550 réponses à ce sujet

[TevinterSupremacist]

Those canon thoughts aren't what make the decisions in the game, though. Without a base character attitude, you're stuck at the first dialogue choice on the Normandy in ME1.
Again, so much rudimentary deduction and interpretation (let alone offscreen actions) you've just proclaimed didn't actually happen.

 

And again, individuals don't go around blurting their viewpoints with every choice they make.

If a choice is to add to characterisation, the reasons behind it must be fleshed out. Otherwise it's meaningless and doesn't add to anything. The whole argument started with whether there is something to be gained to characterisation from all of this. If it's fleshed out in game, then fine, but if it's fleshed out in your mind, it's headcanon. Events that we don't confirm to happen in game are headcanon, I can't believe I have to post this yet again.

[dreamgazer]

The problem with your way of thinking is you can have simultainously true conflicting realities, because you can have more than one possible "attitudes" as to why a character makes a choice.

That's absolutely the case. What's the problem with that way of thinking?
 

So either all of them are canon, in which case you have an inconsistency, or none is.

The decision happened, which is canon. If it supports a base viewpoint, then it's not headcanon. Headcanon enters the equation when you start internally elaborating on "why" the viewpoint exists.
 

Unless you want to say the player thinking it's one and not the other affects what is canon in game.

In a sense, it does. Unless the narrative actively contradicts the attitude.
 

Obviously not, but if a choice has to add to characterisation, the reasons behind it must be fleshed out.

Why? If it supports a base viewpoint, it supports a base viewpoint.

[TevinterSupremacist]

It's not enough to support a viewpoint in the player's head, it has to indisputably take place in a playthrough, to be considered canon.

 

Then again, we're arguing on the definition of terms, apparently. Okay, one of us considers that what is and isn't canon is to be decided solely with in-game confirmed events and stuff that are only confirmed in the player's head become headcanon, while the other considers that actual , not headcanon, but actual canon is concerned not only with in-game events, but also with stuff that are only confirmed in the player's heads. Fair enough. Different definitions, no point in arguing. Keep yours, I'll keep mine.

[dreamgazer]

It's not enough to support a viewpoint in the player's head, it has to indisputably take place in a playthrough, to be considered canon.

If a decision backs up your viewpoint, it's not headcanon, but merely following the ideology that guides your decisions. "I'm pro-something" is simple character building; "I'm pro-something because ..." is headcanon, unless you just list events and repercussions from the game.

Then again, we're arguing on the definition of terms, apparently. Okay, one of us considers that what is and isn't canon is to be decided solely with in-game confirmed events and stuff that are only confirmed in the player's head become headcanon, while the other considers that actual , not headcanon, but actual canon is concerned not only with in-game events, but also with stuff that are only confirmed in the player's heads. Fair enough. Different definitions, no point in arguing. Keep yours, I'll keep mine.

Without some degree of viewpoint imparted from the player, your character is 100% predefined and no choices would be made in the game. Your definition of headcanon is far too conservative. And, once again, you've also just rendered many events and details in the games to have never happened, because they're just headcanon. There's a gray area you're ignoring.

[TevinterSupremacist]

If an event took place in game, I'd never called it headcanon. If it didn't and I have to give the input FROM MY FREAKING HEAD then it's headcanon.

 

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

No point, we won't get anywhere. Discussions on the definition of terms never go anywhere.

[dreamgazer]

If an event took place in game, I'd never called it headcanon.

Every decision, every ideological fork in the road, takes place in the game.

If it didn't and I have to give the input FROM MY FREAKING HEAD then it's headcanon.

It's called deduction, interpretation, and incredibly basic attitude construction. Again, so much of both Dragon Age and BioWare franchises you've just reduced to headcanon because the writing asks you to connect some incredibly simple dots that weren't visualized.
 

Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
No point, we won't get anywhere. Discussions on the definition of terms never go anywhere.

Fair enough. I'd consider rethinking your definition of headcanon, though.

[TevinterSupremacist]

It's called deduction, interpretation, and incredibly basic attitude construction. Again, so much of both Dragon Age and BioWare franchises you've just reduced to headcanon because the writing asks you to connect some incredibly simple dots that weren't visualized.

