2170 réponses à ce sujet

[ladyoflate]

The. . . Bird?

 

i hate you

[LPPrince]

Sera loves birds.

 

/ooooooh

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

i hate you

I didn't do it, it was LPPrince!

[LPPrince]

The word I refrained from using was girth but alright, moving on

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

The word I refrained from using was girth but alright, moving on

I know that, but you said "the word." Science demanded my reply. #Praisebetoscience

[ladyoflate]

I didn't do it, it was LPPrince!

 

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

*Science demands sacrifices of us all.

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

Anyways. So. . . hm. Do we know for sure that the only romanceable options will come from the 9+3 combo we've been teased with at the Lord's Supper? |

 

[Paraxial]

"Well, thank goodness you are a qunari and not an elf because that would be a dealbreaker.....!". 

Because that would be a deal breaker for some people in that world I imagine. Because that is real, because that adds a dimension to that character that is genuine. Just a simple shooting someone down adds some reality to the feeling of the romantic arcs that you do find yourself on, and gives them a greater sense of worth.

 

DA2 romances were godawful because they all lacked this, this exact thing i'm talking about. Because every character that you could give it to, felt like a cardboard cutout made for the soul intention of not ruffling any feathers and pandering to everyone. It was a cowardly, and horrible way to craft something that I was supposed to care about. It cheapened the characters and made them feel less like something put in the game for me to learn from and/or form a relationship with, and more like something put in so I could write fanfiction and not be hindered by something like a 'personality' or 'preferences'. The inclusion of a story or reasoning behind these preferences doesn't even have to be included in order to deepen the puddle. Just a simple acknowledgement that this character is 'alive' and has preferences that might not make you happy is a fantastic way of making a character, and not just 'some avatar in my game that talks'.

 

Realism adds depth. It enables the player/reader/watcher/listener to form ties with various characters through similar ideas and experiences. Sexual attraction is a complex thing, but it can also be simple. Simple like a human woman being attracted to Human males, and only Human males, because that's what she's in to. Or an Elf woman that only likes Dwarf men, or vice versa, or a Dwarf Male that only likes other Dwarf males, you get the point. These things might not make you happy, but they're real, these preferences happen in complex creatures (like you and I, and every other person on this planet). Making a character not agree with everything I say or want to do, is part of creating a good video game character. It creates conflict and situations that one would actually experience. This allows most players to form a bond with these moments, and therefore creates an experience that you will remember because it invoked emotions in you like a real world conflict would have, and that is what fiction is all about. That's what 'depth' is to me.

 

You're looking for some grandiose tale about why Iron Bull might not want some Dwarf's penis near his butt, but i'm simply looking for the dude to say "hey man, i'm not into that". Because that simple line of dialogue, that simple "no thanks", gives a greater sense of 'character' and personality than any character from DA2 ever did. All coming from the simple statement of, "i'm not here just to please you, that isn't something i'm into". 

[ladyoflate]

Anyways. So. . . hm. Do we know for sure that the only romanceable options will come from the 9+3 combo we've been teased with at the Lord's Supper? |

There might be a few Anora types, but I'm reasonably sure all the major romances will be drawn from that pool.

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

There might be a few Anora types, but I'm reasonably sure all the major romances will be drawn from that pool.

Ugh, one Anora was enough.

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

Because that would be a deal breaker for some people in that world I imagine. Because that is real, because that adds a dimension to that character that is genuine. Just a simple shooting someone down adds some reality to the feeling of the romantic arcs that you do find yourself on, and gives them a greater sense of worth.

 

DA2 romances were godawful because they all lacked this, this exact thing i'm talking about. Because every character that you could give it to, felt like a cardboard cutout made for the soul intention of not ruffling any feathers and pandering to everyone. It was a cowardly, and horrible way to craft something that I was supposed to care about. It cheapened the characters and made them feel less like something put in the game for me to learn from and/or form a relationship with, and more like something put in so I could write fanfiction and not be hindered by something like a 'personality' or 'preferences'. The inclusion of a story or reasoning behind these preferences doesn't even have to be included in order to deepen the puddle. Just a simple acknowledgement that this character is 'alive' and has preferences that might not make you happy is a fantastic way of making a character, and not just 'some avatar in my game that talks'.

