252 réponses à ce sujet

[BobZilla84]

Ok so I love that Bioware is inclusive. I love Romancing characters in their games. But I do feel they are stretching them kinda thin at this point. I would much rather have a very small pool or romancable characters but tie the romance more into the main plot. Just little things but as the game progresses have other characters comment on you romance in a normal run of the mill main plot cut scene. Have things change in the main plot if you are in a romance. It dose not have to be earth shattering stuff. But just a constant running narrative that you are in a relationship could add so much to it. Also if you are not in a romance it would not affect anything and those cut scenes would just play out a little differently.

But by cutting down on the amount of love interests they could focus and putting the resources into things like that. Rather than putting together an extra 10 specific romance scenes for all the romance options.

This is what I would like to see.

I agree but keeping the # low can be a pain when they decide to add alot of different Orientations.In Mass Effect Andromeda I want there to be 6 LI's thats 2 Straight Options "M&F",2 Gay Options "M&F",2 Bi Options "M&F".Lets not have another ME3 ok thanks.

[fdrty]

I agree but keeping the # low can be a pain when they decide to add alot of different Orientations.In Mass Effect Andromeda I want there to be 6 LI's thats 2 Straight Options "M&F",2 Gay Options "M&F",2 Bi Options "M&F".Lets not have another ME3 ok thanks.

 

I think they should add as many as they can, as long as it doesn't harm the romances themselves, or the rest of the game. The different options add a lot to future playthroughs. If they did 3 straight, 3 bi, 3 gay that would be the best option IMO - not as many as ME3, but a good amount for everyone. I also doubt it would hamstring development that much, and if it does then just remove a gay or straight option.

 

Mass Effect 3 probably had better romance than ME1, and ME1 only had 3 options - blue nerd fangirl (yuck) space racist (double yuck) and sentient cardboard Kaidan (all the yucks).

 

True, but Cassandra is part of a military religious order, and later, a heretical sect (in which she fervently believes). 

 

Really, fanatic isn't a very good term to describe someone. It's too easy to just label anyone as fanatic, in a way to discredit their views, because there really isn't much of a standard as to what counts as 'fanaticism'.

 

Heretic is an even worse word. It's pretty much the middle age version of 'terrorist'. Anyone with subversive beliefs can be labelled a 'heretic'.

 

Cassandra is devout, she does believe strongly, but her doubt in herself, and the institutions she has been a part of all her life is itself is enough to disqualify her from fanaticism. And, in a world with magic, it must be a lot easier to believe in God than our world, where we believe that science will eventually explain everything.

[Sarayne]

All I want is a gay turian female romance( Nyreen should have been this and a main companion in me3 )

[Laughing_Man]

Really, fanatic isn't a very good term to describe someone. It's too easy to just label anyone as fanatic, in a way to discredit their views, because there really isn't much of a standard as to what counts as 'fanaticism'.

 

I'll give you one standard for example: Anyone who kills, imprisons, or tortures someone else in the name of a religion, is a religious fanatic.

 

And yes, religious fanaticism was part of life during the middle ages (and also today among those whose thinking is stuck in the middle ages) when science and reason were rare - which is in a way similar to a world that has magic, but that hardly changes the fact that religious fanatics existed and in most cases were in power.

[Gothfather]

I am a proponent of quality over quantity. I like DA:I I think it is one of their best game, but I think it shows numerous signs of exalting player choice at the cost of the actual experience you get once you make said choice. With 12 companions and advisors we run into a situation where we get single conversations with people going through a crisis that is resolved by the end of the conversation. Cassandra and The Iron Bull both has huge crisis's of faith that go no where. It is over and resolved as soon as you realise they are going through this. There was no depth to the companions' story arcs because they had to give us MOAR choice. We got multiple races to play with yet not a single aspect of the games narrative actually acknowledges our race beyond surface references and the ball's acceptance start point. Wippy do. There one gated bit of information is race and sex gated with solas but it isn't actually gated in a mater that changes your experience it simply is a gate to how much exposition Solas is willing to impart to you. So we get choice with nothing actually behind it except a warm fuzzy feeling being able to play X. They doubled the voice acting cost for the protagonist which makes up around 35% to 40% of a games word budget because surprising the player is part of a significant portion of the games' conversations. Yet this really didn't add much to the game itself. This extra cost can be seen to have an impact with just how few conversations where done cinematically. 

