145 réponses à ce sujet

[Saberchic]

As much as I love Carver, I hope neither of the Hawke siblings make an appearance.

And what's with the virgin fetish??? Reading the OP made me feel icky.

[TJPags]

RetroActiv wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Except....she could be dead.

I'd really prefer that NO potentially dead NPC's from prior games come back. Ever.

Use time and resources on things that ALL players can have, not simply those whose prior games were lucky enough to have kept certain characters alive.

yet bioware has already done this with Ashley and Kaiden from Mass Effect. Not to mention all of the ME2 LI characters who could all die in the suicide mission.

I don't play ME, so I'll accept what you say as true.

It's also been done in DA, however - see, Leliana.  They also put Zevran into some games and Nathanial into games (all of whom can die, although I believe both Zevran and Nate are only supposed to appear if you import a save where they live).  Anders can certainly have been dead, at least by strong implication.

In any event, just because it's been done before doesn't mean it should continue to be done.  Putting a character who could be dead into the next game is work that's meaningless to anybody who imports a save where that character IS dead.  So it's work that likely won't be seen by at least some, and perhaps a majority, of players.  To me, that's waste of development time.

[DaringMoosejaw]

TJPags wrote...

I don't play ME, so I'll accept what you say as true.

It's also been done in DA, however - see, Leliana.  They also put Zevran into some games and Nathanial into games (all of whom can die, although I believe both Zevran and Nate are only supposed to appear if you import a save where they live).  Anders can certainly have been dead, at least by strong implication.

In any event, just because it's been done before doesn't mean it should continue to be done.  Putting a character who could be dead into the next game is work that's meaningless to anybody who imports a save where that character IS dead.  So it's work that likely won't be seen by at least some, and perhaps a majority, of players.  To me, that's waste of development time.

That is silly. A lot of players never even finished DA:O according to Bioware's stats, does that mean that the ending was a waste of development time? If you cut out content because SOME players will never see it, there won't be much of a game left. It'd be a linear corridor with absolutely no branching paths. People are brought back for the sake of continuity and showing your choices matter, and if some people end up killing those people that's on them for not getting to see the content.

[Knight of Dane]

^
I agree

[Profanity Beaver]

Yay! Do this! Make her romancable!
But leave out the creepy virgin stuff...Why do we even suspect she's a virgin? I don't remember hawke prying too much into her sex life...

But seriously, it felt weird role playing as Hawke and inadvertantly checking out his hawt sister...

[Liamv2]

Profanity Beaver wrote...

Yay! Do this! Make her romancable!
But leave out the creepy virgin stuff...Why do we even suspect she's a virgin? I don't remember hawke prying too much into her sex life...

But seriously, it felt weird role playing as Hawke and inadvertantly checking out his hawt sister...

It is mentioned in the isabella party banter

[TJPags]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

TJPags wrote...

I don't play ME, so I'll accept what you say as true.

It's also been done in DA, however - see, Leliana.  They also put Zevran into some games and Nathanial into games (all of whom can die, although I believe both Zevran and Nate are only supposed to appear if you import a save where they live).  Anders can certainly have been dead, at least by strong implication.

In any event, just because it's been done before doesn't mean it should continue to be done.  Putting a character who could be dead into the next game is work that's meaningless to anybody who imports a save where that character IS dead.  So it's work that likely won't be seen by at least some, and perhaps a majority, of players.  To me, that's waste of development time.

That is silly. A lot of players never even finished DA:O according to Bioware's stats, does that mean that the ending was a waste of development time? If you cut out content because SOME players will never see it, there won't be much of a game left. It'd be a linear corridor with absolutely no branching paths. People are brought back for the sake of continuity and showing your choices matter, and if some people end up killing those people that's on them for not getting to see the content.

We'll agree to disagree.

Games are designed to be played to the end, so making an end is much different than including content that you KNOW some people shouldn't be able to see.  Someone who killed Nathaniel in DAA never sees him in DA2, and so that entire storyline is wasted on that portion of the audience.

I see a difference between game content that I won't see based on my prior choices - valid choices the prior game gave me - and game content I don't see because I choose not to finish the game.

