12496 réponses à ce sujet

[Ianamus]

Not being able to kick out party members till the end was a huge minus IMHO
Like you mentioned Anders. Or Fenris and Sebastian if you're ultra pro-mage. Merrill if you hate blood magic. Etc.
So you just have to pretend that your Hawke cares and think of them as friends even if logically she doesn't. And still for some reason she helps to solve their problems...

 

You could kick Anders out after he killed/ almost killed the girl in Act 2, you just tell him you want nothing to do with him anymore, to get out of your sight, and imply that you'll kill/ call the templars on him if you see him again. He supposedly leaves Kirkwall. 

 

But then at the start of Act 3 I saw him talking to Varric. Serious WTF moment. And of course he pops up in the finale. 

 

Hawke: "I thought you'd left Kirkwall!" Anders: "I just hid from you!"

 

Me: "I saw you talking to Varric in the hanged man like thirty minutes ago!!!!"

 

I don't know if it was a bug or something but it was really stupid. We may have had to option to kick Anders out but it was handled so poorly and made no difference to the ending at all. 

[renfrees]

Too late in the game itself. I don't see why Hawke would work with people she clashes with for seven-four years
And I am talking about Merrill and Anders. And probably Fenris, I am not sure you can skip his quests

Anders can be kicked in A2 when he first demonstrates that he's really dangerous and unstable, is it too late?

Fenris can be kicked 4-5 times in every act (not counting selling/killing options here), and yes - his quests are totally optional. Just like any other party member after recruitment.

[Chari]

You could kick Anders out after he killed/ almost killed the girl in Act 2, you just tell him you want nothing to do with him anymore, to get out of your sight, and imply that you'll kill/ call the templars on him if you see him again. He supposedly leaves Kirkwall.

But then at the start of Act 3 I saw him talking to Varric. Serious WTF moment. And of course he pops up in the finale.

Hawke: "I thought you'd left Kirkwall!" Anders: "I just hid from you!"

Me: "I saw you talking to Varric in the hanged man like thirty minutes ago!!!!"

I don't know if it was a bug or something but it was really stupid. We may have had to option to kick Anders out but it was handled so poorly and made no difference to the ending at all.

I could kick him out O_o?
...
Okay, I gotta replay my pro-templars Hawkes

[Nocte ad Mortem]

For people that want to kick a party member once they get to know them, I don't think just skipping them is a very good story alternative. I mean, sure, it avoids the problem. It doesn't really have the same impact on the story, though. You didn't skip them because you disagreed with them, you just never knew them at all. 

[Chari]

Anders can be kicked in A2 when he first demonstrates that he's really dangerous and unstable, is it too late?
Fenris can be kicked 4-5 times in every act (not counting selling/killing options here), and yes - his quests are totally optional. Just like any other party member after recruitment.

How and why did I miss that X_x?

[Ianamus]

I actually don't like the rivalry system, myself. I think it's largely unrealistic that these people would still follow you after you blatantly work against their most hard set beliefs at every corner. Even with the few breaking points some have, I think it's largely unreasonable.

 

I think stuff like what you're suggesting is still unlikely, though, because they still have to work player choice into a linear story. The fact is, we have to sacrifice some player choice for a deeply developed story. It's either let some go, or accept the story will be as thin as something like Skyrim. Anders couldn't be caught (at least not for long) or killed by the templars, or by you, because it would end the story as they meant it to transpire. There's also just the fact that they don't have the resources to depict every possible choice the PC might want to make. 

 

So, I agree that rivalry could have been handled better, not even just from a romance perspective. However, there are always going to be limits. It's just a necessity with the medium. 

 

The limits have to make sense though. A pro-templar Hawke letting Anders walk away freely after losing control and killing an innocent person made absolutely no sense. Even my neutral and pro-mage Hawkes would have been tempted to lock him up after that. 

 

It felt really forced.

[renfrees]

How and why did I miss that X_x?

Explore all dialogue options is my only advice.

[Ianamus]

I could kick him out O_o?
...
Okay, I gotta replay my pro-templars Hawkes

 

 

It's at the end, about 3:10

[Farewell]

I honestly don't understand the argument that LIs need to act differently towards different genders, at all. I see this a lot and I don't even know what sort of difference is expected.

 

I'm  going to use female protagonist and male LI as an example. They could talk about children. Is there a risk for woman to get pregnant and are they going have sex when there is a risk for woman to get pregnant. How that is going to affect the mission. Is it a risk they are willing to take. That kind of discussion didn't happen with Fenris. They could also talk about having children later. Do they want children etc.