 

More choice isn't always 'better.' Choice comes at a cost it isn't free many of the choices made for the development of DA:I I believe can be directly tied to design decisions to give players more choice that resulted in many of the complaints DA:I got levelled at it. I would much rather have fewer romance options then more. Assuming the romances got the same budget regardless of their number this would means that any given romance has more content and thus lasted longer than okay you met, talk, then courted and for the finale you have sex or implied sex or some final event the 'ends' the content of the romance.

 

I think there are also other ways to represent the divergent sexual orientations people have than with just having romance options be the gay character or lesbian character. I would much rather see scenes where we find out our commanding officer is gay/lesbian when they invite you to dinner or mention their spouse. I heard many a time my boss relaying a story about their lives that included their spouse that instantly allowed me to determine their orientation without saying I'm gay or I'm straight. A celebratory dinner  for arriving to Andromeda with the tempest crew and their partners will quickly create a natural scene that allows you to create a diverse cast of characters that is representative of our real world that isn't ham fisted. Then have the romanceable characters be Bi and I mean truly Bi this means the male and females characters actually express attraction to the same sex. It is a game solution but is allows the romances to be reduced to 4 characters or hell even 2 who says we have to have 2 options? Sometimes you enter a new stage in your life where the only available people don't appeal to you.

 

But i am of the mind set that less is often more. I see the need to make sure no one is left out like gay men were in most of the ME series and I also see the need to making games be representative of the actual world we live in 6 romances is a lot, and maybe we can achieve diversity without trying all diversity to romances. Would it really be terrible if the game had LGBTQ officers/crew you couldn't romance but a bi man/woman fancied you that you could romance? This way you get the genital pairing you prefer and the crew isn't just hetro with the only "gay" people are your "harem" options.

[In Exile]

Really, fanatic isn't a very good term to describe someone. It's too easy to just label anyone as fanatic, in a way to discredit their views, because there really isn't much of a standard as to what counts as 'fanaticism'.

 

Heretic is an even worse word. It's pretty much the middle age version of 'terrorist'. Anyone with subversive beliefs can be labelled a 'heretic'.

 

Cassandra is devout, she does believe strongly, but her doubt in herself, and the institutions she has been a part of all her life is itself is enough to disqualify her from fanaticism. And, in a world with magic, it must be a lot easier to believe in God than our world, where we believe that science will eventually explain everything.

 

Cassandra is by definition a heretic, because she believes in things that are actively disavowed by the official doctrine. I don't ascribe a moral judgement in calling her a heretic - but she is one by definition. Same with fanatic - again, she is one by definition. Today we use both of these words as insults - particularly heretic, because generally departures from orthodoxy are seen as negative. 

 

A heretic is, among other things. "a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted." That's her faith in the Inquisitor as Herald of Andraste. That's a cult for the largest part of its own existence. A fanatic is "a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause." Again, that's Cassandra - excessive and single-minded zeal is basically her calling card (apart from stabbing books). 

 

Heretics were persecuted. Fanatics are, today, distained. But these are not necessarily negative terms, and I stand by their factual accuracy. 

 

That being said, I disagree with the proposition that magic makes divinity easier to believe in. I think it's the opposite: it makes the idea of a god far less likely, because we've all got the power to call on what IRL would be miracles at will. The fact we can come up with a mechanical explanation for it is kind of besides the point. A 2nd century Roman describes most of what we do as "magic" - hell, Tolkien describes facetime as magic. 