[Renmiri1]

Saberchic wrote...

As much as I love Carver, I hope neither of the Hawke siblings make an appearance.

And what's with the virgin fetish??? Reading the OP made me feel icky.

I totally get the inexperienced and insecure boys think a virgin would be easier, since she would not have any way to judge the guy inadequate or lacking.

But there are also the creeps who consider the "challenge" of convincing a girl to do it first with them is exciting, and collect virgins just for bragging rights. And the creeps who like underage girls. And the creeps who think they can "own" a woman, if they are the girls first. And the creeps who like to **** shame anyone who isn't a virgin.

So while there are innocent andd harmless reasons for having a virgin fetish, the most common reasons are very creepy and hurtful to women, virgin and experienced alike. And that is why it turns my stomach to see it here 

As for Bethany, she was my sister, so even if I am palying a different character it would feel very weird to have that character banging her. Not to mention I don't have a "virgin fetish", it is actually a turn off for me, so I wouldn't like Bethany anyway. 

[DaringMoosejaw]

TJPags wrote...

We'll agree to disagree.

Games are designed to be played to the end, so making an end is much different than including content that you KNOW some people shouldn't be able to see.  Someone who killed Nathaniel in DAA never sees him in DA2, and so that entire storyline is wasted on that portion of the audience.

I see a difference between game content that I won't see based on my prior choices - valid choices the prior game gave me - and game content I don't see because I choose not to finish the game.

Yeah, they never see him in DA2 but people who DID save Nathaniel never got the Fool's Gold quest, either.

I think you're going a little too far here and not seeing the unintended consequences of your point of view. There are so many things you'd need to cut. Most folks played male, so all the female PC models and voices would need to be cut, as would the female-centered romances. You'd also only get to pick one LI, because most people would only play the game once and they'd miss out on that other content with the other LI and thus that content would be declared pointless. This is assuming there would even be any LIs at all, because some folks don't like them, so it's more pointless stuff some people won't get to see.

You'd have to get rid of the mage/templar choice, the werewolf/elf choice, the golem/no golem choice, the Orzammar choice. All these 'choices' would have to be gone by virtue of the fact that by making one, you miss out on the content of the other. Which is, as you've established, then pointless content. The import feature would have to be gone as well and everyone would start DA3 with the same slate, because there'd be far too much differing content someone could miss and amount to even more pointless development time.

[Knight of Dane]

On the other hand people who did in fact not recruit Nathaniel gets another quest in act 2, that you for no apparent reason don't get with Nathaniel.

[Knight of Dane]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Saberchic wrote...

As much as I love Carver, I hope neither of the Hawke siblings make an appearance.

And what's with the virgin fetish??? Reading the OP made me feel icky.

I totally get the inexperienced and insecure boys think a virgin would be easier, since she would not have any way to judge the guy inadequate or lacking.

But there are also the creeps who consider the "challenge" of convincing a girl to do it first with them is exciting, and collect virgins just for bragging rights. And the creeps who like underage girls. And the creeps who think they can "own" a woman, if they are the girls first. And the creeps who like to **** shame anyone who isn't a virgin.

So while there are innocent andd harmless reasons for having a virgin fetish, the most common reasons are very creepy and hurtful to women, virgin and experienced alike. And that is why it turns my stomach to see it here 

As for Bethany, she was my sister, so even if I am palying a different character it would feel very weird to have that character banging her. Not to mention I don't have a "virgin fetish", it is actually a turn off for me, so I wouldn't like Bethany anyway. 

Please provide your scientific sources when you make such idiotic claims.

[cindercatz]

Honestly, the freudian slip in OP made me crack up, but I agree with the more serious comments about why any character being 'virginal' ought not to be treated particularly special by the writing in general. In general, there shouldn't be any shaming behaviour that isn't specific to a character's own bias and clearly so. If the particular society has a certain bias, it should be clear what their societal ramifications and common social quirks and phobias are in the writing. From what we've seen so far, I'd imagine Orlais is pretty liberal in a Victorian era sort of way in this area.