 

Then there are also the sex scenes. There weren't actually any sex scene with Fenris. So that wasn't a problem in DA2. Of course you can solve that problem so that the couple are wearing their underware but I rather see that view angle is set so that you can't see the private parts. But the view angle matters if you are woman or if you are a man.

 

I'm not sure are there prejudices in DA world. Is it common that woman can fight in a battle field. If there are these kind of prejudices then the LI could comment that he likes to woman because she is different than other women and he likes that. He don't like women who stay at home. Or LI could give a sword to his woman and he could say that he doesn't know is that sword something that woman would like or does she prefer flowers instead. If that woman was a man then something like that might not happen. The point in this case is that is more common to give flowers to a woman and the LI don't know does the woman like that because she is not same as the other women. By the way does gay men give each others flowers?

[Nocte ad Mortem]

The limits have to make sense though. A pro-templar Hawke letting Anders walk away freely after losing control and killing an innocent person made absolutely no sense. Even my neutral and pro-mage Hawkes would have been tempted to lock him up after that. 

Well, I just kind of feel like they're always going to have companions do things that you really don't like and there's not always going to be reasonable options for your specific line of thinking. I mean, for example, I really didn't want Aveline in charge of the guard after I found out she made no real effort to investigate one of her guards raping and elf woman and, instead of getting on it now, she was mostly just concerned about locking up elves. For me, it didn't make sense that my only choice was to tell the Arishok he could keep the elves. I wanted to at least have the option to lodge a scathing complaint at her regarding the issue. It's just that not everything that everyone has a strong opinion about can have several branching lines of dialog and possible overall plot impact. So, unfortunately, I think some decisions will always not make a lot of sense for the character everyone wants to play and we'll always have to employ some mental gymnastics once in a while, or alter our ideal character concept. I think being able to kick companions you have heavy clashes with at any point is a good start, though.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I'm  going to use female protagonist and male LI as an example. They could talk about children. Is there a risk for woman to get pregnant and are they going have sex when there is a risk for woman to get pregnant. How that is going to affect the mission. Is it a risk they are willing to take. That kind of discussion didn't happen with Fenris. They could also talk about having children later. Do they want children etc.

 

Then there are also the sex scenes. There weren't actually any sex scene with Fenris. So that wasn't a problem in DA2. Of course you can solve that problem so that the couple are wearing their underware but I rather see that view angle is set so that you can't see the private parts. But the view angle matters if you are woman or if you are a man.

 

I'm not sure are there prejudices in DA world. Is it common that woman can fight in a battle field. If there are these kind of prejudices then the LI could comment that he likes to woman because she is different than other women and he likes that. He don't like women who stay at home. Or LI could give a sword to his woman and he could say that he doesn't know is that sword something that woman would like or does she prefer flowers instead. If that woman was a man then something like that might not happen. The point in this case is that is more common to give flowers to a woman and the LI don't know does the woman like that because she is not same as the other women. By the way does gay men give each others flowers?

A lot of gay men give each other flowers, sure. 

 

This is basically the kind of thing I don't want happening, to be totally honest. I don't want them to change the dialog just so they can assume only straight people concern themselves about having children, or that all straight people want them. I definitely don't want them to change the dialog so that they can represent gender stereotypes. A man or a woman could just as easily want either the flowers or the sword. I don't want more gender stereotypes in DA. I want the opposite.   

[Ianamus]

Well, I just kind of feel like they're always going to have companions do things that you really don't like and there's not always going to be reasonable options for your specific line of thinking. I mean, for example, I really didn't want Aveline in charge of the guard after I found out she made no real effort to investigate one of her guards raping and elf woman and, instead of getting on it now, she was mostly just concerned about locking up elves. For me, it didn't make sense that my only choice was to tell the Arishok he could keep the elves. I wanted to at least have the option to lodge a scathing complaint at her regarding the issue. It's just that not everything that everyone has a strong opinion about can have several branching lines of dialog and possible overall plot impact. So, unfortunately, I think some decisions will always not make a lot of sense for the character everyone wants to play and we'll always have to employ some mental gymnastics once in a while, or alter our ideal character concept. I think being able to kick companions you have heavy clashes with at any point is a good start, though.

