104 réponses à ce sujet

[Terodil]

Considering BioWare are all about diversity of character, they have a funny way of showing it in their games. "Don't like this one specific character that we created to fill a role? Don't like the fact that she is one of the only characters that does what she wants to do and not what you want to do? Well here you go. You can kick her out of your game at any opportunity."

If they are going to put that option in, put it in for everyone.

 

If I get you right, you advocate an either-or approach: Either have the option to kick ALL companions, or have the option to kick none.

 

That is an illusion of choice and will never work. Party-centric games, like Bioware's traditionally are, will always need at least a couple of companions to be unkickable, lest the story unravel completely. Even in ME2, where you can engineer almost all companions' deaths, you will still end up with Joker (briefly, before you die). Following your train of thought, that would mean that NO companions may ever be kickable.

 

Bad idea, if you ask me. It's bad enough that we can only (directly) kick Sera and have to jump through a few hoops for some others, but don't remove even more player agency. I'm playing a RPG, not watching a movie, thanks.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I assume it's because they knew that her personality had the potential to really polarize some players.

[Walter Black]

Sera shouldn't have been singled out, players should've been able kick out whomever they wanted.

[Vit246]

Sera can be kicked out not because she's not a Yes Man for the player, but because she is unwilling to undergo character growth and expanding her horizons.

[AutumnWitch]

Perhaps, originally she might have been planned on being more confrontational and in your face and possibly a huge problem for the Inquisition. I suspect that they ran out of time to fit this all in and thus we don't really see why we would want to boot her because it was cut. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

We should have been able to do more than just kick her out. She gets off easy as far as I'm concerned. 

[LightningPoodle]

If I get you right, you advocate an either-or approach: Either have the option to kick ALL companions, or have the option to kick none.
 
That is an illusion of choice and will never work. Party-centric games, like Bioware's traditionally are, will always need at least a couple of companions to be unkickable, lest the story unravel completely. Even in ME2, where you can engineer almost all companions' deaths, you will still end up with Joker (briefly, before you die). Following your train of thought, that would mean that NO companions may ever be kickable.
 
Bad idea, if you ask me. It's bad enough that we can only (directly) kick Sera and have to jump through a few hoops for some others, but don't remove even more player agency. I'm playing a RPG, not watching a movie, thanks.

I mean for all options ones. I don't want to remove the ones that are actually integral to the main plot of the game, and I also understand that you need to be able to play as a party of four in Dragon Age games.

But all optional companions should have had the same option of removal as Sera does.

And the making them leave by their own accord is completely different. You don't get a direct say in it. That is fine by me.

It's the singling out of one of the more diverse characters that I have a problem with. Grow a backbone BioWare. You built a character, you stand right f-ing behind them.

[Beerfish]

It's like this ya see, I like ta ask questions about corfiginuss and about the maker and stuff you know?  An I don't like all these elfy elf gits (specially that poofter Sole ass).  I want things ta be the same, you know normal but I do think there is something about this maker or whatever.  Don't know what it is but makes me think ya know, my mind goes all fuzzy n stuff, so if ya like me then I'll like you n stay round for a bit.  But if you are some high n mighty 'Oh look at me i am so great' sort then fug ya, ya know?

[Terodil]

But all optional companions should have had the same option of removal as Sera does.

... which is essentially just deferring the problem. Next we would get somebody asking accusatorily why Sera has been made optional instead of essential, and argue with a long list of points why she is/should have been the most important member of the Inquisition.
 

And the making them leave by their own accord is completely different. You don't get a direct say in it. That is fine by me.

Huh... I do. ****** them off enough, they leave. Be nice, they don't. I'm setting the cause, they're realising the effect. Same thing, except it takes a bit more time and effort. (Except of course human interaction is rarely as clear cut. Doesn't matter though.)
 

It's the singling out of one of the more diverse characters that I have a problem with. Grow a backbone BioWare. You built a character, you stand right f-ing behind them.

I'm still completely puzzled by this angle. Are you... seriously considering this a political problem and accusing Bioware of failing at (your concept of) diversity?

[KaiserShep]

We should have been able to do more than just kick her out. She gets off easy as far as I'm concerned. 

 

 

Yeah, we should have the option to attempt to have her executed, only she discovers this plan from the grapevine of servants that she's constantly communicating with and quickly disappears, snatching away the Inquisitor's victory XD

[Ryzaki]

Because she ruffles feathers and wouldn't fit in some people's inquisition. The actual issue is why don't Vivienne/Bull/Dorian/Blackwall don't have one.

[AutumnWitch]

We should have been able to do more than just kick her out. She gets off easy as far as I'm concerned. 

 

She's brilliant. Leave her alone.  

[Giantdeathrobot]

The writers probably knew how controversial she would prove to be.

[FloraTheElf]

Oh okay I didn't realize she was specifically the only one that had that option. I was wondering if it was because she wasn't meshing with my iq. I love Sera. I think all the companions add a little flavor so to speak hehe.

I wish there was an easier way to know about the approval on the ps4. Otd just be a cool tidbit to know

[Darkstarr11]

 REALLY would have liked to have given Viv the boot, but when playing a Dalish, I understood why.  She was INCREDIBLY polarizing and condescending.  In fact, her trashing pretty much everything the Dalish believe in was a real base breaker.  OUTSIDE of playing a Dalish, I found her irritating at times, but not so much that I'd send her away.  However, when I played a Dalish, she was gone pretty quick after Skyhold.  Other playthroughs I kept her, but my first one, she was punted out...if I had the option, it would have been over the walls.  If you romance her, she comes off as abusive.  So, I think, like some others, that the devs knew she was going to REALLY get on peoples nerves.  Not everyone, but some people may want her gone not long after she joins.  