 

Realism adds depth. It enables the player/reader/watcher/listener to form ties with various characters through similar ideas and experiences. Sexual attraction is a complex thing, but it can also be simple. Simple like a human woman being attracted to Human males, and only Human males, because that's what she's in to. Or an Elf woman that only likes Dwarf men, or vice versa, or a Dwarf Male that only likes other Dwarf males, you get the point. These things might not make you happy, but they're real, these preferences happen in complex creatures (like you and I, and every other person on this planet). Making a character not agree with everything I say or want to do, is part of creating a good video game character. It creates conflict and situations that one would actually experience. This allows most players to form a bond with these moments, and therefore creates an experience that you will remember because it invoked emotions in you like a real world conflict would have, and that is what fiction is all about. That's what 'depth' is to me.

 

You're looking for some grandiose tale about why Iron Bull might not want some Dwarf's penis near his butt, but i'm simply looking for the dude to say "hey man, i'm not into that". Because that simple line of dialogue, that simple "no thanks", gives a greater sense of 'character' and personality than any character from DA2 ever did. All coming from the simple statement of, "i'm not here just to please you, that isn't something i'm into". 

Also, the OP should keep in mind that the Qunari do NOT allow interbreeding. Kossith, on the other hand, might.

[Samahl]

To be honest, I liked that everyone in Dragon Age 2 was bi. It made me feel normal for once. :/

[Lucy Glitter]

Because that would be a deal breaker for some people in that world I imagine. Because that is real, because that adds a dimension to that character that is genuine. Just a simple shooting someone down adds some reality to the feeling of the romantic arcs that you do find yourself on, and gives them a greater sense of worth.

 

DA2 romances were godawful because they all lacked this, this exact thing i'm talking about. Because every character that you could give it to, felt like a cardboard cutout made for the soul intention of not ruffling any feathers and pandering to everyone. It was a cowardly, and horrible way to craft something that I was supposed to care about. It cheapened the characters and made them feel less like something put in the game for me to learn from and/or form a relationship with, and more like something put in so I could write fanfiction and not be hindered by something like a 'personality' or 'preferences'. The inclusion of a story or reasoning behind these preferences doesn't even have to be included in order to deepen the puddle. Just a simple acknowledgement that this character is 'alive' and has preferences that might not make you happy is a fantastic way of making a character, and not just 'some avatar in my game that talks'.

 

Realism adds depth. It enables the player/reader/watcher/listener to form ties with various characters through similar ideas and experiences. Sexual attraction is a complex thing, but it can also be simple. Simple like a human woman being attracted to Human males, and only Human males, because that's what she's in to. Or an Elf woman that only likes Dwarf men, or vice versa, or a Dwarf Male that only likes other Dwarf males, you get the point. These things might not make you happy, but they're real, these preferences happen in complex creatures (like you and I, and every other person on this planet). Making a character not agree with everything I say or want to do, is part of creating a good video game character. It creates conflict and situations that one would actually experience. This allows most players to form a bond with these moments, and therefore creates an experience that you will remember because it invoked emotions in you like a real world conflict would have, and that is what fiction is all about. That's what 'depth' is to me.

 

You're looking for some grandiose tale about why Iron Bull might not want some Dwarf's penis near his butt, but i'm simply looking for the dude to say "hey man, i'm not into that". Because that simple line of dialogue, that simple "no thanks", gives a greater sense of 'character' and personality than any character from DA2 ever did. All coming from the simple statement of, "i'm not here just to please you, that isn't something i'm into". 

 

 

I have said it before, I think people need to take a breather on the subject of LIs because it's all subjective and it's causing a lot of upset which can be avoided.

[ladyoflate]

Ugh, one Anora was enough.

 

I liked Anora-the-character, but I meant people we might 'romance' in merely a conversation or two, whether the end result is marriage or sex.

