Why? Romance is an optional component, and one that's personal to each player - if my character genuinely likes a specific party member, and this is a game in which player choice is a factor, who cares what goes down between them?
To me, its a matter of credibility, characterization and diminished choice/consequence.
First things first: I already have a hard time believing a world where everyone is bisexual, and it just gets worse if you consider that Thedas isn't one of those: the implementation of romance options (gameplay) is inconsistent with the lore (story) and inconsistent with the prior game, Origins. This makes the world much less credible and now romance options feel more like yet another quest I'm suppose to embark in.
This may not sound like a big deal, but inconsistency against the rules defined by the writer to his own universe (such as retconning) is a great sin against the willing suspension of disbelief (or 'immersion' as some would call it). Anders is a prime example of a character that last we saw him was heterosexual and suddenly became a gay stereotype for fangirls.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with NOT engaging in romance at all.
Secondly, I think sexual orientation is a interesting possibility for characterization. And in that respect, all love interests in DA2 are cardboard cutouts.
Lastly, in the original game's character creation there was a series of choices that did provide a number of consequences in the game. Instead of expanding on that with Dragon Age II (by adding further consequence and/or wider choices), we lost most of our options on character creation (due to the fall of different races/origins and narrower class design*) but the only option that remained (sex) lost its associated consequence - possible love interests.
This may not sound like a big deal, but I believe that choice/consequence may just be the single most important aspect of RPGs.
*Though I suppose narrower class design only really affected character development abd players with foreknowledge that now, each class has MMO-esque rigidly defined party roles.
Viconia or Jaheira for either of their stories. Jaheira seemed more "canon" while Viconia certainly had the exotic dangerous appeal. The only part about Viconia (romance or otherwise) was the underdevloped racial hatred that I expected towards her from NPC's - I never did get that. With two such interesting characters, others never got a look in.
First things first: I already have a hard time believing a world where everyone is bisexual, and it just gets worse if you consider that Thedas isn't one of those: the implementation of romance options (gameplay) is inconsistent with the lore (story) and inconsistent with the prior game, Origins. This makes the world much less credible and now romance options feel more like yet another quest I'm suppose to embark in.
Why would you assume everyone is bisexual, though?
Consider that each time you play through the world of Thedas, you're basically creating an alternate reality - there are only ever two Wardens who survive Ostagar, and one of them is Alistair. The other is a dwarf princess or a Dalish hunter or a male human noble.
Assuming you don't make the exact same choices each time, you end up with different versions of Thedas depending on what you did. Why can't those choices extend to your party members as well? Maybe you helped Shale learn about her past and she wants to become flesh and blood again, but if you didn't she's just fine stomping pigeons. Maybe Alistair is king, or maybe he isn't, or maybe he's out on the streets because you spared Loghain.
As I see it, sexuality works the same way. In the world in which you pursue Anders as a female Hawke, Anders is straight. If you're a male Hawke on some other Thedas following the same path, Anders is gay. Your specific love interest conforms to be compatible to you, because you are making the choice to initiate a romance with them.
This may not sound like a big deal, but inconsistency against the rules defined by the writer to his own universe (such as retconning) is a great sin against the willing suspension of disbelief (or 'immersion' as some would call it). Anders is a prime example of a character that last we saw him was heterosexual and suddenly became a gay stereotype for fangirls.
Categorically untrue: Anders never makes any definitive statement about himself in "Awakening". He expresses an interest in women but never denies interest in men. Besides, you can flirt with him as a female Hawke just as easily.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with NOT engaging in romance at all.
Agreed, which is why I don't understand why it's a point of contention - if you, as a player, don't want to do it, then don't do it. But why deny that option to others?
Secondly, I think sexual orientation is a interesting possibility for characterization. And in that respect, all love interests in DA2 are cardboard cutouts.
I actually respect DA2 tremendously for not making a big deal out of it. In my opinion, we've long since passed the point where discussions of orientation are in any way interesting - do we really need to repeat the same old tired coming-out cliches, especially in a fantasy setting?
Lastly, in the original game's character creation there was a series of choices that did provide a number of consequences in the game. Instead of expanding on that with Dragon Age II (by adding further consequence and/or wider choices), we lost most of our options on character creation (due to the fall of different races/origins and narrower class design*) but the only option that remained (sex) lost its associated consequence - possible love interests.
But since romance is optional anyway, why restrict the pool of available love interests? The NPC you build a relationship with is one you find compatible with your own character - it would have made perfect sense for my amoral, self-interested female mage Warden to go for Morrigan, but that wasn't possible and she had to "settle" for Zevran. At some point, the existence of other potential love interests becomes irrelevant to the player anyway: you make your choice and you follow it through.
This may not sound like a big deal, but I believe that choice/consequence may just be the single most important aspect of RPGs.
