132 réponses à ce sujet

[Zazzerka]

Ziggeh wrote...

So what you're saying is that all bisexuals are roughly the same, give or take some meat? Do you need me to point out the flaw in that?

The same in what way? In the way that they're all bisexual? Sure, isn't that logical? It's a trait, and if every single character we meet has that same trait, it'd get a bit tedious.

It's like if everyone was into knitting.

[Ziggeh]

Zazzerka wrote...

The same in what way? In the way that they're all bisexual? Sure, isn't that logical? It's a trait, and if every single character we meet has that same trait, it'd get a bit tedious.

It's like if everyone was into knitting.

They're all a bit tasty in a fight. Does that get boring?

[Ieldra]

Can we keep away from the sex thing? I made this topic to discuss metagaming and character consistency without strong feeling about sexuality getting in the way.

Also, Zazzerka, your assertion only works if you presume mindset (1) (="a character is everything written for them, regardless of whether or not potentialities remain unrealized in this playthrough"). Why would you want to presume that? I find it overly restrictive.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 juillet 2013 - 03:55 .

[Zazzerka]

Is that another sandwich metaphor?

[crimzontearz]

If I am shaping the personality of said character in each individual playthroughs then the others matter not

Case in point, Zevran in DAO

[GreyLycanTrope]

And suddenly the metahpor became about food fights...possiby, maybe? I'm a bit lost to the point.

[Zazzerka]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, Zazzerka, your assertion only works if you presume mindset (1) (="a character is everything written for them, regardless of whether or not potentialities remain unrealized in this playthrough"). Why would you want to presume that? I find it overly restrictive.

Sure, having it unrealised would be the way to go. I'm operating with this in mind...

So have them all set as being bisexual; problem solved.

...which I (perhaps incorrectly) took to mean make their orientation known officially as bisexual, rather than protagsexual. I'm not overly fond of that idea, whereas I'm pretty indifferent about how it was handled in DA2.

I'll stop with the OT, now.

Modifié par Zazzerka, 04 juillet 2013 - 03:19 .

[Thiefy]

Is this JUST about romances? Because if it is, I call shenannigans.

I'm of mindset 2.

I cannot relate to mind 1, because the nature of Bioware games, as stated, was to making branching stories for players to explore different "AUs".

If they can't accept that there are going to be SOME differences, what is the point of playing this kind of game?

Some of the romances will react or respond differenly (or the same!) depending on the choices you make. It is was it is. Why is this "unacceptable" but having an AU with a different Warden of a different Origin is not? Or a PC with a different job class? Or a PC with a different gender? ALL of these things will give a slightly different color to each AU yet the one that has people questioning who is and is not allowed to bump uglies with each other? Really?

[Ziggeh]

Zazzerka wrote...

Is that another sandwich metaphor?

It's not, and I feel I should have tried harder to make one. How about this:

Certain elements of their personality are necessary for the NPCs role within the plot, fighting, following, not being an outrageous ass, etc.

These do not present a problem because their are plenty of aspects that can be altered within that, and they don't have a sizable impact upon who they would otherwise be. This is simply another such element.

So this is more Bread or Butter than it is filling, and these are things of which we do not tire.

[jtav]

I'm of mindset 1. It's the sane person reacting to different stimuli. Or it should be. There are some lines and situations that seem so at odds with the character as I experienced them that I do pull "not in my game." But I prefer to harmonize where possible.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I don't think there are many true branches in BW games. BW is a master in changing dialogue slightly if you make different choices. Most of the time it is purely cosmetic, though. It rarely changes the storyline drastically. At best it leads to slight changes in the epilogue. Or, if a change leads to something bad happening to a character then the next game will not use that character at all or not in any significant way. So, for an example, if in DA:O Alistair becomes king or Anora becomes the ruler then it doesn't make any difference for the story in DA2, except for maybe a few dialogue line changes and a cameo. Leliana is an exception. But that's more because BW isn't a master in continuity.

I think there is a problem with all these little changes that don't effect the main storyline. They become one large string of rationalizations to meet the story line. And if the story isn't all that great to begin with, like DA2, then that surely doesn't really help telling the story.

With all those dialogue changes and cameos, BW was not able to do simple things that could have made telling the story better. Like, let the encounters include was class the PC has. The fact that the PC has to tell whether he is a blood mage or not doesn't make sense. Especially when the game is supposed to be about the conflict of mages and the circle system. And why there are merchants selling blood mage gear near Meredith's headquarters is not very believable either. I rather have that BW puts energy in that and have a true branching storyline than a white noise of background story information that doesn't get me anywhere.

I'm sure they'll improve something of the above. So, I'll wait and see how that works out.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 04 juillet 2013 - 04:04 .

