164 réponses à ce sujet

[Paul E Dangerously]

I don't think everything should be open for everybody. That goes for quests, decisions, and yes, romances.

[BlueMagitek]

Carpe YOLO, TC.

Anyway, trying to veer back to the original topic instead of attacking people with diabetes, I cannot completely agree with your first argument. Why does there need to be respect between comrades who just don't like each other? It is entirely possible to work with others without trusting or respecting them. No, not every character should be like that, but it would be nice to hire a Merc who is in control in combat situations, but doesn't really care for any of your group (not that he's vocal about it) in his off hours. They might respect the capabilities of others, but not them.

As for your second point, well I don't care for playersexual characters either (or the argument that 'oh, male/female pc makes it an alternate universe where the npc is into whatever the pc is), but it appears that is how it is going to be. Hopefully there is consolation that you can drop characters you dislike from your party (which solves the problem rather bluntly, but solves at least two at once, so it may be acceptable to some).

I do look forward to character interaction.

[Ryzaki]

Morocco Mole wrote...

They will never have a male S/S romance pushed on you heavily. They already pushed Liara on everyone heavily, whether or not you are interested.

Sadly I don't think BW will ever stop doing that.

And ugh Liara.

[General Malor]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Carpe YOLO, TC.

Anyway, trying to veer back to the original topic instead of attacking people with diabetes, I cannot completely agree with your first argument. Why does there need to be respect between comrades who just don't like each other? It is entirely possible to work with others without trusting or respecting them. No, not every character should be like that, but it would be nice to hire a Merc who is in control in combat situations, but doesn't really care for any of your group (not that he's vocal about it) in his off hours. They might respect the capabilities of others, but not them.

As for your second point, well I don't care for playersexual characters either (or the argument that 'oh, male/female pc makes it an alternate universe where the npc is into whatever the pc is), but it appears that is how it is going to be. Hopefully there is consolation that you can drop characters you dislike from your party (which solves the problem rather bluntly, but solves at least two at once, so it may be acceptable to some).

I do look forward to character interaction.

Interesting. For the topic of respect and trust, I would have to disagree on the basis that in everyday life you cannot trust or respect someone you work with, but let's take a special forces unit due to the small number of people and same stresses present on both groups. For your gaming group you have a small force of people to oppose greater forces who face mortal odds every day, and they venture into the unknown together. For you to work with a person you strongly dislike and don't trust just doesn't feel right.

Now that's not to say that they should get along after some point, but if they truly hate each other then every time they go off in a group together they would be worried about the other killing the other. I'm not opposed to this but I want to see it expanded on.

Introduce a character or characters who are "optional" with the ability to kill them off or have them... dun-dun-dun! Kill each other off! Clearly the player would be able to intervine but it would be really interesting to go back to "camp" and see them tearing the place up and about to kill each other. Kind of like Miranda and Jack, but maybe you can't stop it if you don't have a strong enough relationship or incentive enough for them to stand down. Maybe one of them just has to die if you didn't intervine sooner, and then you'll have to live with that.

While it might not be a popular creation, and I'm not saying it's anywhere near a perfect example, but I think things along that line of thought would make for really compelling stories. If Anders can completely just go blow up the Chantry thing then why can't one of my characters who openly hates the other off the person she or he hates?

I hope it comes across that my main point is I want the companions to not feel so much like archtypes or characters, but people living in that world.

By allowing them rational follow through with their attitudes and actions you would have an inner dynamic to work out along side the greater story happening. I mean I can think of worse things to have done in a game than have one of my companions kill of the other in an epic cinematic and I have to live with the outcome.

Like say I go on mission and send one of my characters under someone else's command and then there comes a choice between going and saving one of my squad and letting the other die... While three of my helpers just sit around and do nothing so now I have to watch Ashley die every time because whoever I didn't bring along couldn't get off their behinds to help me in this massive assualt! Okay... maybe there are some residual issues at play here.