I completely agree with this sentiment, but I'd like to expand it just a bit: I believe that freedom of choice and consequence are of the utmost importance. It's not just that the player is able to choose A, B or C, it's that the player is equally able to enjoy the game regardless of the outcome of A, B or C. The story becomes different rather than better/worse.
I like all three of the female romances for different reasons and different PCs.
Neutral Evil Human Wizard Slayer & Viconia - They became a badass supervillain dream couple, like if Xanatos from Gargoyles hooked up with the Baroness from G.I. Joe.
Chaotic Good Human Fighter & Aerie - A big cockney oaf with a halberd who wanted a lady to protect.
Chaotic Neutral Human Berserker & Jaheira - Wild and unpredictable warrior falls for his lecturing, domineering adventuring mentor.
Never thought I'd hear "evolved" as a word to describe Dragon Age 2.
As someone who prioritizes story and character over graphics, I honestly couldn't care less about the repeating caves. The party members were diverse and interesting, with some brilliant internal relationships (the constant insults between Aveline and Isabella get incredibly hilarious after Aveline marries Donnic) and I liked the episodic plot structure.
As someone who prioritizes story and character over graphics, I honestly couldn't care less about the repeating caves. The party members were diverse and interesting, with some brilliant internal relationships (the constant insults between Aveline and Isabella get incredibly hilarious after Aveline marries Donnic) and I liked the episodic plot structure.
@shawne "Why would you assume everyone is bisexual, though?"
Technically I don't, but follow my logic. Very often a character is labelled 'bisexual' as a matter of convenience, not true characterization beyond the point 'has lots of sex' or 'must have sex whenever the plot dictates, so lets just take the easier route'.
Therefore, far too often 'bisexualism' transpires cardboard cutout characterization. That's what I think BioWare love interests have become: another fetch quest.
"As I see it, sexuality works the same way. In the world in which you pursue Anders as a female Hawke, Anders is straight. If you're a male Hawke on some other Thedas following the same path, Anders is gay. Your specific love interest conforms to be compatible to you, because you are making the choice to initiate a romance with them. "
This essentially makes sense but you're downplaying the extent of your choice. By choosing to be a male Hawke, you're creating a alternate reality where everyone avaiable would also be coincidentially ready to be apreciate your sex. This is made evident when, far too often, BioWare characters express their attraction to your Awesome Avatar no matter wether you're interested in them or not.
And this brings a consequence: sexual orientation, which is a fairly big factor/consequence of characterization becomes moot. Again, in this respect the love interests are cardboard cutouts no different than a japanese dating sim 'roster' of walking stereotypes. "Categorically untrue: Anders never makes any definitive statement about himself in "Awakening". He expresses an interest in women but never denies interest in men. Besides, you can flirt with him as a female Hawke just as easily. "
Then either Anders simply conforms to your protagonist's sex, which is in line with every love interest or he's a bisexual with a clear preference for females?
"I actually respect DA2 tremendously for not making a big deal out of it. In my opinion, we've long since passed the point where discussions of orientation are in any way interesting - do we really need to repeat the same old tired coming-out cliches, especially in a fantasy setting? "
Realistic characterization of character's sexual orientation isn't 'making a big deal out of it'. Not bothering to actually characterize the orientations and then claiming to be a defender of sexual minorities is.
'But since romance is optional anyway, why restrict the pool of available love interests?'
Because people won't ever be able to date whoever they want?
'The NPC you build a relationship with is one you find compatible with your own character'
Exactly. Just as in real-life you have to find someone that is compatible with you in every respect, instead of everyone being instant fits.
'- it would have made perfect sense for my amoral, self-interested female mage Warden to go for Morrigan'
No it wouldn't and it didn't make perfect sense because Morrigan isn't a lesbian, like some women in [s]real-life[/s] our realities, fictional or not, seem to be. Morrigan is more than just your potential love interest, and not always being avaiable as such brings life to her character and quality to her writing.
'I completely agree with this sentiment, but I'd like to expand it just a bit: I believe that freedom of choice and consequence are of the utmost importance. It's not just that the player is able to choose A, B or C, it's that the player is equally able to enjoy the game regardless of the outcome of A, B or C. The story becomes different rather than better/worse. '
And I'd like to break some of your expansion. Freedom? Ideally absolute, but freedom of [b]choice[/b]. You cannot be free to pick your consequences as well. If the player can only enjoy the story where their choices produce outcomes that are always perfect, well, I hope such taste doesn't affect future prospects of C&C in CRPGs.
Indeed, I wish you could hit on Morrigan as a female and she turned you down.
I would have to agree with Aliteri, there is an aspect of character development that is lost by making every character effectively map themselves to yours.
Therefore, far too often 'bisexualism' transpires cardboard cutout characterization. That's what I think BioWare love interests have become: another fetch quest.