 

Now, saying that, after Trespasser, and seeing her development there, I'm glad I didn't kick her with the other saves.  She matured a bit, which was nice, allowing her to gain a few sympathy points.  Also, again, while she was a jerk to my Dalish, she was never EVIL...like, say another member of my crew who DOESN'T need to be named, but every thing she does SCREAMS wicked witch.  

[Serza]

We should have been able to do more than just kick her out. She gets off easy as far as I'm concerned. 

 

I know what you're thinking. "Did he loosen six arrows, or only five?" And to be honest, in all this excitement, I've kind of lost track myself, but considering this is a 5-foot recurve, it'd take your head... CLEAN OFF, and you have to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you, Orlesian?

 

 REALLY would have liked to have given Viv the boot, but when playing a Dalish, I understood why.  She was INCREDIBLY polarizing and condescending.  In fact, her trashing pretty much everything the Dalish believe in was a real base breaker.  OUTSIDE of playing a Dalish, I found her irritating at times, but not so much that I'd send her away.  However, when I played a Dalish, she was gone pretty quick after Skyhold.  Other playthroughs I kept her, but my first one, she was punted out...if I had the option, it would have been over the walls.  If you romance her, she comes off as abusive.  So, I think, like some others, that the devs knew she was going to REALLY get on peoples nerves.  Not everyone, but some people may want her gone not long after she joins.  

 

Now, saying that, after Trespasser, and seeing her development there, I'm glad I didn't kick her with the other saves.  She matured a bit, which was nice, allowing her to gain a few sympathy points.  Also, again, while she was a jerk to my Dalish, she was never EVIL...like, say another member of my crew who DOESN'T need to be named, but every thing she does SCREAMS wicked witch.  

 

Oh, Vivienne? Yes. Should've probably had the chance to not... kill her, but let us say... discredit her with the Orlesian court.

[Darkstarr11]

I know what you're thinking. "Did he loosen six arrows, or only five?" And to be honest, in all this excitement, I've kind of lost track myself, but considering this is a 5-foot recurve, it'd take your head... CLEAN OFF, and you have to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you, Orlesian?

 

 

Oh, Vivienne? Yes. Should've probably had the chance to not... kill her, but let us say... discredit her with the Orlesian court.

 

 

Destroying her reputation WOULD have been a fate worse than death for her, wouldn't it?  Hehe hehehehehehehehe....sorry, but that IS amusing.  Especially considering what her greatest fear is...nice, very nice...

[Serza]

Destroying her reputation WOULD have been a fate worse than death for her, wouldn't it?  Hehe hehehehehehehehe....sorry, but that IS amusing.  Especially considering what her greatest fear is...nice, very nice...

 

What can I say. I enjoy making people like her suffer. Usually, it is because their opinions make people suffer.

[LightningPoodle]

... which is essentially just deferring the problem. Next we would get somebody asking accusatorily why Sera has been made optional instead of essential, and argue with a long list of points why she is/should have been the most important member of the Inquisition. Huh... I do. ****** them off enough, they leave. Be nice, they don't. I'm setting the cause, they're realising the effect. Same thing, except it takes a bit more time and effort. (Except of course human interaction is rarely as clear cut. Doesn't matter though.) I'm still completely puzzled by this angle. Are you... seriously considering this a political problem and accusing Bioware of failing at (your concept of) diversity?

Eh. Forget it. What's done is done.

[IllustriousT]

Eh...its probably because she is from north wherever and had fun on street and/or local tavern.

[CoM Solaufein]

Cuz she's bloody annoying and you need the option to give her the boot. She was in the very first game I played, but since then, she grows on you.

[Shechinah]

It's the singling out of one of the more diverse characters that I have a problem with. Grow a backbone BioWare. You built a character, you stand right f-ing behind them.

 

Perhaps you could either elaborate on this or explain it differently because I am not sure what you mean by this?

 

The reason why they made an option for Sera like they did was likely because they knew she'd be mostly a love or hate character because of her personality, not her sexuality. I've barely seen any complaints about Sera's sexuality. It's all been about her personality and what she does during the game.

[AFA]

I don't get why you can't kick Viv out once you recruit her. She literally can't provide anything she promised, trolls people that actually contribute, and is just riding your coattails to help her self. Sera even contributes more to the cause than she does.

[LightningPoodle]

Perhaps you could either elaborate on this or explain it differently because I am not sure what you mean by this?

 

The reason why they made an option for Sera like they did was likely because they knew she'd be mostly a love or hate character because of her personality, not her sexuality. I've barely seen any complaints about Sera's sexuality. It's all been about her personality and what she does during the game.

 

I don't mean her being a lesbian. Perhaps I have been using diverse wrong.

 

But so is Vivienne. So is Blackwall. So is Iron Bull, and Cole, and Dorian. All of them are love or hate. All of them have their own quirks. That's what I mean by diversity. Not diversity of sexuality. Diversity of "character". Yet Sera is singled out with this option. Why is this acceptable?

[Terodil]

o.O

Why would you want to treat everybody the same? They're not the same. You will talk with Vivienne in a different fashion than you will with Sera. A chat with Dorian will sound very different from a talk with Blackwall. Since when does this fall under some sort of ethical standard that you seem to invoke with the word 'acceptable'?

Rephrased from the other direction: If I want to kiss Solas, do I have to kiss every other member of my team too? Would not doing so be 'unacceptable'?