So, my initial response was a couple things:
What makes you see Bethany as so virginal in the first place? I thought she was pretty exploratory and outwardly curious if you heard all her dialogues. She seemed pretty level headed all-round. So if she were to be a companion love interest at some point, I imagine she'd be pretty level headed and even in that role too. And that's a rhetorical question.

Second was, I don't think we'll ever see her or Carver as companions, but I'd like to see them in the game with their particular faction or alongside Hawke, either way. So if they had a semi-important role, I imagine it'd be as some kind of liason/ representative. It's not really a big checklist thing to me. Bethany was one of my favorites in DA2 as the sister, but I didn't like Carver so much. So I'd like to see Bethany in a small cameo, sure. She's on the preferred cameo list of about ten or fifteen characters I'd like to pop up at some point in the game. I guess that would mean Carver as an alternative.

I would like Charade as a companion, though. I think that'd be cool to have her as a sounding board for what's happened in Thedas the last ten years, and a story link back to Hawke, and we don't know much about her. She's still new, really.

And lastly, I don't see former characters or my current one as 'me', but as my creations (or co-creations with the writers and artists that make the game), so I don't have the same reaction a lot of people did on the first page of "She's my sister..." She was Hawke's sister, not my sister, and not the Inquisitor's sister, or the Warden's, etc. I play the game from the perspective of 'what would he/she do?', not 'what would I do?', and I play multiple characters from different perspectives, so that first page initial reaction of 'Ick.. gross' was curious to me, but I understand their pov.

Someone said 'third person roleplay'? I guess that's what I do, so I don't have the same reaction.

[kalasaurus]

I hope to see Bethany again, but not as a LI. She's a really sweet character, and her sisterly relationship with my FemHawke was adorable.

She's also the only named mage in DA2 (besides maybe mage Hawke) who wasn't a blood mage or abomination. Seriously, the mage cause needs this woman.

[nightscrawl]

Knight of Dane wrote...

On the other hand people who did in fact not recruit Nathaniel gets another quest in act 2, that you for no apparent reason don't get with Nathaniel.

Fool's Gold is alternate content to provide players with no Nathaniel a similar level of play. Finding Nathaniel is better on every level: better loot, better encounters, some lore stuff, and a moment with your Warden sibling (if they joined the Wardens). That said, Fool's Gold is the lesser alternative so those players aren't left with a significant dearth in a quest location.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 17 février 2013 - 07:10 .

[Knight of Dane]

Indeed. It gives the choice something at the very least. Now that bioware chose to bring Nathaniel back should they just have retconed his warden status and death?
That would have given complains.

[TJPags]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

TJPags wrote...

We'll agree to disagree.

Games are designed to be played to the end, so making an end is much different than including content that you KNOW some people shouldn't be able to see.  Someone who killed Nathaniel in DAA never sees him in DA2, and so that entire storyline is wasted on that portion of the audience.

I see a difference between game content that I won't see based on my prior choices - valid choices the prior game gave me - and game content I don't see because I choose not to finish the game.

Yeah, they never see him in DA2 but people who DID save Nathaniel never got the Fool's Gold quest, either.

I think you're going a little too far here and not seeing the unintended consequences of your point of view. There are so many things you'd need to cut. Most folks played male, so all the female PC models and voices would need to be cut, as would the female-centered romances. You'd also only get to pick one LI, because most people would only play the game once and they'd miss out on that other content with the other LI and thus that content would be declared pointless. This is assuming there would even be any LIs at all, because some folks don't like them, so it's more pointless stuff some people won't get to see.

You'd have to get rid of the mage/templar choice, the werewolf/elf choice, the golem/no golem choice, the Orzammar choice. All these 'choices' would have to be gone by virtue of the fact that by making one, you miss out on the content of the other. Which is, as you've established, then pointless content. The import feature would have to be gone as well and everyone would start DA3 with the same slate, because there'd be far too much differing content someone could miss and amount to even more pointless development time.

See, I think we're talking about two similar but different things.

