inherit
1824
0
11,654
Davrin's boobs
#WerewolfLIforDA5 LMAO
2,689
Oct 19, 2016 19:24:39 GMT
October 2016
nickclark89
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Dragon Age The Veilguard
|
Post by Davrin's boobs on Jun 1, 2017 19:25:52 GMT
I support you Falon'Din on reading the last 300 pages!!! YOU CAN DOOOOOOOOOOO ITTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
4997
0
Nov 28, 2024 10:58:12 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 28, 2024 10:58:12 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 20:05:48 GMT
People actually like life is strange? To each their own I guess but my mind is thoroughly boggled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
7959
0
Nov 28, 2024 10:58:12 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 28, 2024 10:58:12 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 20:57:21 GMT
And yet previous Bioware games, Origins and Baldur's Gate in particular, allowed for this. I find it both funny and sad that supposedly modern games are less narratively advanced than their progenitors. BG especially, being hampered by the classic Dungeons & Dragons Alignment morality and all. I'm not sure what this is referring to. We had required followers in DAO. It was only two, but we still had them. If the discussion is about plot-relevant, or mandatory followers, and the fact that all of them have been straight (minus Anders), Alistair and Morrigan are part of the example. In addition, plot-important characters that stayed with you for a mission or two were hailed as New and awesome RP development when Obsidian started doing it a lot. Both BGs took player agency in that characters left if you did not do their quests after timers expired, and passed off companions left for good. There were paired companions you could not split, so had to kill one. There were companions that killed one another after a time in a party, even if you personally loved both Kivan and Viconia. Some quests required a companion to be present, like Valygar's Sphere to enter (dead or alive). BG 2 stripped the original BG1 party, assumed that player traveled with Minsc, Dynaheir, Khalid, Jaheira and Imoen (all of them straight iirc), and killed two paired NPCs, without asking the player like ME1 which one should live, which one should die. |
|
inherit
2490
0
4,527
JewlieGhoulie
👀
1,044
December 2016
jewlieghoulie
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by JewlieGhoulie on Jun 1, 2017 23:06:46 GMT
I support you Falon'Din on reading the last 300 pages!!! YOU CAN DOOOOOOOOOOO ITTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've been getting random likes from April posts haha I feel the love. You got dis Falon'Din! |
|
MediocreOgre
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR
Posts: 484 Likes: 1,403
inherit
3179
0
1,403
MediocreOgre
484
Jan 31, 2017 21:37:42 GMT
January 2017
mediocreogre
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR
|
Post by MediocreOgre on Jun 1, 2017 23:15:20 GMT
And yet previous Bioware games, Origins and Baldur's Gate in particular, allowed for this. I find it both funny and sad that supposedly modern games are less narratively advanced than their progenitors. BG especially, being hampered by the classic Dungeons & Dragons Alignment morality and all. I'm not sure what this is referring to. We had required followers in DAO. It was only two, but we still had them. If the discussion is about plot-relevant, or mandatory followers, and the fact that all of them have been straight (minus Anders), Alistair and Morrigan are part of the example. Some people count being able to decide Alistair's fate and turn down the Dark Ritual as "player agency" even if those characters were used by the plot for specific reasons to fill specific purposes, and thus are plot important and essential and you can't just completely side line their content. Just because a character dies, does not necessarily mean they are not plot important or that they are not "essential" until x condition has been met if the plot of the game depends on them. I physically cannot think of a single game that has a coherent narrative where you can kill/get rid of every NPC and still do the game besides like Dark Souls, and even then, you can't kill the Fire Keepers or other rando NPCs that are important for the game to progress. Now I guess you could have a game where your player can do stupid stuff and like, kill or send away the only person who can help you solve X problem or do Y thing, but you'd get a game over message that read "was this worth it? now reload!" |
|
inherit
Wanted Apostate
127
0
Nov 27, 2024 20:18:48 GMT
18,270