I completely disagree with this. If you're playing a traditional RPG, fetch quests serve exactly one purpose: EXP/gold/whatever reward you get for completing it. That might be an accurate comparison for something like "Fable 3", where - with the right number of gifts and a rousing game of pattycake (not a euphemism) - you can marry any NPC off the street, but you don't have any reason to care. They're just anonymous people who give you presents every now and then. Like fetch quests, it's a completely utilitarian function.
But for something like "Mass Effect" or "Dragon Age", the only reason you'd pursue a love interest is because it's the right choice for the character you're role-playing. I genuinely liked Thane, and one of my Shepards romanced him - it gained me nothing in terms of gameplay mechanics, but it added another dimension to that Shepard's story.
This essentially makes sense but you're downplaying the extent of your choice. By choosing to be a male Hawke, you're creating a alternate reality where everyone avaiable would also be coincidentially ready to be apreciate your sex. This is made evident when, far too often, BioWare characters express their attraction to your Awesome Avatar no matter wether you're interested in them or not.
But you're doing that anyway, right from character creation: either you're importing the Thedas from your "Origins" save or you're picking one of three pre-established backgrounds that resulted in very different outcomes for the events of the first game. And choosing a male Hawke doesn't automatically make everyone attracted to you - it makes the specific person you want to romance attracted to you. Because if you sleep with Anders, you can't turn around and romance Merrill: once a romance is locked in, you'll never know the orientations of your other party members because they're not available to you.
Realistic characterization of character's sexual orientation isn't 'making a big deal out of it'. Not bothering to actually characterize the orientations and then claiming to be a defender of sexual minorities is.
I think you're blowing this way out of proportion. The "defense of sexual minorities" comes from the simple fact that with DA2, for possibly the first time in a high-profile video game, players didn't have to resort to metagaming or hacking saves or settling for a character just because their orientation was compatible - your PC got to be with the person they wanted to be with, and that's all. Did they really need to hang a sign over Fenris' head saying "LIKES DUDES TOO"? How is that relevant information for you unless you're romancing him?
No it wouldn't and it didn't make perfect sense because Morrigan isn't a lesbian, like some women in [s]real-life[/s] our realities, fictional or not, seem to be. Morrigan is more than just your potential love interest, and not always being avaiable as such brings life to her character and quality to her writing.
First of all, that last comment is completely false because - like all romances - you don't have to pursue her, even if she's available. My male Warden can just as easily go for Leliana and never give Morrigan a second glance. That doesn't change her character in the least, it just means that for that specific playthrough you're her friend rather than her lover.
Also, you keep using "real life" as a point of comparison. But as I've said, you can't conveniently ignore the way "real life" works in relation to fantasy (and you'd have to, just to get your foot in the door) and then turn around and invoke realism specifically for parts that bother you. You want to apply the mores and norms of sexual orientation onto a society that is designed to be different from ours, while suspending disbelief at concepts like demonic possession, Andraste and dragons.
And I'd like to break some of your expansion. Freedom? Ideally absolute, but freedom of [b]choice[/b]. You cannot be free to pick your consequences as well. If the player can only enjoy the story where their choices produce outcomes that are always perfect, well, I hope such taste doesn't affect future prospects of C&C in CRPGs.
Indeed, I wish you could hit on Morrigan as a female and she turned you down.
And that goes right back to imposition: because a concept makes you uncomfortable and isn't something you would personally choose, you'd deny it to everyone. That's an unfortunate and immature mindset, because at the end of the day, my character having a lesbian romance with Morrigan would affect your experience with "Dragon Age" in precisely zero ways. You're not privy to other people's stories just as they're not privy to yours.
I swear, you just want to grab her, point to Jaheira and say "Widowed. Betrayed. Tortured. But you don't see her going on about it at all hours, do you?"
'I completely disagree with this. If you're playing a traditional RPG, fetch quests serve exactly one purpose'
I meant like a fetch quest, not another fetch quest. And by 'like a fetch quest' I meant hollow in the choice of pursuing it. You won't pursue a romance because hey, you found the perfect match, you'll do it because, by God we'll add as many stereotypes as necessary to satisfy everyone.
'And choosing a male Hawke doesn't automatically make everyone attracted to you'
Everyone is avaiable as a suitor. Everyone is attracted to you.
I already dislike that you can't be ugly or simply not amazingly attractive in BioWare games. The only thing that kept people from being attracted to you in Dragon Age: Origins when, amazingly, they acted as real people and were independent from you in some level.
'The "defense of sexual minorities" comes from the simple fact that with DA2, for possibly the first time in a high-profile video game, players didn't have to resort to metagaming or hacking saves or settling for a character just because their orientation was compatible'
The 'defense of sexual minorities' is about one of the few pieces of nearly undisputably positive PR that BioWare got for months in between Dragon Age II and Mass Effect III's ending fiasco, if you discount things like IGN, of course.
And not only does modding or hacking a game has nothing to do with the game's setting's rules, the game's storytelling or even sexual minorities at all (because, hey, if someone really wants they can be a Kensai/Sorcerer in BG, its not like they lack the imagination to justify it, right? to hell with game balance and setting consistency).
