782 réponses à ce sujet

[Lady Artifice]

It creates a lot more problems than it solves.

 

If you look at RPGs released through the last 20 years or so, you'll notice that there's a clear decline in 'evil' companion characters. There's reasons for that, as always. It's tempting to imagine that you can write roughly half the companions as 'good' and half of the companions as 'evil' and provide a morally balanced cast and provide content for both alignments, but that's a mistake. Good and evil are very, very asymmetric.

 

Evil companions are more or less a thing of the past.

 

From another perspective, characters who are approached as though they are indisputably good are also in decline. 

 

Moral relativism is becoming increasingly common in how characters are written. 

[Kakistos_]

2. Cool it with pairing the spares. I think it's going a bit overboard. In DAI all of the originally planned romance-able male characters end up developing something with another companion if they're unromanced. I think it's starting to become over common. 

I actually like that non-romanced companions enjoy each others company. I think it adds to the group dynamic and it's nice to know that not everything revolves around the protagonist's libido. It also adds to immersion. I may be very, very, very, very conceited but I don't expect everyone in a circle of friends/coworkers to be attracted to me and only me. Most of them of course but not all.

[Lady Artifice]

I actually like that non-romanced companions enjoy each others company. I think it adds to the group dynamic and it's nice to know that not everything revolves around the protagonist's libido. It also adds to immersion. I may be very, very, very, very conceited but I don't expect everyone in a circle of friends/coworkers to be attracted to me and only me. Most of them of course but not all.

 

So do I. I don't have to dislike something to think it can be overdone. In fact, I find that the bigger a fan I am of a thing, the wiser it is to moderate my exposure to it. 

[Kynare]

As long as they all legitimately provide to the story and atmosphere instead of just being PC filler.

[Feybrad]

Moral relativism is becoming increasingly common in how characters are written. 

 

Which, to be honest, kind of annoys me. This increasing Greyness, for lack of a better word, tends become boring, annoying and, ironically, even preachy after a While. But that's a Discussion for another Thread.

 

One or two clearly Black or White Characters (which can be easily as complex as the others, and I'm going to fight anyone who says Things different) would not hurt.

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

Oh don't get me wrong, I really MISS the mix of characters like Misc, Edwin, Jaheira, Xzar, Viconia, and Sarevok.  Their arguments and even outright brawls were awesome memories.  But I don't know that Bioware can afford to do stuff like that anymore, each investment of a voice actor and companion has to 'last' longer and can't be killed off according to the newer game structures.

 

DA2 style with the personality conflicts through banter is the CLOSEST I think we can ever get to that feeling ever again... :-(

[Lady Artifice]

Which, to be honest, kind of annoys me. This increasing Greyness, for lack of a better word, tends become boring, annoying and, ironically, even preachy after a While. But that's a Discussion for another Thread.

 

One or two clearly Black or White Characters (which can be easily as complex as the others, and I'm going to fight anyone who says Things different) would not hurt.

 

Agreed. When moral relativism becomes a moral message in itself, I usually feel a sense apathy begin to seep in. 

[Gwydden]

Agreed. When moral relativism becomes a moral message in itself, I usually feel a sense apathy begin to seep in.

I don't necessarily see it that way. Personally I don't like characters being described in terms of good/evil because it's cheesy and leads to oversimplification.

You can certainly make a purely evil character, but then the obvious question is how and why is he evil. The answer is not always satisfactory.

Similarly, characters who have no flaws whatsoever feel fake and borders on Mary Sue territory. It's not the character being a decent or even outstanding human being that's the problem, the issue is when your character is no longer believable or relatable or your story is full of Ghandis.

[Panda]

I'm more into greyness myself than black and white characters. In my opinion things have become more intresting, because of that. Superhero comics where superhero is white character without no greyness and villains are simply black is boring as heck. That's why I mostly read comics about Deadpool and Catwoman, both morally gray characters who go between being villain and hero. Much more intresting. I just find black-and-white morality boring and childish and hope not to see much of that. Of cource some characters can and should be more in white or black side compared to others, but not simply white or black.

[SardaukarElite]

I'm more into greyness myself than black and white characters. In my opinion things have become more intresting, because of that. Superhero comics where superhero is white character without no greyness and villains are simply black is boring as heck. That's why I mostly read comics about Deadpool and Catwoman, both morally gray characters who go between being villain and hero. Much more intresting. I just find black-and-white morality boring and childish and hope not to see much of that. Of cource some characters can and should be more in white or black side compared to others, but not simply white or black.