All I can think of right now for how the companion characters should feel is like the supporting cast from Buffy or the whole crew of the Serenity. So... have Joss Whedon on the Inquisition team?

Joking aside, I mainly want to see companion characters become greater pieces of the game's narrative.

Modifié par General Malor, 20 août 2013 - 04:54 .

[Caellis]

Moonfish88 wrote...

Id like to see romances between your companions. Like Tali and Garrus in ME3. And maybe you could even help bring two companions together.

 Yes me too..... Especially Varric and Cassandra...

[Sumthing]

Maybe some characters like Minsc or Wrex, that most people like.

[Ryzaki]

Sumthing wrote...

Maybe some characters like Minsc or Wrex, that most people like.

The gruff warrior non romanceable type? BW tends to have one of those in each game.

Canderous/Zu/Sten/Aveline.

[esper]

General Malor wrote...

LindsayLohan wrote...

My question is why do we have so much little influence on female characters? You would think that by now fantasy has branched away from literature that placed females in minor roles. We should have more female major roles as the female character archetypes tend to be more influential and interesting.

On topic the only S/S lesbian romance I got in the previous game was Merill. Merill Is a weak character and she does not represent the independent and strong woman Idea. I changed my romance option to Aveline and bioware didn't bother to implement her romance. I am now trapped with romancing a weak and naive elf who is everything I hate about the way females are portrayed in the media. Bioware should be able to implement a strong ROMANCABLE woman for their next title

I almost fully agree. I don't know if I'd say they are more interesting, because that's subjective. But I do enjoy them more often.

I wanted Aveline because she was so strong and herself and... she just had this imdomitable feel without being obnoxius about it that I just love. Instead I had Merill who I don't fully trust or Isabell who I really shouldn't trust. I got denied by Aveline, which made her more interesting, and never got to be with her. I would totally trade the Merill option for Aveline.

Bioware dropped the ball on that, in my opinion.

I don't want to harp on you and would got just be a very misfortunate choice of words. But that line is out right disturbing.

But if a person says they are not interested in you romantically, then they are not interested in you romantically and that is the precise reason you are not going to be with them.

Bioware should never allow you to be with a man or woman who does not want to be with you.

[General Malor]

esper wrote...

General Malor wrote...

LindsayLohan wrote...

My question is why do we have so much little influence on female characters? You would think that by now fantasy has branched away from literature that placed females in minor roles. We should have more female major roles as the female character archetypes tend to be more influential and interesting.

On topic the only S/S lesbian romance I got in the previous game was Merill. Merill Is a weak character and she does not represent the independent and strong woman Idea. I changed my romance option to Aveline and bioware didn't bother to implement her romance. I am now trapped with romancing a weak and naive elf who is everything I hate about the way females are portrayed in the media. Bioware should be able to implement a strong ROMANCABLE woman for their next title

I almost fully agree. I don't know if I'd say they are more interesting, because that's subjective. But I do enjoy them more often.

I wanted Aveline because she was so strong and herself and... she just had this imdomitable feel without being obnoxius about it that I just love. Instead I had Merill who I don't fully trust or Isabell who I really shouldn't trust. I got denied by Aveline, which made her more interesting, and never got to be with her. I would totally trade the Merill option for Aveline.

Bioware dropped the ball on that, in my opinion.

I don't want to harp on you and would got just be a very misfortunate choice of words. But that line is out right disturbing.

But if a person says they are not interested in you romantically, then they are not interested in you romantically and that is the precise reason you are not going to be with them.

Bioware should never allow you to be with a man or woman who does not want to be with you.

I already cleared that line up and I'm sorry you found that off putting but your misunderstanding isn't my misstep.

Aveline is more interesting to me regardless of her romance options, and she remains one of my favorites of the game. The fact that I pointed out that you never got to be with her was to illustrate my point of great characters don't have to be love interests for them to be good for the player or for them to be interesting.