Catilina
11,035
August 2016
catilina
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 2, 2017 1:44:00 GMT
Happy pride month everyone! |
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,073
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Jun 2, 2017 2:59:05 GMT
I'm not sure what this is referring to. We had required followers in DAO. It was only two, but we still had them. If the discussion is about plot-relevant, or mandatory followers, and the fact that all of them have been straight (minus Anders), Alistair and Morrigan are part of the example. Some people count being able to decide Alistair's fate and turn down the Dark Ritual as "player agency" even if those characters were used by the plot for specific reasons to fill specific purposes, and thus are plot important and essential and you can't just completely side line their content. Just because a character dies, does not necessarily mean they are not plot important or that they are not "essential" until x condition has been met if the plot of the game depends on them. I physically cannot think of a single game that has a coherent narrative where you can kill/get rid of every NPC and still do the game besides like Dark Souls, and even then, you can't kill the Fire Keepers or other rando NPCs that are important for the game to progress. Now I guess you could have a game where your player can do stupid stuff and like, kill or send away the only person who can help you solve X problem or do Y thing, but you'd get a game over message that read "was this worth it? now reload!" Morrowind did that, if I recall correctly. Plot-critical NPCs could be killed, but you'd disrupt the main quest chain and doom the world. You could still play, just not finish the main quest. |
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,073
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Jun 2, 2017 3:01:59 GMT
But I'd just like to say that it seems extremely convenient that what's "good for the game" in Walter Black's opinion JUST HAPPENS to be bad for LGBT characters, and the exact opposite of what LGBT players want to see.
Those selfish gays, ruining RPGs for everyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
584
0
Nov 28, 2024 10:58:12 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 28, 2024 10:58:12 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 3:59:00 GMT
Yay for all the old post likes thanks Falon'Din ! Yes happy pride month everyone! May your days be gay, and your nights be Supah Gay! |
|
inherit
1587
0
1,772
Walter Black
1,290
Sept 15, 2016 15:02:16 GMT
September 2016
walterblack
|
Post by Walter Black on Jun 2, 2017 6:08:52 GMT
But I'd just like to say that it seems extremely convenient that what's "good for the game" in Walter Black's opinion JUST HAPPENS to be bad for LGBT characters, and the exact opposite of what LGBT players want to see. Those selfish gays, ruining RPGs for everyone. Oh, this should be good  .
Apparently you only skimmed my previous posts in this thread, or you would have noticed I was arguing against mandatory characters of any type, and the railroading of player choice in a role playing game. My whole point was that a proper RPG should allow the player to become a hero, villain, anti-hero, trolling trickster, average joe in way over their head, or anything in between to craft the kind of story they want to see. That includes having the freedom to choose which characters they want to share their story with, and to what degree. So please, enlighten me as to what any of this has to do with said characters' orientations at all, especially when the vast majority of mandatory Companions have all been STRAIGHT. How exactly is having complete control of you characters' actions, motivations and associates " the exact opposite of what LGBT players want to see"?
Honestly, I have to laugh at the notion that because I oppose mandatory Companions in general, that I must be opposed to mandatory LGBTQ characters  . Newsflash: NOT EVERYONE EXCLUSIVELY PLAYS SELF INSERTS, SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY *GASP* ROLE PLAY . I RP many characters whose beliefs are the complete opposite of each other while still being heroes, along with my villainous, trickster and ordinary PCs. And many of them include gay and lesbian romances, or no romances at all. Also, I reject the notion that if I can dismiss a character that their sexuality must be involved  . Take Dorian for example: I could consider him a Venatori sleeper, be disgusted by his naïve slavery apology, or simply not care for his arrogance and sassy humor. Any one of which could still apply if he were straight.