 

Absolute good and evil is dull and simplistic, but I think greyness as a concept is building on that same language to address one specific issue (people being more than one trait) without actually being anymore sophisticated about it. People aren't balanced out by good and bad traits, that to begin with implies that their traits are still good and bad and easily judged and also that these traits are for some reason linked.

 

So while I think greyness is good in that it encourages more character types, it's also only really swapping out black and white's message of aspiring to a narrow ideal with a kind of dull cynicism. But it can be a stepping stone to something less rigid.

[Dean_the_Young]

It creates a lot more problems than it solves.

 

If you look at RPGs released through the last 20 years or so, you'll notice that there's a clear decline in 'evil' companion characters. There's reasons for that, as always. It's tempting to imagine that you can write roughly half the companions as 'good' and half of the companions as 'evil' and provide a morally balanced cast and provide content for both alignments, but that's a mistake. Good and evil are very, very asymmetric.

 

Evil companions are more or less a thing of the past.

 

I'm not terribly sad to see them go, because in most cases they were pretty much charicatures from the start. Either comedic sociopaths played for laughs, or deliberatly antagonizing assholes. Or the occasionally moral extremist- but the issue there is that some people agree with the morality suggested, and refuse to condemn actions in pursuit of it as evil.

 

I'm of the opinion that most people have a poor understanding of 'evil'- can't distinguish 'evil' from 'mean' in the same way that people conflate 'nice' with 'good.' When writers do it well, it typically seems to be by accident- and even then, they may try to deliberatly undermine it.

 

Probably the best 'evil' companion I can think of in Bioware history- as in, regularly indulged in selfishness, arrogance, ego-centricism, and detested selflessness and helping others without expectation of reward in principle, while finding amusement or interest in the suffering of others- was Morrigan. And she got hit pretty heavily with the sympathy stick.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

I'm more into greyness myself than black and white characters. In my opinion things have become more intresting, because of that. Superhero comics where superhero is white character without no greyness and villains are simply black is boring as heck. That's why I mostly read comics about Deadpool and Catwoman, both morally gray characters who go between being villain and hero. Much more intresting. I just find black-and-white morality boring and childish and hope not to see much of that. Of cource some characters can and should be more in white or black side compared to others, but not simply white or black.

 

 

Like anything else it does get old after awhile. I'm sorry but other than Harley Quinn (and that is because the book is funny) I couldn't care about Deadpool or Catwoman because they're so morally conflicted to the point where I can't stand them. If they were actually hero or villain then I might be more inclined to give a **** about them (well Catwoman anyway since I find Deadpool annoying).    

[themikefest]

I actually disagree about  letting people romance in the same-game...

 

IF Andromeda is more than one-game with the same protagonist, I don't think you should be allowed to romance a character you meet in the same game...part o the reason why I think the Garrus-femshep relationship is the best one _IS_ the fact that you have to get to know Garrus in the 1st game.

He doesn't have to be recruited in ME1, so the player doesn't know much about him, but is able to romance him in ME2

[Panda]

Like anything else it does get old after awhile. I'm sorry but other than Harley Quinn (and that is because the book is funny) I couldn't care about Deadpool or Catwoman because they're so morally conflicted to the point where I can't stand them. If they were actually hero or villain then I might be more inclined to give a **** about them (well Catwoman anyway since I find Deadpool annoying).    

 

I guess it depends from person. Both characters are my favs from anything Marvel and DC has put out and are within my all time favs of characters in general ^^;

 

I don't find them too conflicting- though changing writers can make bit differences in their characterization- their basic moral code- or lack of it- stays or if there is some character development it usually makes sense and has enough backwork.

[Dean_the_Young]

As for romance in Andromeda-

 

I think Mass Effect can, and should, have a civilian 'lover at port' romance. Whatever the 'Citadel' equivalent might be- the Arc, a home planet, or a life ship- have a civilian who has no glaringly conflict-of-interest subplot like every single Shepard option we had. Not a 'Commander and Subordinate' relationship. Not 'let's make a love boat with the crew.' And not a 'reporter too close to the subject.'

