@Razor Depends on who raised him. If he had a human mother, he might not be into rape. After all, it's the way he was probably conceived. One can be evil without wanting to commit *every* evil act. A lot also depends on his alignment. If he's Chaotic Evil, all bets are off.
'Wrong, and here's why: you can play through Dragon Age 2 without romancing anyone. At most, Isabela and Anders may toss a flirtatious line your way depending on how you talk to them, but most of your party will not express attraction to you unless you make the first move.'
I'm not talking about the point of view of the character, I'm talking about setting credibility from the player's point of view. And no matter what you do, it doesn't change the companion's characterization (as you said yourself) - of being attracted to you whoever, whatever you are, which is contrived to the point that it damages the setting's credibility.
'It proves that the blanket statements you're making about all the characters in the game is untrue. '
Every companion is avaiable as a love interest. True
Because every character is attracted to the protagonist independent of who or what he is. True
Wether the character pursues romance or not, that doesn't change the companion's characterization. True and confirmed by no other than yourself.
The second statement, to me, feels like a contrived scenario to become the staple of a entire series and damages, IMO, the setting's credibility. Subjective to discussion.
Where's the untruth?
'You do realize that these are exactly the same thing? If there are six party members, "adding more options" means making those six available to either gender, as opposed to... what are you even proposing here? Adding new party members just as alternates to optional romantic subplots? Really? '
No, characterizing people into simple romantic subplots whatever the protagonist is is how Dragon Age II did. I propose that, if there weren't enough love interests in Dragon Age: Origins and if that's enough of a issue, then more characters with proper characterization and variation should be added.
'That's player knowledge. Within the context of a specific game, you have no way of knowing who does or does not find you attractive - your love interest will reciprocate your feelings, and that's all. '
I'm not talking about the point of view of the character, I'm talking about setting credibility from the player's point of view. And no matter what you do, it doesn't change the companion's characterization (as you said yourself) - of being attracted to you whoever, whatever you are, which is contrived to the point that it damages the setting's credibility.
'And I view that as a failure of imagination. The DA2 format is ideal in my eyes because it doesn't exclude any version of the protagonist regardless of gender, orientation or alignment - your PC engages in a romance with the character you feel is best suited for them. '
No, that's a triumph of writting and imagination. A good writer creates people and imagines how they would react to given situations as opposed to simply using them as plot points.
I never denied that the DA2 format was potentially more convenient, I argue however that convenience is not always a good thing. Contrived writting so that everyone's 'tastes' are 'properly represented' is not, IMO, a good trade.
'You're conflating her character arc with her romance arc when the former exists independently of the latter. If the male Warden doesn't flirt with her, she will not express romantic inclinations towards him. '
The only possibility that either Morrigan or Leliana aren't attracted to a Male Warden (meaning, that they are unavaiable as a love interest, if that must be spelled out) is low approval rating.
The only possibility that nearly every companion in DA2 isn't avaiable is, never. Admire or Hate you, they are avaiable to you no matter what you do.
'Okay, you're just being deliberately obtuse here. Moving on... '
What do you want? A sex-less situation where the PC's orientation doesn't matter? Or are you saying that brothels are romantic places?
Is it choosing to be gay or not and as a consequence following up on that choice by not choosing certain suitors not enough relevance to you?
'Only someone speaking from a narrow-minded perspective would see inclusion as "a sacrifice of characterization" in a game genre where characterization is at least partly informed by player choice.'
This genre is about self-definition and self-expression. You don't create a world, you create a character. The rules belong to the Gamemaster (BioWare) and according to Dragon Age: Origins, Thedas isn't a world where every companion being your love interest is justifiable, that's contrived writting.
'You don't like the story, don't play out that story - but you don't have a leg to stand on in saying others shouldn't have that option just because it's not what you would choose.'
You know another story that I don't think works? Morrigan as a lesbian woman. Want to know someone that agrees with me? BioWare. Want to know how they could possibly do that? They had the creative liberty to do so. When they set themselves to the standard that 'every love interest should revolve around the protagonist', then they lose that creative liberty - hence a 'sacrifice of characterization'.