One last thing: even if DA4 has mandatory LGBTQ Companions, there are no guarantees said characters will be popular or accepted. Especially given how divisive Dorian, Sera and Krem can be.
|
|
orchid
N3
Motor City Kitty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 290 Likes: 812
inherit
Motor City Kitty
7753
0
Nov 28, 2017 12:25:28 GMT
812
orchid
290
Apr 17, 2017 16:02:54 GMT
April 2017
orchid
Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by orchid on Jun 2, 2017 7:14:53 GMT
I physically cannot think of a single game that has a coherent narrative where you can kill/get rid of every NPC and still do the game besides like Dark Souls, and even then, you can't kill the Fire Keepers or other rando NPCs that are important for the game to progress. Now I guess you could have a game where your player can do stupid stuff and like, kill or send away the only person who can help you solve X problem or do Y thing, but you'd get a game over message that read "was this worth it? now reload!" In Fallout: New Vegas you can kill literally everyone except the few children, and still complete the game. Not sure about Pillars of Eternity, but at the start, if you start slaughtering the entire caravan camp instead of doing the quest of finding herbs, the quest itself changes to something like "I've decided killing a bunch of fools will make me feel better than some medicine". A good RPG gives alternative routes when you decide that your character doesn't want to work with somebody. In Arcanum, you could kill a plot important person and then use necromancy to raise their spirit and interrogate it. Or you can find a keycard on the corpse of a person you murdered if you don't feel like running errands for them. It's all about offering alternative routes and the fun of figuring them out, whatever best suits the character you're playing. Sorry for going badly off-topic. Romances... I'll just say that I think BioWare has steadily been improving when it comes to writing romances (at least the few ones I've chosen).  |
|
inherit
A Knight in Fluffy Armor
3131
0
8,512
Dirk
Quite oneirophobic
1,907
January 2017
dirkjake
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
|
Post by Dirk on Jun 2, 2017 7:20:00 GMT
I physically cannot think of a single game that has a coherent narrative where you can kill/get rid of every NPC and still do the game besides like Dark Souls, and even then, you can't kill the Fire Keepers or other rando NPCs that are important for the game to progress. Now I guess you could have a game where your player can do stupid stuff and like, kill or send away the only person who can help you solve X problem or do Y thing, but you'd get a game over message that read "was this worth it? now reload!" , and still complete the game. Not sure about Pillars of Eternity, but at the start, if you start slaughtering the entire caravan camp instead of doing the quest of finding herbs, the quest itself changes to something like "I've decided killing a bunch of fools will make me feel better than some medicine". A good RPG gives alternative routes when you decide that your character doesn't want to work with somebody. In Arcanum, you could kill a plot important person and then use necromancy to raise their spirit and interrogate it. Or you can find a keycard on the corpse of a person you murdered if you don't feel like running errands for them. It's all about offering alternative routes and the fun of figuring them out, whatever best suits the character you're playing. Sorry for going badly off-topic. Romances... I'll just say that I think BioWare has steadily been improving when it comes to writing romances (at least the few ones I've chosen). You can't really kill Yes Man though, because he keeps respawning. He is essentially a fail save. |
|
inherit
529
0
7,815
Nightscrawl
3,266
August 2016
nightscrawl
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Nightscrawl on Jun 2, 2017 8:05:56 GMT
One last thing: even if DA4 has mandatory LGBTQ Companions, there are no guarantees said characters will be popular or accepted. Especially given how divisive Dorian, Sera and Krem can be. The person's likeability doesn't matter. I mean, sure, some people might be irritated that the character is the biggest douche in Thedas, but a character is never universally disliked; even Vivienne has her fans. The point is that they take the step of having a LGBT character in an important, plot-relevant position. |
|
inherit
Banshee
771
0
Sept 4, 2018 23:27:21 GMT
5,053
BansheeOwnage
I was called Ryder before it was cool... ...I'd love to, you know, be social and things.