Her rejecting you is one of the things I would like to see more of, which would be clear if you read my other posts. Also the fact that you can help her win over the guy she wants, that was fun. That was something I never did with my companion characters in a Bioware game before and I want to see more things of that nature. The party going beyond the player and feeling more complete in who they are.

Aveline is one of my favorite characters because she's a strong female friend in the game and far better than the forced promiscuity of Isabella or the inepttitude of Merill, in my opinion at least.

I'm sorry that wasn't clear, and I hope this helped your understanding of my meaning.

[Qyla]

I like companions interaction but they shouldn't overshadow the rest of the game! This is a rpg, not a date sim

[esper]

General Malor wrote...

esper wrote...

General Malor wrote...

LindsayLohan wrote...

My question is why do we have so much little influence on female characters? You would think that by now fantasy has branched away from literature that placed females in minor roles. We should have more female major roles as the female character archetypes tend to be more influential and interesting.

On topic the only S/S lesbian romance I got in the previous game was Merill. Merill Is a weak character and she does not represent the independent and strong woman Idea. I changed my romance option to Aveline and bioware didn't bother to implement her romance. I am now trapped with romancing a weak and naive elf who is everything I hate about the way females are portrayed in the media. Bioware should be able to implement a strong ROMANCABLE woman for their next title

I almost fully agree. I don't know if I'd say they are more interesting, because that's subjective. But I do enjoy them more often.

I wanted Aveline because she was so strong and herself and... she just had this imdomitable feel without being obnoxius about it that I just love. Instead I had Merill who I don't fully trust or Isabell who I really shouldn't trust. I got denied by Aveline, which made her more interesting, and never got to be with her. I would totally trade the Merill option for Aveline.

Bioware dropped the ball on that, in my opinion.

I don't want to harp on you and would got just be a very misfortunate choice of words. But that line is out right disturbing.

But if a person says they are not interested in you romantically, then they are not interested in you romantically and that is the precise reason you are not going to be with them.

Bioware should never allow you to be with a man or woman who does not want to be with you.

I already cleared that line up and I'm sorry you found that off putting but your misunderstanding isn't my misstep.

Aveline is more interesting to me regardless of her romance options, and she remains one of my favorites of the game. The fact that I pointed out that you never got to be with her was to illustrate my point of great characters don't have to be love interests for them to be good for the player or for them to be interesting.

Her rejecting you is one of the things I would like to see more of, which would be clear if you read my other posts. Also the fact that you can help her win over the guy she wants, that was fun. That was something I never did with my companion characters in a Bioware game before and I want to see more things of that nature. The party going beyond the player and feeling more complete in who they are.

Aveline is one of my favorite characters because she's a strong female friend in the game and far better than the forced promiscuity of Isabella or the inepttitude of Merill, in my opinion at least.

I'm sorry that wasn't clear, and I hope this helped your understanding of my meaning.

It did, but on the same time I also still find it disturbing. People who reject you can naturally never romance you. It really isn't any longer. Yet you continue to press that as the focus off why she has an personality outside of the PC. And it is not just you that does so - so this is not just meant against you.

Isabella and Merrill are also had a strong personality outside of the PC and their whole life does not revolve around him/her. Merrill espically will continue doing her own thing with the mirror regardless of your Hawke's opinion. I am sure that nobody is self aware of the implication, but it is sort hinted between the lines that that woman only is strong if they reject the PC (and then the want to romance such a strong woman is disturbing). Again, you are not the first one to say this.

Now, if you mean you would like more fun quests like Aveline's then yes we agree, more companion interaction and personalities always good.

Now if we are talking fetish it is something different. Like if you say you want to romance an Aveline because you like the idea of a warrior woman, or just a strong physical woman or perhaps a stern/serious woman, that i can understand.

I mean I shall be the first to admit I have a thing for male mages in games (something which is not a li often enough). Followed by female mages.... I just have a thing for mages, when it comes to my rpg.