 

I appreciate that companions will always do things that might annoy me, the only reason I take issue with Anders is that it's such a horrendous thing he does. He lost control of himself and murdered someone. I mean.... yeesh. Aveline being incomptetant is one thing, but we're talking a companion going insane murdering an innocent girl who is begging for mercy right in front of you, then indicating that he will almost certainly lose control again at some point. And the only options were to let him keep fighting alongside you or let him go on his way.

 

The fact that he then goes on to blow up the Chantry only made it even worse. It was painfully obvious that the only reason we had to let him get away with murder no matter what was because he needed to be able to blow up the Chantry for the plot to continue. 

[Chari]

A lot of gay men give each other flowers, sure.

This is basically the kind of thing I don't want happening, to be totally honest. I don't want them to change the dialog just so they can assume only straight people concern themselves about having children, or that all straight people want them. I definitely don't want them to change the dialog so that they can represent gender stereotypes. A man or a woman could just as easily want either the flowers or the sword. I don't want more gender stereotypes in DA. I want the opposite.

Different sexualities approach the problem diffirently
Stereotypes are part of a culture. Regardless of how liberal a culture is. It doesn't mean that the creators agree with them, but they exist

[KaiserShep]

*shrugs off dragon flame and rabid fans hatred*
It's Isabella's fault Arishok was stuck in the Kirkwall, it's Anders' fault no authority was alive there to stop Meredith from using RA.
You may try to justify their acts but in the end, it was their selfishness or madness which got hundreds if not thousands of people killed in a slaughter.
Dying is the least they can do to pay for these tragedies.
That's why I personally despise Isabella, Morrigan and don't feel bad for killing or kicking out Anders. They all are selfish, putting their little desires ahead of people's lives. Generally we have teams full of soldiers, murderers and criminals in both games. Yet I know for sure that if times comes, most of them will sacrifice themselves for the greater good: country, duty, world, peace. They have an honour. Even Zevran comes to Fereldan to die because he feels guilty.
Isabella and Morrigan? No, for them their hides is what matters the most. And Anders... Well, he knows he deserves it.

 

Zevran is no less selfish as Isabela. The only difference is that he was caught under far different circumstances, and then Zevran will try to kill you if his approval isn't high enough.

[Chari]

Zevran is just as selfish as Isabela, really. Both of them require approval in order to turn around.

Zevran came to fereldan to die because his guilt was consuming him. I am yet to see Isabella risk her life for justice sake withou a player influencing it

[SurelyForth]

I'm  going to use female protagonist and male LI as an example. They could talk about children. Is there a risk for woman to get pregnant and are they going have sex when there is a risk for woman to get pregnant. How that is going to affect the mission. Is it a risk they are willing to take. That kind of discussion didn't happen with Fenris. They could also talk about having children later. Do they want children etc.

 

Then there are also the sex scenes. There weren't actually any sex scene with Fenris. So that wasn't a problem in DA2. Of course you can solve that problem so that the couple are wearing their underware but I rather see that view angle is set so that you can't see the private parts. But the view angle matters if you are woman or if you are a man.

 

I'm not sure are there prejudices in DA world. Is it common that woman can fight in a battle field. If there are these kind of prejudices then the LI could comment that he likes to woman because she is different than other women and he likes that. He don't like women who stay at home. Or LI could give a sword to his woman and he could say that he doesn't know is that sword something that woman would like or does she prefer flowers instead. If that woman was a man then something like that might not happen. The point in this case is that is more common to give flowers to a woman and the LI don't know does the woman like that because she is not same as the other women. By the way does gay men give each others flowers?

 

Why do babies need to enter into it? Couldn't a PC and their Love Interest simply be worried about how their relationship will effect their missions? Can't a LI say "Hey, I get worried about you sometimes" or "the thought of you getting hurt sucks ass", a la Garrus (or, more dramatically, Anders)? Babies and marriage are a touchy subject, even for women. It's also something that holds women back in real life, and I don't think it has any place in escapist media. 

 

Same with sexism. I want less of that BS in my games, not more. Sten questioning whether women could fight was pretty much my limit- and that was actually a useful insight into his character. Anything else just feels like poking and "remember that you're a woman...remember that no matter where you are, or how badass you're supposed to be, people will think you're lesser." No. None of that.

 

ETA: Oh! And why flowers? Why not something that is useful for any character- like an enchanted amulet or ring that can be worn. There are all kinds of ways to have meaningful interactions that don't call attention to gender, I'm a little confused why anyone would feel the need to go to that well in a game that otherwise treats its protagonists the same across gender, race, and class. 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I appreciate that companions will always do things that might annoy me, the only reason I take issue with Anders is that it's such a horrendous thing he does. He lost control of himself and murdered someone. I mean.... yeesh. Aveline being incomptetant is one thing, but we're talking a companion going insane murdering an innocent girl who is begging for mercy right in front of you, then indicating that it will almost certainly happen again at some point. And the only options were to let them keep fighting alongside you or let them go with no way of knowing they won't lose control and kill again. 