1,231
August 2016
bansheeownage
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
11290
7428
|
Post by BansheeOwnage on Jun 2, 2017 8:18:54 GMT
One last thing: even if DA4 has mandatory LGBTQ Companions, there are no guarantees said characters will be popular or accepted. Especially given how divisive Dorian, Sera and Krem can be. The person's likeability doesn't matter. I mean, sure, some people might be irritated that the character is the biggest douche in Thedas, but a character is never universally disliked; even Vivienne has her fans. The point is that they took the step of having a LGBT character in an important, plot-relevant position. Exactly. Whereas in ME:A, both gay characters (who are also almost the only gay characters in the entire very expansive game) are relegated to being crewmembers, who - despite this not having to be the case - ended up with far less content and time in the spotlight than the squadmates. And what might be even more sad, is that it happened again. ME3 had the exact same situation. Five years later, and they're still the most comfortable not having The Gays™ as squadmates. Nope, can't have that, squadmates are prime real estate for important romances, like Cora, Jaal, and Peebee! And they're still comfortable shafting them in terms of content. DA:I also marketed Sera and Dorian, unlike Gil and Suvi who got almost nothing pre-launch... except hesitance from Bioware to show them, that is. |
|
Felya87
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 976 Likes: 2,417
inherit
1004
0
2,417
Felya87
976
Aug 15, 2016 22:36:22 GMT
August 2016
felya87
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Felya87 on Jun 2, 2017 8:57:42 GMT
What I'd like to see for once, is a male character having plot armour. For now, at least in the BioWare games I've played, only female characters got plot armour: Isabela, Leliana and Morrigan, all can be (sort of) killed in game (Isabela given to the Arishok) and all came back with no big problem. But male characters for the most part stay dead: Anders, Alsitair, Zevran... none of them have some excuse to came back to life.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,073
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Jun 2, 2017 8:59:49 GMT
But I'd just like to say that it seems extremely convenient that what's "good for the game" in Walter Black's opinion JUST HAPPENS to be bad for LGBT characters, and the exact opposite of what LGBT players want to see. Those selfish gays, ruining RPGs for everyone. Oh, this should be good .
Apparently you only skimmed my previous posts in this thread, or you would have noticed I was arguing against mandatory characters of any type, and the railroading of player choice in a role playing game. My whole point was that a proper RPG should allow the player to become a hero, villain, anti-hero, trolling trickster, average joe in way over their head, or anything in between to craft the kind of story they want to see. That includes having the freedom to choose which characters they want to share their story with, and to what degree. So please, enlighten me as to what any of this has to do with said characters' orientations at all, especially when the vast majority of mandatory Companions have all been STRAIGHT. How exactly is having complete control of you characters' actions, motivations and associates " the exact opposite of what LGBT players want to see"?
Honestly, I have to laugh at the notion that because I oppose mandatory Companions in general, that I must be opposed to mandatory LGBTQ characters . Newsflash: NOT EVERYONE EXCLUSIVELY PLAYS SELF INSERTS, SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY *GASP* ROLE PLAY . I RP many characters whose beliefs are the complete opposite of each other while still being heroes, along with my villainous, trickster and ordinary PCs. And many of them include gay and lesbian romances, or no romances at all. Also, I reject the notion that if I can dismiss a character that their sexuality must be involved . Take Dorian for example: I could consider him a Venatori sleeper, be disgusted by his naïve slavery apology, or simply not care for his arrogance and sassy humor. Any one of which could still apply if he were straight.
One last thing: even if DA4 has mandatory LGBTQ Companions, there are no guarantees said characters will be popular or accepted. Especially given how divisive Dorian, Sera and Krem can be.