Modifié par esper, 20 août 2013 - 06:21 .

[General Malor]

esper wrote...

It did, but on the same time I also still find it disturbing. People who reject you can naturally never romance you. It really isn't any longer. Yet you continue to press that as the focus off why she has an personality outside of the PC. And it is not just you that does so - so this is not just meant against you.

Isabella and Merrill are also had a strong personality outside of the PC and their whole life does not revolve around him/her. Merrill espically will continue doing her own thing with the mirror regardless of your Hawke's opinion. I am sure that nobody is self aware of the implication, but it is sort hinted between the lines that that woman only is strong if they reject the PC (and then the want to romance such a strong woman is disturbing). Again, you are not the first one to say this.

Now, if you mean you would like more fun quests like Aveline's then yes we agree, more companion interaction and personalities always good.

Now if we are talking fetish it is something different. Like if you say you want to romance an Aveline because you like the idea of a warrior woman, or just a strong physical woman or perhaps a stern/serious woman, that i can understand.

I mean I shall be the first to admit I have a thing for male mages in games (something which is not a li often enough). Followed by female mages.... I just have a thing for mages, when it comes to my rpg.

I never said it was my focus of why I like her, but I do acknowledge that it's one aspect, among many, that makes me like Aveline as a character. I'm sorry, but if you can't like a character who has the spine and good sense to kill their husband when they become tainted... I don't know what you'd like. That one not directed at you personally, just a generalization. 

Also fetish isn't the right term for that, I think you meant type. For it to be a fetish for strong women that would imply that there has to be something distinctly unique about the person for them to find strong women appealing, and isn't the norm of attraction. Basically one cannot just normally be attracted to strong women.

I like Aveline because she's a good character and has been standing beside my Hawke since the start. I think she's written to be strong and independent and noble, for those reasons she's one of my favorites. I'm sorry you find that disturbing. And that feel I'm taking something away from the other female characters who I didn't enjoy as much because I don't feel a similar appreciation for their arcs.

Isabella is a close second, due to the whole Qunari thing and sticking by my Hawke's side through it, but I just don't like Merill. I probably won't like Merill ever, she's a Blood Mage and I don't like Blood Mages. Can't be trusted, them. They try to control your mind. And the stains! On everything! After so many questions people think you're an alcoholic if you keep saying those red marks on your robes are spilled red wine. 

I do hope the conversation regarding Aveline's rejection is over as a series of misunderstandings can only be talked about for so long, I feel at least.

I think it would be a wonderful happening if companion characters were so developed that they felt more akin to the main quest features of Dragon Age: Origins, where you had to recruit people. Just imagine a company of fully realized and intricate characters. If people don't think that would work then I'd have to point out that the story should be full and should be long, especially after Dragon Age 2.

I want my Inquisitor to have to deal with his personal life with his team along side the growing conflict. I want it to be an adventure on both fronts. I hope we can look forward to fuller story telling in that regard, more than there already is.

[Cheese Time]

A Bioware game without a good romance just doesn't feel like a Bioware game! That, unfortunately, was partially my problem in DA2. I didn't like anybody. You didn't have to engage yourself in any of the romances very much.

For instance, I flirted with everyone else, EXCEPT for Merrill in DA2, and yet I still get her coming to my house, ready to initiate the first sex scene. It was a decision you could make easily, that didn't involve much effort on the part of the player.

In ME3, however, this was the opposite, and it was great! I remember cheating on Kaidan, and our relationship was very hazy. I experimented throughout several playthroughs, and found that just ONE wrong dialogue choice could shut down the possible future romance forever. Unless I was nice to him 3/5 times on Mars, unless I admitted to him that I had a thing with Garrus, he wouldn't even initiate the romance. It was complex, without a simple approval bar to check out.
That's what I like.