[fdrty]

Cassandra is by definition a heretic, because she believes in things that are actively disavowed by the official doctrine. I don't ascribe a moral judgement in calling her a heretic - but she is one by definition. Same with fanatic - again, she is one by definition. Today we use both of these words as insults - particularly heretic, because generally departures from orthodoxy are seen as negative. 

 

A heretic is, among other things. "a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted." That's her faith in the Inquisitor as Herald of Andraste. That's a cult for the largest part of its own existence. A fanatic is "a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause." Again, that's Cassandra - excessive and single-minded zeal is basically her calling card (apart from stabbing books). 

 

Heretics were persecuted. Fanatics are, today, distained. But these are not necessarily negative terms, and I stand by their factual accuracy. 

 

That being said, I disagree with the proposition that magic makes divinity easier to believe in. I think it's the opposite: it makes the idea of a god far less likely, because we've all got the power to call on what IRL would be miracles at will. The fact we can come up with a mechanical explanation for it is kind of besides the point. A 2nd century Roman describes most of what we do as "magic" - hell, Tolkien describes facetime as magic. 

 

 

My issue isn't with whether or not Cassandra is technically a heretic, or a fanatic. It's how those labels are so negative that, most people believe that it is impossible to be a good heretic, or a good fanatic. That's why I lump them with 'terrorist'. Because anyone can say it about anyone subversive, and use that label to discredit them.

 

Atheism really grew out of cultural scientific movements like the enlightenment and the renaissance - as a result, atheism, as a cultural movement is yoked to science. One of atheisms core tenets is that empiricism, rationalism, logic and the scientific method are the best ways to attain true knowledge -  and that there isn't anything that we cannot know from it. Now, imagine a world where magical things exist, which do not seem to follow the rules of physics, and cannot be understood by science. That would significantly harm atheism as a movement, because we have a world in which there are definitely phenomena which cannot be understood by science, rationalism, empiricism or logic: therefore it is less of a stretch to suggest that there are divine things such as the Maker which too cannot be understood by science.

[DMc1001]

Ok so I love that Bioware is inclusive.  I love Romancing characters in their games.  But I do feel they are stretching them kinda thin at this point.  I would much rather have a very small pool or romancable characters but tie the romance more into the main plot.  Just little things but as the game progresses have other characters comment on you romance in a normal run of the mill main plot cut scene.  Have things change in the main plot if you are in a romance.  It dose not have to be earth shattering stuff.  But just a constant running narrative that you are in a relationship could add so much to it.  Also if you are not in a romance it would not affect anything and those cut scenes would just play out a little differently. 

 

But by cutting down on the amount of love interests they could focus and putting the resources into things like that.  Rather than putting together an extra 10 specific romance scenes for all the romance options.

 

This is what I would like to see.

I like it.  I hate doing the rounds of visiting my crew only to discover that my LI has only some generic lines that would be in place even if that person were not my LI. Fewer options but more depth.  It'd even be interesting if the way you played the game narrowed options for who the LI can be.  That is, your personality could turn off some characters but turn on others.  But I'd play them all as pansexual rather than straight/bi/gay.

[ModernAcademic]

Bioware should progressively release DLCs and updates a couple of months after the release containing extra content romance-wise. More dialog, more cutscenes, more romance-related quests, asf.

 

They sort of did that with Citadel, but the DLC felt like a light comedy. They could have deepened the romance part a lot more.

[straykat]

My issue isn't with whether or not Cassandra is technically a heretic, or a fanatic.

 

And they screwed it up by doing that. I already have a heretic in Leliana. 

 

Now everyone is a variation of Leliana.

 

But what I'd want would be an actual Inquisiton story. It all goes downhill because it's more of a Herald story. So my complaints are with that alone. It's just a stupid game, from the getgo. The rest is just a result of that.

[Onewomanarmy]

I completely agree with OP but problem is that Bioware feels the need to cater to EVERYONE and by doing that, they always get in way over their heads so it ends up being 10 romances with very little content each, instead of just doing what's best for the game mind you.