You only brought this argument up in response to posters saying they want the optional LGBT characters to be elevated to the status of the mandatory, protected straight characters. Your complaint doesn't even have any particular relevance to romances in general, which is the topic of the thread. Reducing formerly mandatory straight characters to the status of the disposable LGBT characters doesn't solve our problems. You're just derailing the discussion. And frankly, who gives a fuck if DA4 isn't made to your exacting specifications? None of us are going to get everything in the game that we want. Which is also why your point about characters being "divisive" is stupid. Not a single one of BioWare's characters is universally loved, and singling out Dorian, Sera and Krem as being particularly controversial is what, class? |
|
inherit
529
0
7,815
Nightscrawl
3,266
August 2016
nightscrawl
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Nightscrawl on Jun 2, 2017 9:09:35 GMT
What I'd like to see for once, is a male character having plot armour. For now, at least in the BioWare games I've played, only female characters got plot armour: Isabela, Leliana and Morrigan, all can be (sort of) killed in game (Isabela given to the Arishok) and all came back with no big problem. But male characters for the most part stay dead: Anders, Alsitair, Zevran... none of them have some excuse to came back to life. Is the Isabela bit about coming back referring to DAI's multiplayer? Does that even count? (I've never played it.) As for Anders, I've seen a lot of speculation that Justice might save him from actually dying in the scene, which would be the same as Wynne and Leliana with their spirits. But of course that is only speculation. And now that the m/t conflict is over, I don't expect there is an actual reason to see Anders again. |
|
Felya87
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 976 Likes: 2,417
inherit
1004
0
2,417
Felya87
976
Aug 15, 2016 22:36:22 GMT
August 2016
felya87
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Felya87 on Jun 2, 2017 9:20:54 GMT
What I'd like to see for once, is a male character having plot armour. For now, at least in the BioWare games I've played, only female characters got plot armour: Isabela, Leliana and Morrigan, all can be (sort of) killed in game (Isabela given to the Arishok) and all came back with no big problem. But male characters for the most part stay dead: Anders, Alsitair, Zevran... none of them have some excuse to came back to life. Is the Isabela bit about coming back referring to DAI's multiplayer? Does that even count? (I've never played it.) As for Anders, I've seen a lot of speculation that Justice might save him from actually dying in the scene, which would be the same as Wynne and Leliana with their spirits. But of course that is only speculation. And now that the m/t conflict is over, I don't expect there is an actual reason to see Anders again. If I remember correctly, about Isabela running away from the Arishok it was stated already in DA2, but I may remember wrong. It was owever already know that she survived well before the multiplayer. For Anders, he may return to life like Leliana and Wynnie, but it was never stated that he is alive. The point is, no male character that have been somehow killed by the player has ever had: nor any role to fulfill of importance, nor any "free pass" from death. Even Alistair, present in comics post DAO, if killed is not brought back from the dead. BioWare seem (at least until now) very reluctant to leave dead most female characters. Even Miranda, if "dead" in the final mission in ME2, is still present in ME3. |
|
inherit
Wanted Apostate
127
0
Nov 27, 2024 20:18:48 GMT
18,270
Catilina
11,035
August 2016
catilina
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 2, 2017 9:24:26 GMT
Is the Isabela bit about coming back referring to DAI's multiplayer? Does that even count? (I've never played it.) As for Anders, I've seen a lot of speculation that Justice might save him from actually dying in the scene, which would be the same as Wynne and Leliana with their spirits. But of course that is only speculation. And now that the m/t conflict is over, I don't expect there is an actual reason to see Anders again. If I remember correctly, about Isabela running away from the Arishok it was stated already in DA2, but I may remember wrong. It was owever already know that she survived well before the multiplayer. For Anders, he may return to life like Leliana and Wynnie, but it was never stated that he is alive. The point is, no male character that have been somehow killed by the player has ever had: nor any role to fulfill of importance, nor any "free pass" from death. Even Alistair, present in comics post DAO, if killed is not brought back from the dead. BioWare seem (at least until now) very reluctant to leave dead most female characters. Even Miranda, if "dead" in the final mission in ME2, is still present in ME3. Anders already came back once, if he 'died" in the Vigil's Keep. I just say. |