 

Ah, ah, just a final explanation because you said that. If the deduction has only one viable alternative, then it's not headcanon. Like, if we have to connect two dots and there's only one path, then of course the path is canon, even if not shown. Because in these cases, based on the in game confirmed facts there's only one "solution" you can deduce logically.

It becomes headcanon when there are many paths available and it's up to the player to assume which one, from a group of possible ones. Because it's no longer about deducing alone, but also your own input.

[dreamgazer]

Ah, ah, just a final explanation because you said that. If the deduction has only one viable alternative, then it's not headcanon. Like, if we have to connect two dots and there's only one path, then of course the path is canon, even if not shown. Because in these cases, based on the in game confirmed facts there's only one "solution" you can deduce logically.

You can deduce either a positive or a negative confirmation, since, like you say, it doesn't appear onscreen. Deducing positive is headcanon, based on your definition.

It becomes headcanon when there are many paths available and it's up to the player to assume which one, from a group of possible ones. Because it's no longer about deducing alone, but also your own input.

Sorry, but soliciting the player's input based on your PC's viewpoint doesn't deem something headcanon. Something has to direct the player's decision.

[TevinterSupremacist]

You can deduce either a positive or a negative confirmation, since, like you say, it doesn't appear onscreen. Deducing positive is headcanon, based on your definition.


Sorry, but soliciting the player's input based on your PC's viewpoint doesn't deem something headcanon. Something has to direct the player's decision.

No, choosing one from many viable alternatives is headcanon, deducing the single available is not. Because the former requires an arbitrary jump to one, the other is absolute.

The player isn't part of the world though and neither is his/her thoughts. Only what he/she manages to get into the game world becomes canon, what stays in his/her head is headcanon. If he/she can bring only the choice, only the choice becomes canon, if he/she can bring, because the writers allowed it, the reason too, the reason becomes as well.

[Wolfman]

To the OP - personally I am going to avoid as much info as I can regarding companions. And I play either gender, so I can always find the perfect romance.

Oddly, my favorite romance in DAI was with Cassandra, and I'm not personally as into females as I am males. But she was perfect for one Inquisitor in particular. I enjoyed their dynamic the most. It was well played.

For me, it's all about what kind of story I want to watch and create. I don't mind self inserts, but I find those don't work as well for BW games. The protagonists are weighty and pre-scripted and have a specific identity even before I CC them.

I think self inserts are best applied to Bethesda games. Your protag is a hollow shell that you can just fill up with your own identity.

[dreamgazer]

No, choosing one from many viable alternatives is headcanon, deducing the single available is not. Because the former requires an arbitrary jump to one, the other is absolute.

You're still using your head to connect the dots over something that isn't explicitly stated or visualized. This is a backpedal from your previous assertion, though.

The player isn't part of the world though and neither is his/her thoughts.

Of course they are. Else, Shepard isn't getting past the first dialogue wheel on the Normandy.

Only what he/she manages to get into the game world becomes canon, what stays in his/her head is headcanon.

As stated earlier, every decision makes it into the game. If it backs up the PC's stance and doesn't require anything beyond very basic preferences and viewpoints, the things that dictate whether path A or B is taken, it's not headcanon. It's role-playing.

[TevinterSupremacist]

You're still using your head to connect the dots over something that isn't explicitly stated or visualized. This is a backpedal from your previous assertion, though.
 

 

There's a difference between deducing and creating your own. If there's only one path between a and b , then saying "this is the path" is a matter of logic and deduction. It's figuring out what is already there.

If there are more than one paths, then deciding on one requires a choice that is based on something other than what is in the game. This is where headcanon comes in place.

[dreamgazer]

There's a difference between deducing and creating your own.

There's also a difference between "creating your own" and "establishing a viewpoint within the parameters". You cannot progress forward without one (unless you're not interested in role-playing and just pick whatever).

If there's only one path between a and b , then saying "this is the path" is a matter of logic and deduction. It's figuring out what is already there.