[Aleya]

Should characters (NPCs) be consistent between different playthroughs of the same game?

If the events taking place in a character's life are consistent, then the character should be consistent as well.
If the events taking place in a character's life are different, then the character should be different as well.

Basically, if Bioware were to introduce a system where pre-character creation history is randomly altered in small or large ways, and those changes are reflected in (some of) the people we meet and the events that take place during the game, then that would be incredibly amazing and awesome. It's like importing, only even more interesting because it can also affect characters that have nothing to do with the events of previous games. We could see a whole new side of them without damaging the integrity of the characters.

If they introduce a system where the people we meet are one way in AU1, and another in AU2 "just because", then that's very much not good. Bioware's characters are great because they're carefully crafted by the writers to have likes, dislikes, hopes, dreams, and an attitude and will all of their own. Take that away and all you've got is a random algorithm of personality traits with a familiar name slapped on. For me a process like this would seriously harm the value of characters as individuals.

And yes, you do need to metagame to spot the changes. But metagaming is where the replay value of Bioware games comes from. It's fascinating precisely because you can find out what would have happened if things had gone differently, because you can see how events affect subsequent events as well as people. If however the NPCs are already changing randomly regardless of what happens around them, then that kills my ability to see the effect events have. Which in turn kills replay value.

[Medhia Nox]

@Ieldra2: If it helps at all - concerning something like "Merill an elven supremacist." being consistent.

I abandoned Merrill in the first act - only touching upon her conversations just to see if she'd changed at all.

From very nearly the get go - I got the impression that she was solely interested in her elven problem and obsessed with doing "whatever it takes" to achieve her goals. I deplore "whatever it take" types as the worst form of radicals... so I abandoned her.

So - even with very moderate interaction - I came away thinking she was an elven supremacist of sorts.

She just stares at the broken Eluvian through my entire playthrough - it's quite satisfying.  (I don't remember if that's exactly what she does to be honest - didn't give her much attention at all.)

BTW - not only did I abandon her as a character because I thought she was a cooky elf... nor because she mentions she's willing to use both blood magic and demons - but because she's so self-obsessed that I figured: "Leave the crazy wench to her own storyline."

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 04 juillet 2013 - 04:22 .

[Ieldra]

@Aleya:
Ah well, I wasn't talking about "just because". That would be bad. Any divergences would have to be carefully crafted as not to clash with other traits. But I do support divergences which don't necessarily have anything to do with the PC steering NPCs into certain directions, but as reactions to things like elements of the PCs backstory, class etc..We have minor elements of that in DAO and DA2, and in DAO they have significant impact on how the game feels depending on origin, but they're only reactions to the PC by minor NPCs. Companions usually remain unaffected unless that "PC influencing the NPC" mechanism comes in.. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 juillet 2013 - 04:29 .

[Nightdragon8]

fchopin wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

fchopin wrote...
I know that they can create many companions with different personalities and still make them bi but you have to agree that it does restrict many personalities that would not be possible is that correct?

Only in that there are a vast number and that that "many", despite any numerical quality is still a relatively inconsequential number.

Don’t you also agree that if these companions are used like DA2 and change depending on gender they would be very superficial and probably not used in future games as different people would have different experiences with them and would be almost impossible to see them again unless it is some kind of small cameo role?

Can you explain how there sexuality will change there personality givin the setting in DA universe. Remember, in DA universe same sex partnerships are not look down on, thus they have no reason to be ashamed of there sexualtiy....

so plz explain how say, Merrils or Fenris's personality should be different depending on who he/she is attracted to.

[Plaintiff]

I don't think the characters are "inconsistent" in the least. They react differently depending on the stimulus the player provides, which is (broadly speaking) how people work in real life.

They don't change, the player character does.

[Hazegurl]

I see each of my playthroughs as an AU. When I first pop in the disc I try to walk into the game with very little knowledge as to the story, companions, and LIs. I try to remain as spoiler free as possible which is why I avoid game boards of games I am currently playing. I plan to do the same with DA3 comes out. In the meantime I will make sure I avoid info on LIs etc because this is info I do not wish to know so I can have the best rpg experience in game. After the first playthrough, i pretty much know that the next one will be done with some metagaming. I mean how can it not? You've already played the story, you know which dialogue you will and won't pick. perhaps you've missed something and can still experience something new but overall it's metagaming.