|
Felya87
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 976 Likes: 2,417
inherit
1004
0
2,417
Felya87
976
Aug 15, 2016 22:36:22 GMT
August 2016
felya87
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Felya87 on Jun 2, 2017 9:30:00 GMT
If I remember correctly, about Isabela running away from the Arishok it was stated already in DA2, but I may remember wrong. It was owever already know that she survived well before the multiplayer. For Anders, he may return to life like Leliana and Wynnie, but it was never stated that he is alive. The point is, no male character that have been somehow killed by the player has ever had: nor any role to fulfill of importance, nor any "free pass" from death. Even Alistair, present in comics post DAO, if killed is not brought back from the dead. BioWare seem (at least until now) very reluctant to leave dead most female characters. Even Miranda, if "dead" in the final mission in ME2, is still present in ME3. Anders already came back once, if he 'died" in the Vigil's Keep. I just say. That was something I didn't know. He never died in my runs at Awawkening. Actually, I think I never lost anyone but Justice in the final battle, just once Velanna was believed dead, but it was very, very, vague, and could be interpreted as she just disappearing. |
|
inherit
Wanted Apostate
127
0
Nov 27, 2024 20:18:48 GMT
18,270
Catilina
11,035
August 2016
catilina
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 2, 2017 9:43:49 GMT
Anders already came back once, if he 'died" in the Vigil's Keep. I just say. That was something I didn't know. He never died in my runs at Awawkening. Actually, I think I never lost anyone but Justice in the final battle, just once Velanna was believed dead, but it was very, very, vague, and could be interpreted as she just disappearing. I had Anders, Justice, and Nathaniel in my Amaranthine savior group, so: they are survived (and Vigil's Keep was improved.) Nathaniel Howe in DA2, if Warden saved Amaranthine, but didn't improve the Vigil's Keep, and Anders left in (weak) Keep with the others: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
4084
0
Nov 28, 2024 10:58:12 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 28, 2024 10:58:12 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 11:15:01 GMT
Oh, this should be good .
Apparently you only skimmed my previous posts in this thread, or you would have noticed I was arguing against mandatory characters of any type, and the railroading of player choice in a role playing game. My whole point was that a proper RPG should allow the player to become a hero, villain, anti-hero, trolling trickster, average joe in way over their head, or anything in between to craft the kind of story they want to see. That includes having the freedom to choose which characters they want to share their story with, and to what degree. So please, enlighten me as to what any of this has to do with said characters' orientations at all, especially when the vast majority of mandatory Companions have all been STRAIGHT. How exactly is having complete control of you characters' actions, motivations and associates " the exact opposite of what LGBT players want to see"?
Honestly, I have to laugh at the notion that because I oppose mandatory Companions in general, that I must be opposed to mandatory LGBTQ characters . Newsflash: NOT EVERYONE EXCLUSIVELY PLAYS SELF INSERTS, SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY *GASP* ROLE PLAY . I RP many characters whose beliefs are the complete opposite of each other while still being heroes, along with my villainous, trickster and ordinary PCs. And many of them include gay and lesbian romances, or no romances at all. Also, I reject the notion that if I can dismiss a character that their sexuality must be involved . Take Dorian for example: I could consider him a Venatori sleeper, be disgusted by his naïve slavery apology, or simply not care for his arrogance and sassy humor. Any one of which could still apply if he were straight.
One last thing: even if DA4 has mandatory LGBTQ Companions, there are no guarantees said characters will be popular or accepted. Especially given how divisive Dorian, Sera and Krem can be.