'What people? Outside the game? They won't be able to shoot lightning at their enemies either. '
Oh man, how I love this.
Its the 'ITS FANTASY THEREFORE THERE ARE NO INHERENT RULES WHATSOEVER!'
What a tired argument, because if people can throw fireballs, then everyone of the protagonist's close friends should obviously be avaiable as a love interest from the start, no matter the original game's take on the issue.
In Thedas, people are independent of the protagonist, not everything revolves around him and your choice of sex and whatever story you want in spite of the setting's inherent rules. You see, just because there's magic in the world, doesn't mean there isn't a internal logic in the story. And for that internal logic to be believable, it musn't always be convenient to whatever you want. You cannot be a dragon. You also cannot romance Morrigan as a woman just because of whatever (wrong) preconceptions you have about her character. And in a credible fantastic universe not even all the fantasy in the world can break those basic rules.
In Dragon Age II, there are no rules and, therefore, there's no setting.
'See above comment: this is the wrong game genre for people who expect the world to work the way ours does. '
Except that not only is there a internal logic estabilished by the first game, lots and lots of things do work the same way as in our world. Indeed, not everyone I get close to is conveniently compatible with my character's sex in Origins.
'First of all, that last comment is completely false because - like all romances - you don't have to pursue her, even if she's available.'
Indeed, and I maintain that when she's not avaiable, when the world exists, in some degree, independent of your character, both Morrigan and the world gains life and credibility in my eyes.
'My male Warden can just as easily go for Leliana and never give Morrigan a second glance. That doesn't change her character in the least, it just means that for that specific playthrough you're her friend rather than her lover.'
Indeed, so why should the fact that your Hawke not pursuing Merril change her characterization? Isn't it true that, even if you choose to romance Anders, Merril's characterization persists the same as it would in the universe where you chose to romance her? That no matter what, Merril's attracted to Hawke?
'Also, you keep using "real life" as a point of comparison. But as I've said, you can't conveniently ignore the way "real life" works in relation to fantasy (and you'd have to, just to get your foot in the door) and then turn around and invoke realism specifically for parts that bother you. '
Not invoking realism per-se, I'm invoking setting consistency and believability (only the latter ends up including realism in the mix, depending on the argument).
'You want to apply the mores and norms of sexual orientation onto a society that is designed to be different from ours, while suspending disbelief at concepts like demonic possession, Andraste and dragons. '
You mean that everyone is attracted to your character no matter his or her sex because dragons?
'That's an unfortunate and immature mindset, because at the end of the day, my character having a lesbian romance with Morrigan would affect your experience with "Dragon Age" in precisely zero ways. You're not privy to other people's stories just as they're not privy to yours. '
That depends.
Your female warden and Morrigan having sex because you overruled the setting's laws and consistency via modding, effectively changing Morrigan's characters? Well, go for it, I truly don't care and, indeed, encourage you to.
Your female warden and Morrigan having sex because Morrigan was written differently than she is? That does indeed change my experience and does marginally change the entire setting of Thedas, but so far so good.
Your character, whatever, whoever he is having sex with Morrigan because, hey, in respects to sexual orientation everyone who's close to you is the same? Well, I'd call for a bit of diferentiation, better writting, for companions.
Male PC - Viconia and get dumped, or Aerie, wreck Haer'dalis then dump her Female PC - I make Anomen and Kelsey to fight over me
ahhhhhhh good times
btw for those that don't know, Kelsey is an extremely well done NPC done up by the community IMO, near flawless integration into BG2 along with voice over and quest line http://goo.gl/QgVGk
I'm not really into modded NPCs myself (in fact I tend to only install mechanical mods + ascension). I've done all the romances but the one I've done the most is Jahiera, just because I generally play good characters and so my character will have known her a long time. Plus as a player I like her character and questline quite a lot (even though the odd bug is quite annoying). I don't romance as a female character because anomen is honestly not that likeable, I did his questline once but man, even after you help him he's still up himself.
@Communard Indeed, and he didn't do enough to overcome my initial bad impression of him. Telling me I couldn't have done what I did in Baldur's Gate 1 just because I am a woman? That's a hard strike against him right there. It just never got better for me after that.
*Though I suppose narrower class design only really affected character development abd players with foreknowledge that now, each class has MMO-esque rigidly defined party roles.
Wait, what? How were DA2's classes any more "rigidly-defined" than DAO's?
the first time I played BG II I didn't like Anomen (surprise surprise) so I wasn't the nicest to him and often put him in his place and told him off. Somehow, he still fell in love with me (likes a strong woman I guess?) but I rejected him. On my second play through I wasn't quite so harsh to him (though I still put him in his place quite a bit) and followed his storyline a bit more and once his character evolved a bit I actually started to like him - he's much better (personality wise) late game once he get's all his angst out :P
Well it finally gets back to the point of the thread. When I played an evil character I always went with viconia but nutural or good I went with aerie never liked jaheira cuz I normally just get rid of her other then furring my original play through but that doesn't count cuz I was just doing that to get the main storyline. All other play throughs were for rp purposes so I got the full scope of the game
Then comes "Dragon Age II", where anyone in your party can be romanced no matter who you're RPing.