It's also using creative interpretation with details that were never shown. Your mind is filling in the B between A and C, which you say is a no-no.

If there are more than one paths, then deciding on one requires a choice that is based on something other than what is in the game.This is where headcanon comes in place.

How is that where headcanon comes into play, instead of role-playing? Is it impossible to role-play without headcanon? Because you need a PC viewpoint to base any choices on.

[TevinterSupremacist]

There's also a difference between "creating your own" and "establishing a viewpoint within the parameters". You cannot progress forward without one (unless you're not interested in role-playing and just pick whatever).


It's also using creative interpretation with details that were never shown. Your mind is filling in the B between A and C, which you say is a no-no.


 Is it impossible to role-play without headcanon?

It's still your own though. It might be within the parameters, but it is your own.

 

If there's only one alternative, you're discovering, not filling. Like solving a mystery. You find the facts.

 

Possibly. For some parts, at least.

[dreamgazer]

It's still your own though. It might be within the parameters, but it is your own.

Not if you're using basic deduction based on your actions. Limitations and narrative demands placed on the PC's attitude keep it from being headcanon.

If there's only one alternative, you're discovering, not filling. Like solving a mystery. You find the facts.

There's always two alternatives: enough evidence or not enough evidence, which can be just as subjective as being pro-whatever or anti-whatever. If the material doesn't confirm it, choosing the positive is apparently headcanon.

Possibly. For some parts, at least.

Then we really are at an impasse, because that's the gray area you refuse to acknowledge.

[TevinterSupremacist]

Not if you're using basic deduction based on your actions. Limitations and narrative demands placed on the PC's attitude keep it from being headcanon.


There's always two alternatives: enough evidence or not enough evidence, which can be just as subjective as being pro-whatever or anti-whatever. If the material doesn't confirm it, choosing the positive is apparently headcanon.
 

It's not only basic deduction if there are more than two possible solutions. Basic deduction will lead you to the two alternatives, choosing between them goes beyond deduction, since if they're both viable the choice between them is arbitrary (in the sense that nothing in game supports it).

 

 

Not necessarily. I'm referring to the cases where there's only one path between a and b. In those cases it being the only viable alternative makes the evidence for it being true absolute. In these cases it's no longer headcanon since the in-game events dictate it absolutely.

[Donk]

Oh FFS.

[Semyaza82]

I can see where some people are coming from in terms of wanting to avoid spoilery character details and just get to know them in game, but personally I quite like knowing ahead of time. Romances are something I enjoy about Bioware games, so knowing what options are going to available is a major selling point for me. 

 

If you really don't want to know ahead of time spoilers can be avoided, though admittedly it can be hard. Especially if you do want more general info.

[Hazegurl]

I prefer not to know as their sexual orientation tells me nothing about the character.  I would rather like to find out in game than to metagame the interactions.  But other people like to know and BW doesn't seem to be into letting the NPC flirt first anymore so you're either stuck hitting on everyone until someone bites, a creeper, or finding out who can be romanced a head of time.

[Linkenski]

At this point I'm under the mentality that Bioware can showcase the game through marketing and internet-reveals however they want, as long as the main game is great. Admittedly a lot of the distaste I felt from Mass Effect 3 right from the get-go (I really don't like what ME3 did to the format) was from its lame Gears of Mass Effect marketing. I loved the Fall of Earth trailer because it made it look cool and the combat was impressive, but it was not just one trailer doing that... it was friggin every piece of footage there was to be found that E3 in 2011 that was like "wow, look how ACTION PACKED Mass Effect 3 is!". "Look at how BIG and EPIC it is!"

[Degrees1991]

This stuff getting a little too PC now.

[Donk]

I want to know what colour their pubic hair is before released.

[Erstus]

Don't care. Just don't make their sexual orientation the driving focus of their character. Please, that would be ridiculous.

 

The Mass Effect Trilogy did companions the best of any Bioware game, in my opinion.

[TehMonkeyMan]

I want to know what colour their pubic hair is before released.

I can get behind this

[Heathen Oxman]

I can get behind this

 

Actually, you'd have to get in front of it.......