That happened, its a fact. Wether we think that's worth it or not is a matter of personal preference. I myself disagree with it. You don't. You have your reasons, you like the convenience (a convenience that I don't deny, though I've come to disagree with many of your points defending it) and I have mine, which I already presented in the thread.
There's no right choice in here. If BioWare reverted to the DA:O way of doing things, I'd be happy because I'd be in a more consistent and less contrived universe. But that wouldn't make your concerns of BioWare writting a character in such a way that doesn't fit your story like a glove disappear - just as you being happy with the convenience doesn't make my concerns disappear either.
This is why our argument started with 'Which is horrible, IMO'.
I don't mind(or rather I love) having all characters romanceable but it would be great if not every character where 50/50. IE one character falls in love with you from the get go while another you have to work your ass off because they usually just don't swing that way. Gives everyone every romance option and adds some depth and spice to the characters. People complaining that not every character can be bi might want to read up a bit on the subject. While I find other men rather disgusting even outside the sexual realm I do believe there is something to the thoughts of all humans having bi tendencies.
Anders makes me flip my shit every time I play DA2.
"I like you but we wont work, I'm too dangerous and angsty and don't want to see you hurt"
"Bro I never even said I liked you...."
Anders rival +20
To my knowledge it is literally impossible for this to happen if you pick no Gold Heart dialogue options. It's pretty simple to avoid this kind of thing even without dialogue symbols, but DA2 decided to be a bro and provide some icons that outright tell you the tone of what you're about to say.
Anders makes me flip my shit every time I play DA2.
"I like you but we wont work, I'm too dangerous and angsty and don't want to see you hurt"
"Bro I never even said I liked you...."
Anders rival +20
To my knowledge it is literally impossible for this to happen if you pick no Gold Heart dialogue options. It's pretty simple to avoid this kind of thing even without dialogue symbols, but DA2 decided to be a bro and provide some icons that outright tell you the tone of what you're about to say.
I was playing it a few weeks ago and the convo went like this:
Anders says some shit about templars and mages (again)
You can either be a dick off the bat and that leads to no change and ends the conversation or you can continue the conversation (like a normal person) in which case you're locked into either professing your love or getting rival points. It's impossible to say "Yea dude, I get the plight of the mages and support you, but I'd rather not sleep with you." without Anders thinking you killed his cat.
Basically you have to meta-game like a champ but that kind of defeats the purpose of an RPG.
I am skeptical, to say the least. Usually, if there's a dialogue like that, you get a Halo/Olive Branch, a Comedy Mask/Diamond, and a Gavel/Fist on the right side, while the left side has Investigate and Romance options.
It's that conversation. The only way to not get rival/love is to cut him off right at the start which is kind of the opposite of what I want to do in a game about talking to people.
For example I'am curious about how they are going to have a brute half orc as a romance option, for both man and woman... imo a half orc would faster rape than romance
So wait, Dorn-Il Khan is the bisexual romance option? That's actually pretty cool and unexpected if true.
It's that conversation. The only way to not get rival/love is to cut him off right at the start which is kind of the opposite of what I want to do in a game about talking to people.
I must have just cut him off. About to do that quest soon, though, so I'll save before it and see what happens.
If you do lots and lots of research on something, don't you now have knowledge of it?
I've done lots of research on heterosexual romance and most of the time I still don't have faintest idea what's going on.
You are my hero. 18 and I've been friendzoned every time so far. lulz
And I totally love this thread. Indeed what was awesome about BG2 is it wasn't entirely clear at first that you were "romancing" them. They were normal friends talking to you. Then things started to eventually get a little more interesting.
(I have to say, the time I had Aerie, Jaheira, AND Viconia in an open argument about me really sticks out in my mind as one of the most hilarious, great moments ever. Then the sheer disappointment from both Aerie and Jaheira when I picked Viconia. Amazing.)
I'm not talking about the point of view of the character, I'm talking about setting credibility from the player's point of view. And no matter what you do, it doesn't change the companion's characterization (as you said yourself) - of being attracted to you whoever, whatever you are, which is contrived to the point that it damages the setting's credibility.