 

The fact that he then goes on to blow up the Chantry only made it even worse. It was painfully obvious that the only reason we had to let him get away with murder no matter what was because he needed to be able to blow up the Chantry for the plot to continue. 

Well, it's a matter of personal opinion. Some people will see different things as worse. To me, what Aveline did was at least as bad. I'm not saying you have to see it that way, I'm just saying that everyone has different priorities and different issues will be THE THING that different people want to snap and kill their companion over. It's not really reasonable for them to allow you to murder your companions at any point, since companions are often plot intensive and need to stick around until the end. Allowing people to kick them at any point allows them to continue to do whatever they were going to do, or to come back in future games if it's the intention, but it allows you some measure of control over who you're willing to work with. I think it works as a pretty good compromise.   

[The Elder King]

Zevran came to fereldan to die because his guilt was consuming him. I am yet to see Isabella risk her life for justice sake withou a player influencing it

Freeing the slaves' cargo before DA2 (the second time, not the comics one)?

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Different sexualities approach the problem diffirently
Stereotypes are part of a culture. Regardless of how liberal a culture is. It doesn't mean that the creators agree with them, but they exist

Stereotypes can be mostly written around things like mages and fantasy races in DA. There's no reason why they need to waste dialog bringing real world stereotypes into the game. 

[Chari]

Why do babies need to enter into it? Couldn't a PC and their Love Interest simply be worried about how their relationship will effect their missions? Can't a LI say "Hey, I get worried about you sometimes" or "the thought of you getting hurt sucks ass", a la Garrus (or, more dramatically, Anders)? Babies and marriage are a touchy subject, even for women. It's also something that holds women back in real life, and I don't think it has any place in escapist media.

Same with sexism. I want less of that BS in my games, not more. Sten questioning whether women could fight was pretty much my limit- and that was actually a useful insight into his character. Anything else just feels like poking and "remember that you're a woman...remember that no matter where you are, or how badass you're supposed to be, people will think you're lesser." No. None of that.

Because the risk of getting pregnant is real, whether a pair wants kids or not. And n DA universe there are not yet means to prevent it

DA is a mature rated games. With an alive world full of people with different points of view. Including biased ones. They never promised anyone a world where no social discrimination exists. It is restricted but not absent

[Farewell]

 

This is basically the kind of thing I don't want happening, to be totally honest. I don't want them to change the dialog just so they can assume only straight people concern themselves about having children, or that all straight people want them. I definitely don't want them to change the dialog so that they can represent gender stereotypes. A man or a woman could just as easily want either the flowers or the sword. I don't want more gender stereotypes in DA. I want the opposite.   

 

 

But the point is that two men or two women don't have to worry about the pregnancy. Sure gay people might want to discuss about children but then the discussion is different. Sure either man or woman can want either flowers or swords but the point is that usually flowers are given to women because of that the discussion is different depending on the gender. Would you like it that there wouldn't be any of that kind of customs?

[Ianamus]

Well, it's a matter of personal opinion. Some people will see different things as worse. To me, what Aveline did was at least as bad. 

 

You think that an official not following up on rape claims is equivalent to committing murder? 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

You think that an official not following up on rape claims is equivalent to committing murder? 

Yes.  

[KaiserShep]

Zevran came to fereldan to die because his guilt was consuming him. I am yet to see Isabella risk her life for justice sake withou a player influencing it

 

Isabela risked her life to free Castillon's slaves, and had no reward in sight for doing so. He could have simply had her killed on principle, but made her get the tome in exchange for her life. I could arguably put more blame on Castillon for this, because Isabela only stole that lousy book under coercion, not under the promise of money.

[Chari]

Stereotypes can be mostly written around things like mages and fantasy races in DA. There's no reason why they need to waste dialog bringing real world stereotypes into the game.

Real life discrimination is a result of biological, psychological and historical factors
As long as people have the same mental capacity as people and even animals in RL do it will exist. That is the nature of discrimination itself
Society animalistic or human sets specific rules depending on inner and outer factors in order to keep stability and survive
Once one tries to ignore, change them or even just be different, they're perceived as a threat or an illness. Some survive and change society, some fall and perish