pleasantly surprised.

[CitizenThom]

scyphozoa wrote...

TheWout wrote...

Because people are talking about a patch that tuned Anders down a bit, so i wonder if we are all talking about the same experience.

hmm, since I mentioned the patched rivalry, I thought I'd dig around a bit and try to find an official quote. Yet, after searching through the patch notes, 
http://social.biowar...age/da2-patches  I can't find any mention of it. Maybe I am remembering this wrong. I thought the original rejection resulted in +20 rivalry points and it was reduced to +10, but now I am not sure if that is accurate. It has been a while since I last paid attention to this topic. 

On my most recent playthrough, it was easy to find the middle ground of being supportive without fawning. I do remember though, on my first playthrough, it seemed like the conversation options were either 'let's get naked' or 'I hate you' and not much room in between. There must be some part of the dialogue tree that gets you to one area or the other. Being that Anders goes crazy in the end, perhaps on my most recent playthrough I put more distance between me and him than I did on my original playthrough... and that led me to a different dialogue tree.

Modifié par CitizenThom, 20 septembre 2012 - 08:18 .