 

So here's a scenario- saw we had a civilian love interest in the diplomatic service. A sort of 'Ambassador Udina's assistant' sort of character, semi-analogous to Josephine from Inquisition. Let's say, for the purpose of this outline, he's a (flip-coin) guy, named... Nead.

 

Nead is a guy, above average looks and intelligence, who works in the diplomatic relations office as a liason with the military. He doesn't work for the player- his boss probably far outranks the player- but he's your support/contact/etc. when it comes to learning about new races or handling the Milky Way alliances internal race relations.

 

In the core plot, Nead is a supporting character who's mostly left at the Arc. Maybe he takes one or two away missions to visit another power- a significant diplomatic event the player is supposed to help guard/protect. Nead has views befitting a diplomat- not necessarily views you would expect or agree with (let's have a non-pacifist diplomat who can be assertive without being an *******, please), but one who balances 'talking' with 'fighting' with a reasoned emphasis on the 'talk first, shoot later' side of things.

 

If you don't romance him, Nead's just a friendly supporter within the Beuracracy. Bends a few rules, maybe commits a bit of treason to sneak you secrets that would help save the day. Your relationship could be warm (Anderson) or antagonistic (if you're the Udina), but ultimately he agrees with your goal and wants to support. Gets along reasonably well with companion characters, enough so that he'd work through them even if you the player can't stand him for whatever reason. You can visit him at the Diplomatic office, but he takes part in ship conversatiosn by holocom. He might be involved in, say, a hypothetical end-game summit that the player realizes is the Crisis Point.

 

But- if you maybe flirt a little flirt, get along well from the start... well, perhaps he offers to treat you back to drinks at the Citadel. One drink comes two, two becomes more, and before you know it he's more drunk than you (the player) and the player has the choice of taking him back to his apartment for the night or calling a taxi for him (non-flirt). If you do- and the player could have a scene in which the PC chooses between having consensual drunk sex or sleeping on the couch but staying the night- the one-night thing could start to become something more.

 

The next morning, Nead is surprised you're there, and wants to know if it's a one-time thing. PC can yes not. If the PC wants, though... well, Nead is a bit happier to see you in the mission briefings. And invites you back. And pretty soon, the companions know the PC's got a lover at port waiting for her/him to come home.

 

Now, Nead's romance arc, being both out of the PC's influence and a civilian, offers a rare chance for some relationship dynamics Bioware hasn't really changed yet. Like, military-civilian distinctions and discipline: the PC can't order Nead around to do something he doesn't want to do, and trying to would blow the relationship pretty quick. But, more importantly... we  can get a relationship in which we have 'super-duper amazing PC' on one side, and on the other side we have someone who... isn't.

 

Not a 'best of the best' one-sentient army. Not a master hacker. Not a super spy. Not even an amazing diplomat: Nead might be above average, but the PC is beyond extraordinary. The deadliest SOB since Shepard. The most amazing Human in Andromedea... knocking boots with a wimpy bureacrat who can't even fire a gun. How's he supposed to feel about something serious becoming, well, something serious? Especially when the PC spends so much time away with more impressive guys and girls and companions. Especially if the PC has opportunities to sleep around and so on.

 

Play the power imbalance, Bioware. Play it. Not in that he's crippling insecure- but that he's dealing with the power imbalance, trying to be something other than 'the PC's love-toy', and that the player will have to acknowledge it to.

 

Especially if, when, 'the PC's lover' becomes the obvious target for someone trying to hurt the PC by proxy because they aren't strong enough to do so directly. Especially at, say, an end-game diplomatic summit of sorts. Could Little Weak Civilian, taken hostage, be a Real Man, or at least something other than the damsel in distress in a hostage crisis?

 

 

I'd dig it.

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

I want a suave rogue, a sarcastic tease, oozing self-confidence to the point of arrogance, who's self-described as perfect (probably a Sentinel/Raider-type build); possessing a gorgeous body, perfect 1950's Madison Ave hair, a gleaming smile, wearing too-tight pants and a conversation-cam that always drifts right to butt-level when he's talking to me. 

[Lady Artifice]

I don't necessarily see it that way. Personally I don't like characters being described in terms of good/evil because it's cheesy and leads to oversimplification.

You can certainly make a purely evil character, but then the obvious question is how and why is he evil. The answer is not always satisfactory.

Similarly, characters who have no flaws whatsoever feel fake and borders on Mary Sue territory. It's not the character being a decent or even outstanding human being that's the problem, the issue is when your character is no longer believable or relatable or your story is full of Ghandis.