Which is horrible, IMO.
Well, I would prefer it if they had some mixed, some straight and some gay. For example I can see Zevran going both ways and maybe Leliana but Merrill just doesn't seem like the lady loving type. I personally feel that sexual orientation is a pretty big deal to character identity (that deserves respect for all), but I understand why Bioware made it that way. I guess it doesn't matter, since its all about the player's experience.
Edit: Also I agree that Viconia's was probably the best written. Aerie is way too whiny but I felt kind of bad for Anomen and his daddy issues.
*Though I suppose narrower class design only really affected character development abd players with foreknowledge that now, each class has MMO-esque rigidly defined party roles.
Wait, what? How were DA2's classes any more "rigidly-defined" than DAO's?
According to Mike Laidlaw, changes were made in class design so that each class felt more different than the others. The two ways they found to do that were to limit party roles and customization.
What was possible in DAO
Warrior - Tank (sword and board and I think it was also possible with two handed weapons), damage dealer (sword and board, two handed weapons, dual wielding, archery).
Rogue - Tank (a rare build admittedly but possible nonetheless), damage dealer (two handed weapons, dual wielding, archery).
i know it's a mod, but i loved saerileth. she reminds me of my wife, or an aerie romance that isn't quite as soppy, as op said, and she doesn't complain about everything. :P
*Though I suppose narrower class design only really affected character development abd players with foreknowledge that now, each class has MMO-esque rigidly defined party roles.
Wait, what? How were DA2's classes any more "rigidly-defined" than DAO's?
According to Mike Laidlaw, changes were made in class design so that each class felt more different than the others. The two ways they found to do that were to limit party roles and customization.
What was possible in DAO
Warrior - Tank (sword and board and I think it was also possible with two handed weapons), damage dealer (sword and board, two handed weapons, dual wielding, archery).
Rogue - Tank (a rare build admittedly but possible nonetheless), damage dealer (two handed weapons, dual wielding, archery).
Now, if you factor in the remove of non-combat abilities, character development and creation suffered a bit more than that but that's another story.
Tank Rogue is still somewhat possible. I usually build Isabela for tanking, at least, with her awesome Savvy power.
Definitely possible to build a two-handed tank Warrior, as abilities like Taunt and Bravery, as well as the Defender tree, don't require a shield. My current playthrough has Hawke as a Reaver that uses Taunt (or Verric uses Goad) to get a lot of enemies into his Pain and Bravery auras. If things get too hectic for Hawke, I have Verric use Armistice or Goad to get enemies' attention focused elsewhere.
Admittedly, limiting Rogues from using two-handers and Warriors from using bows was probably unwise on Bioware's part. I think they did a really good job differentiating the classes via the much more interesting talent trees. Limiting weapon choice was unnecessary.
Always went with Aerie, or rarely a mod character. Don't play evil characters, and Jaheira's romance seemed very creepy to me (Khalid just died, and I always saw Jahiera as almost an adoptive mother after Gorion's death). I'll probably try Neera when BGEE comes out, though, and I'm planning to try the Nalia mod when the ToB part is finished.
Comments
First things first: I already have a hard time believing a world where everyone is bisexual, and it just gets worse if you consider that Thedas isn't one of those: the implementation of romance options (gameplay) is inconsistent with the lore (story) and inconsistent with the prior game, Origins. This makes the world much less credible and now romance options feel more like yet another quest I'm suppose to embark in.
This may not sound like a big deal, but inconsistency against the rules defined by the writer to his own universe (such as retconning) is a great sin against the willing suspension of disbelief (or 'immersion' as some would call it). Anders is a prime example of a character that last we saw him was heterosexual and suddenly became a gay stereotype for fangirls.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with NOT engaging in romance at all.
Secondly, I think sexual orientation is a interesting possibility for characterization. And in that respect, all love interests in DA2 are cardboard cutouts.
Lastly, in the original game's character creation there was a series of choices that did provide a number of consequences in the game. Instead of expanding on that with Dragon Age II (by adding further consequence and/or wider choices), we lost most of our options on character creation (due to the fall of different races/origins and narrower class design*) but the only option that remained (sex) lost its associated consequence - possible love interests.
This may not sound like a big deal, but I believe that choice/consequence may just be the single most important aspect of RPGs.
*Though I suppose narrower class design only really affected character development abd players with foreknowledge that now, each class has MMO-esque rigidly defined party roles.