Perhaps it was the characters in DA2 that didn't appeal to me romantically. As a screaming fangirl, I'll admit I'm happy to engage in the romances and get emotionally involved in them. Perhaps a little too much. Neither Fenris nor Anders appealed to me, where in DAO, I had actually had a tough time choosing between Ali and Zev.

Of all the DA romances, I feel that Zev's is the most developed. I liked it all the way through. From the very start, where you don't know whether to trust him, from when it's just cheap sex - right through to when it becomes twoo wuv, and he abandons the crows for the Warden. It isn't devotion, it sort of grows into something deeper.

Not to say I didn't find it amusing he says "I know" when you tell him you love him.

If we're talking fetishes, we should probably move to 4chan, but I always like the romances that fit more into the right side of the alignment square. Morrigan, Zev, Garrus, Valen (anyone?)
Everybody was too nice in DA2.

[BlueMagitek]

General Malor wrote...

Interesting. For the topic of respect and trust, I would have to disagree on the basis that in everyday life you cannot trust or respect someone you work with, but let's take a special forces unit due to the small number of people and same stresses present on both groups. For your gaming group you have a small force of people to oppose greater forces who face mortal odds every day, and they venture into the unknown together. For you to work with a person you strongly dislike and don't trust just doesn't feel right.

Now that's not to say that they should get along after some point, but if they truly hate each other then every time they go off in a group together they would be worried about the other killing the other. I'm not opposed to this but I want to see it expanded on.

Introduce a character or characters who are "optional" with the ability to kill them off or have them... dun-dun-dun! Kill each other off! Clearly the player would be able to intervine but it would be really interesting to go back to "camp" and see them tearing the place up and about to kill each other. Kind of like Miranda and Jack, but maybe you can't stop it if you don't have a strong enough relationship or incentive enough for them to stand down. Maybe one of them just has to die if you didn't intervine sooner, and then you'll have to live with that.

While it might not be a popular creation, and I'm not saying it's anywhere near a perfect example, but I think things along that line of thought would make for really compelling stories. If Anders can completely just go blow up the Chantry thing then why can't one of my characters who openly hates the other off the person she or he hates?

I hope it comes across that my main point is I want the companions to not feel so much like archtypes or characters, but people living in that world.

By allowing them rational follow through with their attitudes and actions you would have an inner dynamic to work out along side the greater story happening. I mean I can think of worse things to have done in a game than have one of my companions kill of the other in an epic cinematic and I have to live with the outcome.

Like say I go on mission and send one of my characters under someone else's command and then there comes a choice between going and saving one of my squad and letting the other die... While three of my helpers just sit around and do nothing so now I have to watch Ashley die every time because whoever I didn't bring along couldn't get off their behinds to help me in this massive assualt! Okay... maybe there are some residual issues at play here.

All I can think of right now for how the companion characters should feel is like the supporting cast from Buffy or the whole crew of the Serenity. So... have Joss Whedon on the Inquisition team?

Joking aside, I mainly want to see companion characters become greater pieces of the game's narrative.

Are we going into gaming groups now?  If that's the case, it is entirely fine to have a neutral evil character and a lawful good character on the same party.  It makes things interesting.  The two can hate each other, but so long as they're pointed at the same target, there should only be a problem in the methods.  If things differ, and they have opposing goals, well, betraying the party is always a thing to do.

Though it is easiest with a Lawful Evil character.

There's a difference, though, between truly hating each other and not liking one another.  There's a difference between "I'm going to cause you harm" and "You're a dick that I'd rather not spend time with".

What you are suggesting has happened back in BG.  Sometimes CHARNAME can't stop it, either.

[General Malor]

BlueMagitek wrote...

What you are suggesting has happened back in BG.  Sometimes CHARNAME can't stop it, either.

See, I would love to have that in a modern title with the ability of greater expansions upon these happenings. I think that would make for a greater game, but that's just my opinion. Not to redo  the past, but to advance upon existing accomplishments.