I have no problem with choices in a single game.  By making a choice, I will see one of two outcomes, and obvously the other is lost on me.  But for people who make the other choice, what I see is lost on them.  However, that's in a single game, and I don't see it the same.  I can see the "lost" content by playing DAO again, and this time siding with Bhelen, for instance.

What's going on here is that a choice made in a prior game results in content existing or not existing in the next game.  Bethany, which is who we are dicussing, may be dead or alive.  If every Hawke I played is a mage, then she's never alive.  To get any content in DA3 where she's available - as a companion and LI (which is what this thread wants) then I have to go back and replay DA2.  If I don't, every second spent by BW creating and designing her, speccing her, and creating content for her, is wasted when it could have been spent on a new companion and LI that EVERY player of DA3 can have.

The reverse is of course true if I never played a mageHawke - Carver is never alive, and Bethany always is.

But of course, even if I never played a mageHawke, Bethany lives in DA2 but may still have died later during DA2, based on my choice in the Deep Roads.  So there are now two different DA2 decisions that I could have made which would result in Bethany never being alive.

To me, I shouldn't have to go play DA2 all over again just to see a companion/LI in DA3.  For a brief cameo - as they did with Alistair in DA2, for example, that's fine - I'd assume that takes a LOT less time than a fully fleshed companion and LI.  But to take what is, in essence, an optional character from DA2, and make them a companion and LI in DA3, that's a waste, IMO.  What do those who DON'T have a live Bethany get?  Nothing?  Or should BW spend twice the time now, and create another companion/LI to take Bethany's place, just for those to whom Bethany is not available?

[Nerdage]

I'm surprised people would feel weird about a romance with her even with a different PC, but I wouldn't really want her back in that capacity anyway. As possibly the only sane mage in DA2, as well as someone who was there when it all happened (assuming she was), it would be nice to see her play some role in the whole rebellion, but even then her place is probably with the mages rather than following our new PC around (though, admittedly, I have no idea what our PC will even be doing).

Incidentally, this thread has taken some strange turns; I'm surprised it's not been locked...

[cindercatz]

TJPags wrote...

To me, I shouldn't have to go play DA2 all over again just to see a companion/LI in DA3.  For a brief cameo - as they did with Alistair in DA2, for example, that's fine - I'd assume that takes a LOT less time than a fully fleshed companion and LI.  But to take what is, in essence, an optional character from DA2, and make them a companion and LI in DA3, that's a waste, IMO.  What do those who DON'T have a live Bethany get?  Nothing?  Or should BW spend twice the time now, and create another companion/LI to take Bethany's place, just for those to whom Bethany is not available?

Totally agreed with this point. I like Bethany, but the whole class/death scenario at the start of DA2 kind of rules her out as a full time, majority game companion. I think she and Carver could be temporaries, less so than DA2, but in priniciple I don't like alternate companions that aren't decided by in game choices. I had the same problem with KoTOR 2, and having another either/or companion that follows from DA2's either/or kind of compounds the problem. Mass Effect was different because that's a choice I got to make, similar to Loghaine or the character in Jade Empire. That works for me. This situation is just bad juju.

[Knight of Dane]

Having Carver/Bethany as an in-game choice would have been best in my opinion as well, but for me it just adds replayability which is valuable since I play my favorite games through many times.

[Ninja Stan]

Hanz54321 wrote...

WHERE THE HELL ARE THE MODS?

I'm not going to report this thread because I don't do that.  But I want to see if/when they are going to do their job and shut this virginal sex discussion down.  It doesn't even belong here.

If you don't report threads that you think should be locked, it is possible the Mods haven't seen the thread or noticed that it is problematic and needs to be locked. I'm here only because this thread was REPORTED TO ME.

Crying "where the hell are the Mods?" is disingenuous if you haven't even tried to get in touch with them in the first place. It assumes we have superpowers (we don't) and can be summoned from within the forum (we can't).

Saying you don't report threads but expect problem threads to be dealt with is lazy and irresponsible. Instead of taking the time to attack the Mods in the thread, why not take the time to send a Mod a private message and link them to the problem?

That said, this thread is pretty inappropriate.

End of line.