In my opinion Cullen is probably the last character I would have made bi.
We've known him 2 games and to my knowledge he has shown no interest in men before.
While the same could be said of Anders from Awakening the Mage origin fits well with Cullens character this way. At least in my humble opinion
In my opinion Cullen is probably the last character I would have made bi.
We've known him 2 games and to my knowledge he has shown no interest in men before.While the same could be said of Anders from Awakening the Mage origin fits well with Cullens character this way. At least in my humble opinion
You're not the only one thinking that. It was idiotic when they did to Anders and Kaidan, and i don't see how a third time would have been the charm, so to speak 
You do what every creative person would do - you use your imagination and ADAPT. That's what interactive stories are all about.
You can only adapt when the change is within the realm of your headcanon otherwise it destroys your headcanon lol.
Like the difference between the 3 endings of ME. If you chose destroy but BioWare made a game set after and confirmed Synthesis as the true ending then Your Shepard would go from alive to dead, Geth and Synthetics from destroyed to alive.
You can't adapt that as the change overwrites any chance of what you thought happened from happening.
And if you think "The keep" will prevent loss of your character do remember headcanon decisions and background is not supported in "The Keep" lol.
For an experience play DA:I on default world state settings to see how different things could be from the decisions you made lol.
Great. More people who insist that all bisexual men must, upon expressing interest in a woman, immediately stand on the highest chair and shout their bisexuality to the world. Nevermind the fact that Kaidan tells male Shepard that 'losing [him] was like losing a limb". I can't tell you how many of my straight guy friends have told me the same thing...... I mean, the signs are all there for Kaidan. But, whatever.
And round and round we go on the merry go round, huh?
Great. More people who insist that all bisexual men must, upon expressing interest in a woman, immediately stand on the highest chair and shout their bisexuality to the world. Nevermind the fact that Kaidan tells male Shepard that 'losing [him] was like losing a limb". I can't tell you how many of my straight guy friends have told me the same thing...... I mean, the signs are all there for Kaidan. But, whatever.
And round and round we go on the merry go round, huh?
Nobody mentioned Kaidan. The onlyone brought up was Anders.
You can only adapt when the change is within the realm of your headcanon otherwise it destroys your headcanon lol.
Like the difference between the 3 endings of ME. If you chose destroy but BioWare made a game set after and confirmed Synthesis as the true ending then Your Shepard would go from alive to dead, Geth and Synthetics from destroyed to alive.
You can't adapt that as the change overwrites any chance of what you thought happened from happening.
And if you think "The keep" will prevent loss of your character do remember headcanon decisions and background is not supported in "The Keep" lol.
For an experience play DA:I on default world state settings to see how different things could be from the decisions you made lol.
The ending choices in ME3 aren't headcanon, but are canon.
Or are you arguing there shouldn't even be choices that create deviating paths in RPGs?
Nobody mentioned Kaidan. The onlyone brought up was Anders.
post #1402
post #1402
Exactly. It was actually Anders, Kaidan, and Cullen that were brought up. And the term used was idiotic.
post #1402
Didn't see that one. Sorry. 
So there shouldn't even be choices in RPGs now? I'm assuming that's what you're arguing since the ending choices in ME3 weren't headcanon but canon.
Well your assuming wrong and no ending of ME3 was canon as there is nothing set after it to say either one of the three choices is the canon choice lol.
Exactly. It was actually Anders, Kaidan, and Cullen that were brought up. And the term used was idiotic.
What's missing here is "understanding"
Well your assuming wrong and no ending of ME3 was canon as there is nothing set after it to say either one of the three choices is the canon choice lol.
Yes they are. Bioware stated that the ending choices are canon in the Mass Effect Universe. So by Word of God, they are canon.
Yes they are. Bioware stated that the ending choices are canon in the Mass Effect Universe. So by Word of God, they are canon.
Let me explain this in the most simplest way possibly...
You cannot have 3 different outcomes from one event as "all Canon" only one outcome can be chosen which then becomes canon.
Another example
If there was a ME game set one year after ME3 and all 3 outcomes were canon that would mean all life in the galaxy would be dead as synthesis and destroy would cause the death off all life.
Synthesis makes all organics and synthetics merge.
Destroy kills all synthetics.
Not to mention both Control and Synthesis require the death of Shepard in different ways.
There is only one Shepard so how can two different deaths happen to the one person?
They can't all be canon.