Consider that each time you play through the world of Thedas, you're basically creating an alternate reality - there are only ever two Wardens who survive Ostagar, and one of them is Alistair. The other is a dwarf princess or a Dalish hunter or a male human noble.
Assuming you don't make the exact same choices each time, you end up with different versions of Thedas depending on what you did. Why can't those choices extend to your party members as well? Maybe you helped Shale learn about her past and she wants to become flesh and blood again, but if you didn't she's just fine stomping pigeons. Maybe Alistair is king, or maybe he isn't, or maybe he's out on the streets because you spared Loghain.
As I see it, sexuality works the same way. In the world in which you pursue Anders as a female Hawke, Anders is straight. If you're a male Hawke on some other Thedas following the same path, Anders is gay. Your specific love interest conforms to be compatible to you, because you are making the choice to initiate a romance with them. Categorically untrue: Anders never makes any definitive statement about himself in "Awakening". He expresses an interest in women but never denies interest in men. Besides, you can flirt with him as a female Hawke just as easily. Agreed, which is why I don't understand why it's a point of contention - if you, as a player, don't want to do it, then don't do it. But why deny that option to others? I actually respect DA2 tremendously for not making a big deal out of it. In my opinion, we've long since passed the point where discussions of orientation are in any way interesting - do we really need to repeat the same old tired coming-out cliches, especially in a fantasy setting? But since romance is optional anyway, why restrict the pool of available love interests? The NPC you build a relationship with is one you find compatible with your own character - it would have made perfect sense for my amoral, self-interested female mage Warden to go for Morrigan, but that wasn't possible and she had to "settle" for Zevran. At some point, the existence of other potential love interests becomes irrelevant to the player anyway: you make your choice and you follow it through. I completely agree with this sentiment, but I'd like to expand it just a bit: I believe that freedom of choice and consequence are of the utmost importance. It's not just that the player is able to choose A, B or C, it's that the player is equally able to enjoy the game regardless of the outcome of A, B or C. The story becomes different rather than better/worse.
Neutral Evil Human Wizard Slayer & Viconia - They became a badass supervillain dream couple, like if Xanatos from Gargoyles hooked up with the Baroness from G.I. Joe.
Chaotic Good Human Fighter & Aerie - A big cockney oaf with a halberd who wanted a lady to protect.
Chaotic Neutral Human Berserker & Jaheira - Wild and unpredictable warrior falls for his lecturing, domineering adventuring mentor.
"Why would you assume everyone is bisexual, though?"
Technically I don't, but follow my logic. Very often a character is labelled 'bisexual' as a matter of convenience, not true characterization beyond the point 'has lots of sex' or 'must have sex whenever the plot dictates, so lets just take the easier route'.
Therefore, far too often 'bisexualism' transpires cardboard cutout characterization. That's what I think BioWare love interests have become: another fetch quest.
"As I see it, sexuality works the same way. In the world in which you pursue Anders as a female Hawke, Anders is straight. If you're a male Hawke on some other Thedas following the same path, Anders is gay. Your specific love interest conforms to be compatible to you, because you are making the choice to initiate a romance with them. "
This essentially makes sense but you're downplaying the extent of your choice. By choosing to be a male Hawke, you're creating a alternate reality where everyone avaiable would also be coincidentially ready to be apreciate your sex. This is made evident when, far too often, BioWare characters express their attraction to your Awesome Avatar no matter wether you're interested in them or not.
And this brings a consequence: sexual orientation, which is a fairly big factor/consequence of characterization becomes moot. Again, in this respect the love interests are cardboard cutouts no different than a japanese dating sim 'roster' of walking stereotypes.
"Categorically untrue: Anders never makes any definitive statement about himself in "Awakening". He expresses an interest in women but never denies interest in men. Besides, you can flirt with him as a female Hawke just as easily. "
Then either Anders simply conforms to your protagonist's sex, which is in line with every love interest or he's a bisexual with a clear preference for females?
"I actually respect DA2 tremendously for not making a big deal out of it. In my opinion, we've long since passed the point where discussions of orientation are in any way interesting - do we really need to repeat the same old tired coming-out cliches, especially in a fantasy setting? "
Realistic characterization of character's sexual orientation isn't 'making a big deal out of it'. Not bothering to actually characterize the orientations and then claiming to be a defender of sexual minorities is.
'But since romance is optional anyway, why restrict the pool of available love interests?'
Because people won't ever be able to date whoever they want?
'The NPC you build a relationship with is one you find compatible with your own character'
Exactly. Just as in real-life you have to find someone that is compatible with you in every respect, instead of everyone being instant fits.
'- it would have made perfect sense for my amoral, self-interested female mage Warden to go for Morrigan'
No it wouldn't and it didn't make perfect sense because Morrigan isn't a lesbian, like some women in [s]real-life[/s] our realities, fictional or not, seem to be. Morrigan is more than just your potential love interest, and not always being avaiable as such brings life to her character and quality to her writing.