I don't expect characters to be completely consistent on each playthrough as interactions with them can change. In DA2 you can have friendship or rivalry, skip companion quests, turn certain companions in, and tell them to leave the party. Things will naturally be a bit different. However, in each AU the core of the character hasn't changed. Fenris still mistrusts mages, Anders mistrusts Templars, Varric is still easy going, Aveline is still Aveline. What I love about each playthrough with the companions in DA2 is that I get to change how each new Hawke develops a relationship with them. I can romance one, reject another, rival this one, friend that one etc. It allows me to play a variety of Hawkes and keep the game fresh in my mind. If the characters were too rigid in how I can interact with them I will become bored fast. DAO was a fun game but I got sick of romancing only Alistair as a woman or only Zevran as a man. I couldn't romance Alistair and have a totally different dynamic with him as a man and Zevran comes off as too swarmy for my females. With all honesty, I plan to do a full playthrough to prepare for DA3 but I look forward to replaying DA2 the most.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 04 juillet 2013 - 04:49 .

[TK514]

When I think character consistency, I think of scenarios like Leliana and Wynn objecting to the Warden tainting the Ashes, or Sebastian leaving should you spare the guy who just murdered Sebastian's surrogate mother figure. These actions are consistent with the characters and their beliefs and personalities.

When Fenris sticks around even if Hawke takes an elven slave, I have problems. There's no way Hawke should be able to convince Fenris or Isabella that slavery is ok. The only way to convince Anders to join Hawke in an assault on the Circle should be proof and exposure ahead of time that there was widespread demonic possession and/or the use of Blood Magic within the current members of the Circle, because Anders' beliefs, and those of Justice, consistently oppose both, at times violently so.

And I include sexuality in this, to an extent. I found characters who were consistent in their sexuality, like Sam, Steve, Isabella, Zevran or Garrus, to be considerably more enjoyable than the PC-sexuals. Anders is probably the worst offender. I hear the attempt at justification that 'just because he never says he likes guys in Asunder doesn't mean anything!', but I can't buy it. I could almost see it for someone like nearly blank slate Alenko, even though I consider it a terrible failure in characterization on the part of the writers, but Anders? The man was a hetero version of Zevran. He had no shame and no qualms about hitting on women, even when they had zero interest. Even threats of violence only caused a temporary pause. He was consistent and overt in the way stories are when developing characters. If he was really playing for both teams, why didn't Nathaniel, or a male Warden, receive the same treatment? Why didn't we get, ever, a hint in some way that he was open to other options? If there had been hints in Asunder that he swung both ways, I could have accepted it in DAII, but there was nothing. No subtle innuendo, no point at which he's surreptitiously checking out the male Warden as we walk away, nothing.

The other argument I hear is that 'real people hide part of themselves all the time! Or they change!' and I think that is both true and irrelevant. Characters in stories, be they books, movies, or games, are not real people. They have to be more overt and larger than life, because we don't interact with them as real people. With a real person, if I spend any amount of time with them, I'm getting millions of unconscious verbal and non-verbal cues to define them over the course of our association. Being overt is helpful, but not absolutely necessary unless I only interact with them over the course of a handful of hours. With a character in a story, I only get what the writer gives me, and I really only have a few hours with which to interact with any given character. Overt, even when it is supposed to mimic subtlety, is necessary.

That's why I think sudden unexplained shifts in character are bad, particularly from game to game, because it represents a failure in writing the character. I don't mind Anders brazenly hitting on Hawke. Being shameless and brazen was previously defined as an Anders character trait. Brazenly hitting on male Hawke, however, needs more explanation, because it is at odds with his previous characterization. Being pissy about any Hawke shooting him down also needs explanation, because our past interactions with him have shown that getting shot down, up to and including threats of violence, merely rolled off him like water off a duck's back. There's a problem with consistent characterization.

My personal opinion is, if you're going to drastically change a character between installments, just make a new character. Don't insult me by telling me that all the hints I needed to see that this is how the character was the whole time only happened off screen where I couldn't observe them, or that, 'they just hid them really really well, even though you interacted with them for long periods of time daily for months, often in life or death situations'. It just doesn't work for me.

Modifié par TK514, 04 juillet 2013 - 04:53 .

[Ziggeh]

fchopin wrote...

Don’t you also agree that if these companions are used like DA2 and change depending on gender they would be very superficial and probably not used in future games as different people would have different experiences with them and would be almost impossible to see them again unless it is some kind of small cameo role?

Well firstly that assumes they do change depending on gender in DA2, which is debately. But, assuming they were to be more explicit with such an effect in future:

You would already have them acting in "both" ways within one game, I don't see how it becomes more of a problem in a second, except that they are further divergent which is true of every character.