[In Exile]

My issue isn't with whether or not Cassandra is technically a heretic, or a fanatic. It's how those labels are so negative that, most people believe that it is impossible to be a good heretic, or a good fanatic. That's why I lump them with 'terrorist'. Because anyone can say it about anyone subversive, and use that label to discredit them.

 

Atheism really grew out of cultural scientific movements like the enlightenment and the renaissance - as a result, atheism, as a cultural movement is yoked to science. One of atheisms core tenets is that empiricism, rationalism, logic and the scientific method are the best ways to attain true knowledge -  and that there isn't anything that we cannot know from it. Now, imagine a world where magical things exist, which do not seem to follow the rules of physics, and cannot be understood by science. That would significantly harm atheism as a movement, because we have a world in which there are definitely phenomena which cannot be understood by science, rationalism, empiricism or logic: therefore it is less of a stretch to suggest that there are divine things such as the Maker which too cannot be understood by science.

 

I can't speak to most people; I can just speak to me. I can understand that you think the words are pejorative. I didn't use them that way, and I think their literal meaning is accurate. I could call Cassandra a zealot, but I imagine you'd use the same rationale to say that it's a means of discrediting her. There's no word we have to capture her dedication, her zeal (or fervor) and her departure from religious orthodoxy, all while being part of a religious military order and a cult (of personality). Indeed, even describing some of her qualities captures these issues. 

 

More generally - and this will be my only post on this point - atheism isn't intrinsically tied to empiricism. Most modern forms of atheism, sure. But there are plenty of quite spiritual views of the world that are "atheistic" - in the sense that they lack a god. But more importantly, you totally misunderstand what it means to even have "rules of physics" in a world of "magic". Science - as a theory - is just about mechanics; it's the idea that we can understand the process by which things happen by understanding their process, i.e., their mechanism. Magic in Thedas - and in most settings - is scientific: it has a dedicated field of study to understand the mechanism and process by which it happens, it has researchers and theories, and so on. Magic in Dragon Age is totally mechanical. The idea of divine things - being totally outside of these mechanical rules - is as alien to this setting as it is to our own world. The difference is that magic seems to allow for exactly those things we've ruled out as "magical". 

This is why "mass effect" - which is totally gravity magic - can be a "science" fiction phenomenon, because 1) the writers struggle to come up with a mechanism for it and 2) the words the writers use to describe the mechanism are words we use in IRL science. Dragon Age just happens not to use 2) but uses 1). That makes it, basically, scientific. 

[Hexoduen]

"Fewer romances but deeper romances" ?

 

+1 

 

This applies to quests as well: Quality over quantity.

[straykat]

I've thought about it more. I don't mind the way it's already been done. Some of them could have used more content, but most of them were still good. And romance is a side feature anyways. As long as there's some "symbolic" moment or gesture in a romance, I don't care if there's 10 of them. It's good enough if they have some RP value to work with.

 

The argument for content is the same as people saying Liara is the best, simply for content. But I think what's "best" depends on the player (and how you played Shepard).

 

It's different in traditional literature where you are solely an audience member. No one cares either way if Bonnie and Clyde are lovers. But in these stories, it's interactive. This is a new medium. It can't done well the old way, unless you just want aggravate people on purpose.

[straykat]

I can't speak to most people; I can just speak to me. I can understand that you think the words are pejorative. I didn't use them that way, and I think their literal meaning is accurate. I could call Cassandra a zealot, but I imagine you'd use the same rationale to say that it's a means of discrediting her. There's no word we have to capture her dedication, her zeal (or fervor) and her departure from religious orthodoxy, all while being part of a religious military order and a cult (of personality). Indeed, even describing some of her qualities captures these issues. 

 

 

She's no zealot. She's David Gaider's wishlist of what he wants religious people to be. Someone with an abnormally high threshold of tolerance. It's more about real world politics than anything.