[Aner91]

Also, the OP should keep in mind that the Qunari do NOT allow interbreeding. Kossith, on the other hand, might.

From what i gather from the character page, IB don´t care lol. And btw, didn´t he get "permission" to have casual sex and other un-Qunari stuff? as long as he gives info to the Qun? :S sidenote: "...Except the life he left behind"...this has me mega intrigued...it´s, like he will have to go back to "Strictly Qun" some time, and perhaps not like it? :S...not on topic but i had to throw it out there

[Fetunche]

Because that would be a deal breaker for some people in that world I imagine. Because that is real, because that adds a dimension to that character that is genuine. Just a simple shooting someone down adds some reality to the feeling of the romantic arcs that you do find yourself on, and gives them a greater sense of worth.
 
DA2 romances were godawful because they all lacked this, this exact thing i'm talking about. Because every character that you could give it to, felt like a cardboard cutout made for the soul intention of not ruffling any feathers and pandering to everyone. It was a cowardly, and horrible way to craft something that I was supposed to care about. It cheapened the characters and made them feel less like something put in the game for me to learn from and/or form a relationship with, and more like something put in so I could write fanfiction and not be hindered by something like a 'personality' or 'preferences'. The inclusion of a story or reasoning behind these preferences doesn't even have to be included in order to deepen the puddle. Just a simple acknowledgement that this character is 'alive' and has preferences that might not make you happy is a fantastic way of making a character, and not just 'some avatar in my game that talks'.
 
Realism adds depth. It enables the player/reader/watcher/listener to form ties with various characters through similar ideas and experiences. Sexual attraction is a complex thing, but it can also be simple. Simple like a human woman being attracted to Human males, and only Human males, because that's what she's in to. Or an Elf woman that only likes Dwarf men, or vice versa, or a Dwarf Male that only likes other Dwarf males, you get the point. These things might not make you happy, but they're real, these preferences happen in complex creatures (like you and I, and every other person on this planet). Making a character not agree with everything I say or want to do, is part of creating a good video game character. It creates conflict and situations that one would actually experience. This allows most players to form a bond with these moments, and therefore creates an experience that you will remember because it invoked emotions in you like a real world conflict would have, and that is what fiction is all about. That's what 'depth' is to me.
 
You're looking for some grandiose tale about why Iron Bull might not want some Dwarf's penis near his butt, but i'm simply looking for the dude to say "hey man, i'm not into that". Because that simple line of dialogue, that simple "no thanks", gives a greater sense of 'character' and personality than any character from DA2 ever did. All coming from the simple statement of, "i'm not here just to please you, that isn't something i'm into".

You have never been to Thedas so you have no idea what is realistic for that world.

[Phate Phoenix]

Anyways. So. . . hm. Do we know for sure that the only romanceable options will come from the 9+3 combo we've been teased with at the Lord's Supper? |

 

 

I think it's rather likely, but there might (super-duper small might) be, like, two more NPC's. The only reason I bring that up is Dagna. She's around in the Inquisition, and I think could make for an interesting character. (She was adorable in DAO and I'm glad she's around again.) But I'm far more confident that the twelve characters we've been shown around the War Table are our possible options, excluding Leliana and Cole (if it's Cole (we all know it's Cole)).

[pjnorthbay]

By the way here's what Patrick Weekes has to say about Iron Bull

 

Patrick Weekes @PatrickWeekes · 17h

. We have not stated that the Iron Bull is romanceable at all, despite people's assumptions. Wait and see.

[Ajna]

The same argument here huh? I wanted some humour, it's sucking the life out of me, maybe the Sex Hat thread will do the job.

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

You have never been to Thedas so you have no idea what is realistic for that world.

Which is why we have to go based off of what the writers dictate- so race gating it real there.

[Raven X]

I hope Leliana is available to romance, if you didn't romance her in Origins.

[Ajna]

I hope Leliana is available to romance, if you didn't romance her in Origins.

She's not.

[Raven X]

awww...... 

[LPPrince]

awww...... 

 

No companions that were possible romantic partners in past games will be romantic partners again in later games for new playable characters.