You only brought this argument up in response to posters saying they want the optional LGBT characters to be elevated to the status of the mandatory, protected straight characters. Your complaint doesn't even have any particular relevance to romances in general, which is the topic of the thread. Reducing formerly mandatory straight characters to the status of the disposable LGBT characters doesn't solve our problems. You're just derailing the discussion. And frankly, who gives a fuck if DA4 isn't made to your exacting specifications? None of us are going to get everything in the game that we want. Which is also why your point about characters being "divisive" is stupid. Not a single one of BioWare's characters is universally loved, and singling out Dorian, Sera and Krem as being particularly controversial is what, class? Also, isn't the highlighted portion essentially a "Theory of Forms" argument? It describes the essence of what an RPG should be; what Plato might call the Form of "RPGness", perfect, aspatial and atemporal. Yes, ideally an RPG should allow all of these choices, but in the translation to physical reality, certain compromises are made in service to a limited story that the developers want to tell, thereby reducing choices from infinite to a more manageable finite number that human beings with finite resources can anticipate and code for. Yes, those are all things an RPG "should" do, but I don't see how it's viable in practice to incorporate a limitless array of choices into a finite, discrete product. And this point has already been made quite well by MediocreOgre but to no avail, it seems. |
|
inherit
529
0
7,815
Nightscrawl
3,266
August 2016
nightscrawl
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Nightscrawl on Jun 2, 2017 11:45:12 GMT
Also, isn't the highlighted portion essentially a "Theory of Forms" argument? It describes the essence of what an RPG should be; what Plato might call the Form of "RPGness", perfect, aspatial and atemporal. Yes, ideally an RPG should allow all of these choices, but in the translation to physical reality, certain compromises are made in service to a limited story that the developers want to tell, thereby reducing choices from infinite to a more manageable finite number that human beings with finite resources can anticipate and code for. Yes, those are all things an RPG "should" do, but I don't see how it's viable in practice to incorporate a limitless array of choices into a finite, discrete product. And this point has already been made quite well by MediocreOgre but to no avail, it seems. Yepper, this is definitely true. I would consider the tabletop PnP the only true, pure RPG format available. (I've never played one, but still believe this.) The players can say whatever they want, and the GM can adjust things on the fly if necessary. But that is not possible in ANY cRPG. Even Neverwinter Nights has limitations because you are forced to pick from a limited amount of dialogue options. With the cRPG format, everything is prewritten, so there is only so much variation, and that variation can only account for so many player possibilities. In DAO, we can't, for example, tell the dwarves to hurry the f up, or refuse to make a choice because it's none of our business; the same is true for the Ferelden choice. If you take certain options, you can't prevent Alistair from striking the final blow and dying, even if in other circumstances you might have raced past him, or tripped him, or any number of other things to physically prevent him from doing it; the game does not allow you to do that. You can only roleplay within the constraints available. And of course developers typically want to make their games as accessible as possible, which is why there are difficulty levels. There are certain series which are billed as a challenge, like Dark Souls, but they are not all that way. Plot relevance aside, making certain followers mandatory is one way to protect or help the player from making an irrevocable choice that may hinder later progress. I've been in that position, and it does suck to know that a choice you made in the beginning of the game, when you were still learning things, has hindered your gameplay later on. In the end, whether they should have mandatory followers or not is moot, as are their reasons for them. They WILL have them. If they are going to have them, then why not have some of them be LGBT characters? |
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,073
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Jun 2, 2017 11:51:45 GMT
There are still constraints in most tabletop RPGs, tbh. DnD is very thorough about what's possible in its game rules, although I suppose nothing REALLY stops people from disregarding this
A GM who can't be flexible is boring and un-fun. My first and only session was with such a person and it was very boring for me. But someone who insists on deviating and only doing what THEY want is a douchebag who ruins everyone else's fun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
4084
0
Nov 28, 2024 10:58:12 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 28, 2024 10:58:12 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 12:09:28 GMT
Also, isn't the highlighted portion essentially a "Theory of Forms" argument? It describes the essence of what an RPG should be; what Plato might call the Form of "RPGness", perfect, aspatial and atemporal. Yes, ideally an RPG should allow all of these choices, but in the translation to physical reality, certain compromises are made in service to a limited story that the developers want to tell, thereby reducing choices from infinite to a more manageable finite number that human beings with finite resources can anticipate and code for. Yes, those are all things an RPG "should" do, but I don't see how it's viable in practice to incorporate a limitless array of choices into a finite, discrete product. And this point has already been made quite well by MediocreOgre but to no avail, it seems. Well said.  |
|
. 
. Newsflash: NOT EVERYONE EXCLUSIVELY PLAYS SELF INSERTS, SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY *GASP* ROLE PLAY . I RP many characters whose beliefs are the complete opposite of each other while still being heroes, along with my villainous, trickster and ordinary PCs. And many of them include gay and lesbian romances, or no romances at all. Also, I reject the notion that if I can dismiss a character that their sexuality must be involved 
. Take Dorian for example: I could consider him a Venatori sleeper, be disgusted by his naïve slavery apology, or simply not care for his arrogance and sassy humor. Any one of which could still apply if he were straight. 