 

And I don't know why they did it now, and here specifically. Why choose this to be such a coward suddenly? They used to write more contentious characters. Even Leliana, sweet as she was, could get killed. Morrigan disapproves. Isabela can put a whole city in danger. Anders is basically a mentally ill terrorist, for lack of a better word. Among others. 

 

Sera has more principles than she does.

[Hexoduen]

I agree that what's best depends on the player.

 

Personally, I'm always in favor of deeper storylines than just fetching bear pelts (looking at you Inquisition). If I want endless respawning and fetch quests I'll play an MMO.

 

Same for romancing, I'd rather have 4 romanceable characters with deep content woven into the main story, than 12 romanceable characters with shallow content... Wait... This love topic could get weird, I've got to get out of here 

[Laughing_Man]

My issue isn't with whether or not Cassandra is technically a heretic, or a fanatic. It's how those labels are so negative that, most people believe that it is impossible to be a good heretic, or a good fanatic. That's why I lump them with 'terrorist'. Because anyone can say it about anyone subversive, and use that label to discredit them.

 

Atheism really grew out of cultural scientific movements like the enlightenment and the renaissance - as a result, atheism, as a cultural movement is yoked to science. One of atheisms core tenets is that empiricism, rationalism, logic and the scientific method are the best ways to attain true knowledge -  and that there isn't anything that we cannot know from it. Now, imagine a world where magical things exist, which do not seem to follow the rules of physics, and cannot be understood by science. That would significantly harm atheism as a movement, because we have a world in which there are definitely phenomena which cannot be understood by science, rationalism, empiricism or logic: therefore it is less of a stretch to suggest that there are divine things such as the Maker which too cannot be understood by science.

 

I think that this is more about your personal perception and prejudices.

 

Are there "good" religious fanatics?

Sure, but only up to the point that their generosity and goodness coincide with the commandments of their version of the invisible man in the sky.

 

Cassandra rationalizes all she does as part of "doing the Maker's will", assuming she can't, she probably will be against such hypothetical thing or action.

 

In a way it is similar to any other moral system, only with the added danger that religious fanatics are more likely to be able to convince themselves that something rather horrible is what god requires of them, and since "no one can know the mind of god" they will not even try to think if this truly is a god idea because they might become "heretics" themselves if they do.

 

As for "Heretic", personally I see it as a badge of honor, similar to "skeptic" perhaps.

If anything, it usually paints the one using the word as a religious fanatic.

 

 

As for finding the concept of gods easier to accept in a world of magic, the truth is that our world wasn't so different during the dark ages.

Most people believed in magic and dark forces, and the sick were more likely to seek help from a religious figure than what was referred to as medical help.

 

Indeed, atheism and skepticism in general didn't appear until later, when understanding and "heresy" became more common.

 

Theoretically, this might be true even in a world with actual magic as understanding of the magical phenomena grows, because from what we know at this point, even in the world of DA it is just as likely that all "gods" are merely spirits or powerful magical beings as it is that any kind of actual divinity exist there.

[straykat]

Heresy was there in Christianity from the start. The first few hundred years was conflicts with different groups and the main/well known scholars of the day weeding them out.

 

It's not disbelief, but about going against orthodoxy. All of the "heretics" were believers. 

 

Funnily enough, a lot of their ideas came in another form later: Islam. 

[fdrty]

I think that this is more about your personal perception and prejudices.

 

Are there "good" religious fanatics?

Sure, but only up to the point that their generosity and goodness coincide with the commandments of their version of the invisible man in the sky.

 

Cassandra rationalizes all she does as part of "doing the Maker's will", assuming she can't, she probably will be against such hypothetical thing or action.

 

In a way it is similar to any other moral system, only with the added danger that religious fanatics are more likely to be able to convince themselves that something rather horrible is what god requires of them, and since "no one can know the mind of god" they will not even try to think if this truly is a god idea because they might become "heretics" themselves if they do.

 

As for "Heretic", personally I see it as a badge of honor, similar to "skeptic" perhaps.

If anything, it usually paints the one using the word as a religious fanatic.