Please understand the terminology
You can only adapt when the change is within the realm of your headcanon otherwise it destroys your headcanon lol.
And the realm of my headcanon is limited only by my imagination. Point is, if even official stories with fixed continuity can be retconned, modified or restructured successfully, so can things in my own head.
And the realm of my headcanon is limited only by my imagination. Point is, if even official stories with fixed continuity can be retconned, modified or restructured successfully, so can things in my own head.
lol ok darling 
I guess I won't agree with people here about defined characters since DA2 still to me is best DA game. It has superior story, PC and character interaction. Sadly the more open the world is and the less defined PC is, the more story will suffer along side character interaction.
It doesn't need to be like that, Witcher 3 aint that bad so far 
So Geralt is a "less defined PC"?
I guess I won't agree with people here about defined characters since DA2 still to me is best DA game. It has superior story, PC and character interaction. Sadly the more open the world is and the less defined PC is, the more story will suffer along side character interaction.
That isn't true
So Geralt is a "less defined PC"?
Is a character like Nathan Drake. No more, no less. For me, games with a set protagonist aren't RPGs, but adventures with RPG elements in them.
Not a fan of being made fun of. I get enough of that in the real world, thanks.
:hug:
No it isn't Wynne only "betrays" you if you decide to kill all mages, the blood mage thing is cut content therefore can not be used as evidence
Well, the first time I played she attacked me because I agreed with Morrigan that the circles weren't a great system. Watch your temper, Wynne!
There was need. Bioware left the background, or at least the character's perception of that background, up to the player meaning more roleplaying opportunities. You can't do that with strongly established backstories like the origins in DAO.
We'll have to just agree to disagree. I prefer how DAI did it, though would appreciate even more freedom(like how we're stuck as being a Pro-Dalish Dalish or a hypocritical Dalish
), while you prefer to have the character's entire backstory and drive filled in already.
You're confusing roleplaying opportunities with headcanon. Imagining your background is headcanon; it doesn't really add RP opportunities. Likewise, having a set history doesn't usually negate RPing.
I like a middle-ground when it comes to how defined a character is. For instance, I don't have any problems with Shepard always being an exceptionally strong-willed and charismatic leader. Stuff like that. But honestly, I think a lot of people are confusing pre-defined character traits with backstory. Please stop. The Warden's origins weren't personality traits. They're events that you respond to, building character. So we can sit here and argue all day about how defined we want our character to be, but that's a different argument than if we want a more solid history. And I like those. If we can't see or talk about our past, it feels like the protagonist was born when the game started. The fact that you usually know nothing about the universe and ask constant questions doesn't help with that feeling, but I'm not suggesting they change that 
Is a character like Nathan Drake. No more, no less. For me, games with a set protagonist aren't RPGs, but adventures with RPG elements in them.
I've only pointed that out, because the comment above suggested that Geralt wasn't somebody well-defined - while I remember reading stories about our gruff, white-haired protagonist years before first game was even made (Sapkowski's "Witcher" is a mandatory read for anyone interested with fantasy in Poland)
I've only pointed that out, because the comment above suggested that Geralt wasn't somebody well-defined - while I remember reading stories about our gruff, white-haired protagonist years before first game was even made
I see. Geralt is way too much defined. Is, as I sayd, like playng Uncharted or any other adventure game, just with choices along the way.
Edit (because phone send post without consent sometime): Is dumb sayng Geralt is not well-defined. More defined, and than bye bye choices. (since already Geralt is an unmodellable character, beside some aestetic, Just like with an AC protagonist.)
It's fun, so far (I'm about to play some more in a minute), but I say that straightforward comparisons between DAI and TW3 are uncalled for.
I mean...sure, comparisons are inevitable, since both are RPGs, but those are still two distinctly different games, both in terms of story structure and overall goal. I'm not saying that either is better or worse (or couldn't be improved or not) - I enjoy both so far - but I still don't understand why so many people on this forum (or else) want to pitch both of those giants against one another.
It's fun, so far (I'm about to play some more in a minute), but I say that straightforward comparisons between DAI and TW3 are uncalled for.
I mean...sure, comparisons are inevitable, since both are RPGs, but those are still two distinctly different games, both in terms of story structure and overall goal. I'm not saying that either is better or worse (or couldn't be improved or not) - I enjoy both so far - but I still don't understand why so many people on this forum (or else) want to pitch both of those giants against one another.
That's the million dollar question, and it's getting very annoying
Retour en haut