'I completely agree with this sentiment, but I'd like to expand it just a bit: I believe that freedom of choice and consequence are of the utmost importance. It's not just that the player is able to choose A, B or C, it's that the player is equally able to enjoy the game regardless of the outcome of A, B or C. The story becomes different rather than better/worse. '
And I'd like to break some of your expansion. Freedom? Ideally absolute, but freedom of [b]choice[/b]. You cannot be free to pick your consequences as well. If the player can only enjoy the story where their choices produce outcomes that are always perfect, well, I hope such taste doesn't affect future prospects of C&C in CRPGs.
Indeed, I wish you could hit on Morrigan as a female and she turned you down.
But for something like "Mass Effect" or "Dragon Age", the only reason you'd pursue a love interest is because it's the right choice for the character you're role-playing. I genuinely liked Thane, and one of my Shepards romanced him - it gained me nothing in terms of gameplay mechanics, but it added another dimension to that Shepard's story. But you're doing that anyway, right from character creation: either you're importing the Thedas from your "Origins" save or you're picking one of three pre-established backgrounds that resulted in very different outcomes for the events of the first game. And choosing a male Hawke doesn't automatically make everyone attracted to you - it makes the specific person you want to romance attracted to you. Because if you sleep with Anders, you can't turn around and romance Merrill: once a romance is locked in, you'll never know the orientations of your other party members because they're not available to you. I think you're blowing this way out of proportion. The "defense of sexual minorities" comes from the simple fact that with DA2, for possibly the first time in a high-profile video game, players didn't have to resort to metagaming or hacking saves or settling for a character just because their orientation was compatible - your PC got to be with the person they wanted to be with, and that's all. Did they really need to hang a sign over Fenris' head saying "LIKES DUDES TOO"? How is that relevant information for you unless you're romancing him? What people? Outside the game? They won't be able to shoot lightning at their enemies either. See above comment: this is the wrong game genre for people who expect the world to work the way ours does.
Also, you keep using "real life" as a point of comparison. But as I've said, you can't conveniently ignore the way "real life" works in relation to fantasy (and you'd have to, just to get your foot in the door) and then turn around and invoke realism specifically for parts that bother you. You want to apply the mores and norms of sexual orientation onto a society that is designed to be different from ours, while suspending disbelief at concepts like demonic possession, Andraste and dragons. And that goes right back to imposition: because a concept makes you uncomfortable and isn't something you would personally choose, you'd deny it to everyone. That's an unfortunate and immature mindset, because at the end of the day, my character having a lesbian romance with Morrigan would affect your experience with "Dragon Age" in precisely zero ways. You're not privy to other people's stories just as they're not privy to yours.
'I completely disagree with this. If you're playing a traditional RPG, fetch quests serve exactly one purpose'
I meant like a fetch quest, not another fetch quest. And by 'like a fetch quest' I meant hollow in the choice of pursuing it. You won't pursue a romance because hey, you found the perfect match, you'll do it because, by God we'll add as many stereotypes as necessary to satisfy everyone.
'And choosing a male Hawke doesn't automatically make everyone attracted to you'
Everyone is avaiable as a suitor. Everyone is attracted to you.
I already dislike that you can't be ugly or simply not amazingly attractive in BioWare games. The only thing that kept people from being attracted to you in Dragon Age: Origins when, amazingly, they acted as real people and were independent from you in some level.
'The "defense of sexual minorities" comes from the simple fact that with DA2, for possibly the first time in a high-profile video game, players didn't have to resort to metagaming or hacking saves or settling for a character just because their orientation was compatible'
The 'defense of sexual minorities' is about one of the few pieces of nearly undisputably positive PR that BioWare got for months in between Dragon Age II and Mass Effect III's ending fiasco, if you discount things like IGN, of course.
And not only does modding or hacking a game has nothing to do with the game's setting's rules, the game's storytelling or even sexual minorities at all (because, hey, if someone really wants they can be a Kensai/Sorcerer in BG, its not like they lack the imagination to justify it, right? to hell with game balance and setting consistency).
'What people? Outside the game? They won't be able to shoot lightning at their enemies either. '
Oh man, how I love this.
Its the 'ITS FANTASY THEREFORE THERE ARE NO INHERENT RULES WHATSOEVER!'
What a tired argument, because if people can throw fireballs, then everyone of the protagonist's close friends should obviously be avaiable as a love interest from the start, no matter the original game's take on the issue.
In Thedas, people are independent of the protagonist, not everything revolves around him and your choice of sex and whatever story you want in spite of the setting's inherent rules. You see, just because there's magic in the world, doesn't mean there isn't a internal logic in the story. And for that internal logic to be believable, it musn't always be convenient to whatever you want. You cannot be a dragon. You also cannot romance Morrigan as a woman just because of whatever (wrong) preconceptions you have about her character. And in a credible fantastic universe not even all the fantasy in the world can break those basic rules.