 

 

As for finding the concept of gods easier to accept in a world of magic, the truth is that our world wasn't so different during the dark ages.

Most people believed in magic and dark forces, and the sick were more likely to seek help from a religious figure than what was referred to as medical help.

 

Indeed, atheism and skepticism in general didn't appear until later, when understanding and "heresy" became more common.

 

Theoretically, this might be true even in a world with actual magic as understanding of the magical phenomena grows, because from what we know at this point, even in the world of DA it is just as likely that all "gods" are merely spirits or powerful magical beings as it is that any kind of actual divinity exist there.

 

 

It sounds like you think religion is a bad thing. I'm more concerned with how words are used than the fruitlessness of religious debates on the internet. Whether you are an atheist or not, surely there are better ways to distinguish some theists than politically charged and ill-definded terms like heretic and fanatic.

 

Which is more your personal perception and prejudice.

 

This is getting a bit off topic now.

[straykat]

Either way, Cassandra is none of those things. Just speaking on game mechanic terms alone, the approval system sucks. You'd have to try very hard to get anywhere bad.

 

And there isn't anywhere bad to go anyways.

[Laughing_Man]

Funnily enough, a lot of their ideas came in another form later: Islam. 

 

Islam actually developed separately, at least at the beginning, and even later there is little cross pollination between the two.

What they have in common has more to do with Judaism than each other.

 

 

It sounds like you think religion is a bad thing.

 

My point was that your understanding of the words is more about your perception than about universally accepted meaning and association.

[straykat]

Islam actually developed separately, at least at the beginning, and even later there is little cross pollination between the two.

What they have in common has more to do with Judaism than each other.

 

A lot of it's ideas in relation to the church were spreading in the middle east already. Especially the Arianism and "version" used for the stories of Jesus (in short, many were already spreading a similar version to Muhammad's more "human" version of Jesus). And as they were kicked out of orthodox circles, they incubated in many areas on the outskirts of the Roman empire (Egypt, Arab desert, etc).

 

But either way, my point is that Heretics were always believers. Not skeptics per se. Arius was a priest, for example.

[Laughing_Man]

 

A lot of it's ideas in relation to the church were spreading in the middle east already. Especially the Arianism and "version" used for the stories of Jesus (in short, they were already spreading a similar version to Muhammad's more "human" version of Jesus). And as they were kicked out of orthodox circles, they incubated in many areas on the outskirts of the Roman empire (Egypt, Arab desert, etc).

 

But either way, my point is that Heretics were always believers. Not skeptics per se. Arius was a priest, for example.

 

 

Yes, but this is less about two religions developing in the same space, and more about "border conflicts" where they met.

 

As for heretics, literal unbelievers were simply more rare at this stage, but when "the faithful" encountered them, they were branded heretics as well most of the time.

[straykat]

Yes, but this is less about two religions developing in the same space, and more about "border conflicts" where they met.

 

As for heretics, literal unbelievers were simply more rare at this stage, but when "the faithful" encountered them, they were branded heretics as well most of the time.

 

They didn't develop in the same space. Christianity was already 700 years old. Islam "developed" quickly away from the civilized world, and it's leader was a warrior (to put it kindly).

 

Infidel is the word for someone considered an unbeliever. Atheist was actually an idea too. Christians were called atheists for the longest time. And incestuous cannibals.

[Laughing_Man]

They didn't develop in the same space. Christianity was already 700 years old. Islam "developed" quickly away from the civilized world, and it's leader was a warrior (to put it kindly).

 

Infidel is the word for someone considered an unbeliever. Atheist was actually an idea too. Christians were called atheists for the longest time. And incestuous cannibals.

 

The point is, you are a "Heretic" if you don't believe in the "correct" god. Doesn't matter if you believe in another god, or simply don't believe.

That said, some religious fanatics find particular sects of faith especially hateful.

(a recent example is Daesh, while they enjoy killing heretics of all kind, they took particular delight in killing members of certain religious sects)