[Hazegurl]

TK514 wrote...
 but Anders? The man was a hetero version of Zevran. He had no shame and no qualms about hitting on women, even when they had zero interest. Even threats of violence only caused a temporary pause. He was consistent and overt in the way stories are when developing characters. If he was really playing for both teams, why didn't Nathaniel, or a male Warden, receive the same treatment? Why didn't we get, ever, a hint in some way that he was open to other options? If there had been hints in Asunder that he swung both ways, I could have accepted it in DAII, but there was nothing. No subtle innuendo, no point at which he's surreptitiously checking out the male Warden as we walk away, nothing.

I undertsand your point but also disagree... mainly because I saw the characters differently than you. I played a female warden first in Awakening. I thought Anders was gay the moment I saw him. The ponytail, the earrings, his voice. Stereotyping? Yes, I sadly admit it but he was too flambouyant for me to say "Oh look, a dashing handsome manly man who loves women."  Zevran seemed more hetero than Anders. lol!  I can't even recall him hitting on my female warden but then again I haven't played awakening as much as origins.

Also with Kaidan, I tried playing a female Shepard first. Kaidan seemed very... beta male compared to Both Sheps. I loved his confidence in other things, I loved that he was commanding his own squad, I loved how strong he was, I loved how much he stuck to his guns against Shepard without resorting to bootlicker status. Kaidan is a strong man but romancing him as a woman? No way. Playing a male Shepard and romancing Kaidan felt like it fit way better imo.

[Mykel54]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Mykel54 wrote...
I think you need to be more specific, maybe use some examples, instead of just A or B. Are you talking about companions being playersexual? One example is Anders, which comments on his relation with Karl if you´re male, otherwise he doesn´t, so his orientation changes according to the player.

Or are you talking about bringing a certain character to a quest? There are people who like Merrill a lot, but when Merrill is in the party on night terrors and says something like "The keeper would use ancient magic for this halfbreed? She wouldn´t do that for me", some people didn´t like that, because they think Merrill isn´t like the rest of dalish and she doesn´t feel superior. I woud argue she is as elven supremacist as the rest of dalish, but she doesn´t show it upfront like Velanna. Other people would argue that because they didn´t bring Merrill to that conversation, then it didn´t happen in their game.

Those two things are different, and i´m not sure which one this topic is about.

They are actually not so different. The question "Is Merrill an elven supremacist?" wouldn't even come up in playthroughs where you don't bring her to "Night Terrors", since there isn't any other place where she expresses similar sentiments (at least as I recall). Players who don't bring her don't experience her as somewhat racist, so they can legitimately say she isn't in their playthoughs. 
The difference with Anders is that both branches are clearly defined, while with Merril there's an undefined state in one branch. Which means that if you adopt mindset (1), the Anders situation will result in a dissonance while the Merill situation won't.

If you complete Merril´s final personal quest, at least on the rival side (i can´t remember if its the same on friendship), there is the option to tell her to "Help the alienage", to which she says "The dalish always thought we were the only true elves, and i never thought... i barely looked at them, i feel like such a fool". To me that fits perfectly with the notion that she is an elven supremacist, but that her experiences change her original views somewhat. She also has plenty of banter where she makes fun of everyone´s beliefs and make the dalish look good, like saying on the darkspawn "we are pretty sure it´s the humans fault".

I do understand your position however, it makes sense to judge the character based on what we see, and obviously not everyone picks the same options or play the same character, so we get to see different dialogues. One example is playing as female hawke, so if i never flirt with Merril, then there is no reason to think that she is lesbian, there is no indication one way or another. I could say that i played a femhawke, never romanced her, and my warden from DAO was a male dalish, so when she tells of her memories it seems as if she had a crush of him.
Check this video by DanaDuchy which shows that dialogue:

It all depends on what dialogue you get to see, for example there are many people who say that Sebastian is pro-templar and supports Meredith fully, yet there is one option in his final dialogue when he says about the mage vs templar conflict "Frankly i find both groups despicable, i wouldn´t leave her Grace at the mercy of either". There are other dialogues from him which also are in the same line. People like to label characters and summarize them in a few words, but i think they´re more complex than that.

[Maria Caliban]

Ieldra2 wrote...



Should characters (NPCs) be consistent between different playthroughs of the same game?

Yes.

[AlanC9]

I remember some experimental work along these lines in NWN mods -- that toolset was easy enough to encourage trying odd things. There was a murder mystery where whoever the PC suspected first would be innocent, since the plot would be rewritten behind the scenes. iIRC that aspect was kind of polarizing.

[The Uncanny]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Should characters (NPCs) be consistent between different playthroughs of the same game?

Yes.

Why?

[Xilizhra]

The Uncanny wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Should characters (NPCs) be consistent between different playthroughs of the same game?

Yes.

Why?

Question: is bisexuality or playersexuality a better option for you?