 

Exactly what Sardaukar said. I'm not in any way opposed to moral greyness, but I think this is a matter of degrees rather than a problem of liking one or the other. 

 

Cole's DAI story arc might be the best example from my perspective. Two different routes for his character, both of them written so deliberately with their own downside and complications that I'm left feeling mostly apathetic and a little frustrated about which route I prefer. I think that might have been their intent, perhaps with the mindset that writing it that way was challenging the player's sense of certainty. To a point, I can accept that, but I don't really like it very much when it's taken to this degree. 

 

"Dull cynicism" describes some of those dilemmas really very well, I think. It almost coddles the player with the assurance that almost any large story decision they make will be acceptable because "all decisions are equal" kind of mindset. Depending on how far that goes it begins to remove motivation for me to care which route I go down. I could just flip a coin. 

[Lady Artifice]

I echo the sentiment that I'd rather avoid the power imbalance aspects of romance in ME1. The advisor romances in DAI were kind of perfect for me in terms of feeling like there was a sense of equality between PC and LI. 

[God]

Which, to be honest, kind of annoys me. This increasing Greyness, for lack of a better word, tends become boring, annoying and, ironically, even preachy after a While. But that's a Discussion for another Thread.

 

One or two clearly Black or White Characters (which can be easily as complex as the others, and I'm going to fight anyone who says Things different) would not hurt.

 

That is a contradiction in terms unfortunately. Yes, black and white characters that are clearly marked can be complex, but not morally so. I don't disagree about having a few character absolutes, but I do believe that they shouldn't be entirely positively. Rigidity either way leads to conflict, as it cannot compromise.

 

Personally, I want to expand moral ambiguity, relativism, and even subjectivism as much as possible. 

[God]

Agreed. When moral relativism becomes a moral message in itself, I usually feel a sense apathy begin to seep in. 

 

Granted, but I do feel that it should be held a bit more positive than rigidity on either end. Of course, BW really has never handled truly complex or problematic moral issues. They like to play in extremes that are easy to gauge.

[Jorji Costava]

I know it's cliché to say that morally grey characters are more realistic, but as far as I can see it's empirically correct. The problem is that "good" and "bad" are just too broad to meaningfully describe actual human beings (with maybe a handful of exceptions). Even narrower categories like "courage" or "honesty" are probably too broad in this way. A person could manifest courage in a situations involving great physical danger and yet fail to exhibit courage when asked to take a moral stand. A person could display dishonesty in cheating on his spouse while displaying considerable honesty in refusing bribes under severe pressure to do so. Examples like this could be multiplied all day.

 

Hell, even ambient odors and other seemingly trivial situational cues can affect the likelihood that we'll engage in altruistic behavior. Human nature is in many ways a very frail thing, and in general I think it's good for our fiction to be true to this.

[BabyPuncher]

I know it's cliché to say that morally grey characters are more realistic, but as far as I can see it's empirically correct. The problem is that "good" and "bad" are just too broad to meaningfully describe actual human beings (with maybe a handful of exceptions).

 

The kind of fiction BioWare creates has never been concerned with 'realistic' people if we consider 'realistic' to mean 'people you're most likely to encounter in everyday life.'
 

A person could manifest courage in a situations involving great physical danger and yet fail to exhibit courage when asked to take a moral stand. A person could display dishonesty in cheating on his spouse while displaying considerable honesty in refusing bribes under severe pressure to do so. Examples like this could be multiplied all day.

 

I really don't see how this is significant at all.

 

Hell, even ambient odors and other seemingly trivial situational cues can affect the likelihood that we'll engage in altruistic behavior. Human nature is in many ways a very frail thing, and in general I think it's good for our fiction to be true to this.

 

Humans are very frail to bullets as well. That doesn't mean that having central characters being, for example, unceremoniously shot and killed by a completely random mook in battle good writing.

[Gwydden]

As for romance in Andromeda-

I'd be okay with this if it wasn't for a tiny insignificant little detail: I don't want to be military again.

 

I want us to be explorers. Colonial prospectors. More Lewis and Clark, more Columbus and Cortez, more Vasco de Gama and Magellan. Less Captain Supersoldier McAwesome. We may carry big guns, but we don't have to be soldiers. The original trilogy already gave the military more than enough free publicity.