In Dragon Age II, there are no rules and, therefore, there's no setting.
'See above comment: this is the wrong game genre for people who expect the world to work the way ours does.
Except that not only is there a internal logic estabilished by the first game, lots and lots of things do work the same way as in our world. Indeed, not everyone I get close to is conveniently compatible with my character's sex in Origins.
'First of all, that last comment is completely false because - like all romances - you don't have to pursue her, even if she's available.'
Indeed, and I maintain that when she's not avaiable, when the world exists, in some degree, independent of your character, both Morrigan and the world gains life and credibility in my eyes.
'My male Warden can just as easily go for Leliana and never give Morrigan a second glance. That doesn't change her character in the least, it just means that for that specific playthrough you're her friend rather than her lover.'
Indeed, so why should the fact that your Hawke not pursuing Merril change her characterization? Isn't it true that, even if you choose to romance Anders, Merril's characterization persists the same as it would in the universe where you chose to romance her? That no matter what, Merril's attracted to Hawke?
'Also, you keep using "real life" as a point of comparison. But as I've said, you can't conveniently ignore the way "real life" works in relation to fantasy (and you'd have to, just to get your foot in the door) and then turn around and invoke realism specifically for parts that bother you. '
Not invoking realism per-se, I'm invoking setting consistency and believability (only the latter ends up including realism in the mix, depending on the argument).
'You want to apply the mores and norms of sexual orientation onto a society that is designed to be different from ours, while suspending disbelief at concepts like demonic possession, Andraste and dragons. '
You mean that everyone is attracted to your character no matter his or her sex because dragons?
'That's an unfortunate and immature mindset, because at the end of the day, my character having a lesbian romance with Morrigan would affect your experience with "Dragon Age" in precisely zero ways. You're not privy to other people's stories just as they're not privy to yours. '
That depends.
Your female warden and Morrigan having sex because you overruled the setting's laws and consistency via modding, effectively changing Morrigan's characters? Well, go for it, I truly don't care and, indeed, encourage you to.
Your female warden and Morrigan having sex because Morrigan was written differently than she is? That does indeed change my experience and does marginally change the entire setting of Thedas, but so far so good.
Your character, whatever, whoever he is having sex with Morrigan because, hey, in respects to sexual orientation everyone who's close to you is the same? Well, I'd call for a bit of diferentiation, better writting, for companions.
Male PC - Viconia and get dumped, or Aerie, wreck Haer'dalis then dump her
Female PC - I make Anomen and Kelsey to fight over me
ahhhhhhh good times
btw for those that don't know, Kelsey is an extremely well done NPC done up by the community
IMO, near flawless integration into BG2 along with voice over and quest line
http://goo.gl/QgVGk
DAO
Warrior - Tank, damage dealer
Rogue - Damage dealer
Mage - Healer/Support, Crowd Control, Damage Dealer
DA2
Warrior - Tank, damage dealer
Rogue - Damage dealer
Mage - Healer/Support, Crowd Control, Damage Dealer
Female HE druid -> CN Anomen
I found both romances be well written, although the druid game only went as far as Spellhold.
When I played an evil character I always went with viconia but nutural or good I went with aerie never liked jaheira cuz I normally just get rid of her other then furring my original play through but that doesn't count cuz I was just doing that to get the main storyline. All other play throughs were for rp purposes so I got the full scope of the game
Edit: Also I agree that Viconia's was probably the best written. Aerie is way too whiny but I felt kind of bad for Anomen and his daddy issues.
What was possible in DAO
Warrior - Tank (sword and board and I think it was also possible with two handed weapons), damage dealer (sword and board, two handed weapons, dual wielding, archery).
Rogue - Tank (a rare build admittedly but possible nonetheless), damage dealer (two handed weapons, dual wielding, archery).
Mage - Healer/Support, Debilitation, Damage Dealer, Tank, Melee Damage Dealer.
What they intended with DA2
Warrior - Tank (sword and board), AoE melee Damage Dealer (two handed weapons)
Rogue - Single Target Damage Dealer (dual wielding, archery)
Mage - Healer/Support, Debilitation, AoE Damage Dealer
Now, if you factor in the remove of non-combat abilities, character development and creation suffered a bit more than that but that's another story.
Definitely possible to build a two-handed tank Warrior, as abilities like Taunt and Bravery, as well as the Defender tree, don't require a shield. My current playthrough has Hawke as a Reaver that uses Taunt (or Verric uses Goad) to get a lot of enemies into his Pain and Bravery auras. If things get too hectic for Hawke, I have Verric use Armistice or Goad to get enemies' attention focused elsewhere.
Admittedly, limiting Rogues from using two-handers and Warriors from using bows was probably unwise on Bioware's part. I think they did a really good job differentiating the classes via the much more interesting talent trees. Limiting weapon choice was unnecessary.