There's no scenario in which multiple companions hit on you simultaneously - unless you're going into the game with foreknowledge of how the romance mechanism works, you'll only see specific characters expressing an interest in Hawke if you're actively flirting with them. The party members exist as potential romances, but once you lock a character in, other options are not expressed. So unless you've had multiple replays or watched alternate scenarios on Youtube, you're never aware in-game that the others were just as available.
And please stop misconstruing my comment about characterization: you've conflated that with orientation, whereas my point is that character arcs aren't substantially changed if the character is a romance option or not - therefore, there's no reason for differentiation in terms of who's available to whom.
The second statement, to me, feels like a contrived scenario to become the staple of a entire series and damages, IMO, the setting's credibility. Subjective to discussion.
Where's the untruth?
The untruth is in the way you're representing the romances and your conflation of player/character knowledge. Every character can be attracted to Hawke, but you don't experience every possibility in a single playthrough, just like you can't see every possible outcome of a plot-based choice at the same time. We as players know that Hawke can romance almost anyone in his party, but once that choice is made, all other members of your party are closed off to you and - in that version of events - may not be interested in you at all. (Indeed, the game implies that Isabela and Fenris have a fling if you're not involved with either of them.)
No, characterizing people into simple romantic subplots whatever the protagonist is is how Dragon Age II did. I propose that, if there weren't enough love interests in Dragon Age: Origins and if that's enough of a issue, then more characters with proper characterization and variation should be added.
And that's exactly what they did. Isabela, Fenris, Anders and Merrill are as varied a group as you can get, they're all properly characterized and distinct, and they're all available as mutually exclusive love interests.
I'm not talking about the point of view of the character, I'm talking about setting credibility from the player's point of view. And no matter what you do, it doesn't change the companion's characterization (as you said yourself) - of being attracted to you whoever, whatever you are, which is contrived to the point that it damages the setting's credibility.
Again, you're repeating my point without actually understanding it. The player has no reason to question the credibility of the setting because every version of the game world allows you to pursue a specific teammate. They won't all express an interest in you at the same time and force you to choose. In some versions of Thedas the Warden executes Nathaniel Howe, in some he survives; by the same token, Fenris is gay when a male Hawke romances him and straight when a female Hawke romances him/when a male Hawke does not romance him. The variables don't detract from the world, they add to it.
No, that's a triumph of writting and imagination. A good writer creates people and imagines how they would react to given situations as opposed to simply using them as plot points.
I never denied that the DA2 format was potentially more convenient, I argue however that convenience is not always a good thing. Contrived writting so that everyone's 'tastes' are 'properly represented' is not, IMO, a good trade.
That's an unbelievably entitled stance to take. Your preferences should take priority over another player's because you think it's contrived to be otherwise? Please.
The only possibility that either Morrigan or Leliana aren't attracted to a Male Warden (meaning, that they are unavaiable as a love interest, if that must be spelled out) is low approval rating.
The only possibility that nearly every companion in DA2 isn't avaiable is, never. Admire or Hate you, they are avaiable to you no matter what you do.
Again, that's fundamentally inaccurate. One companion can be locked into a romance, at which point every potential partner you didn't pursue is not available to you anymore (and, as far as you know, they were never interested in you to begin with). It's the exact same feature as the origin stories in the first game: Duncan could potentially show up in one of six places based on your choice of character, and once that choice plays out, the other five possibilities never happened.
What do you want? A sex-less situation where the PC's orientation doesn't matter? Or are you saying that brothels are romantic places?
Your original comment claimed that the PC's sexuality is important to the overall story of the game. This is categorically untrue, in that it only affects the romance plot. (And yes, the Pearl counts because your love interest will disapprove if you do business there and nothing you do in the Pearl has any effect on other components of the story.)
This genre is about self-definition and self-expression. You don't create a world, you create a character. The rules belong to the Gamemaster (BioWare) and according to Dragon Age: Origins, Thedas isn't a world where every companion being your love interest is justifiable, that's contrived writting.
Did you miss the part where it's the same GM and the same writer in both games? Obviously, Thedas is a world where you have the option of pursuing a specific love interest, it just took them a second try to get the concept right.
You know another story that I don't think works? Morrigan as a lesbian woman. Want to know someone that agrees with me? BioWare. Want to know how they could possibly do that? They had the creative liberty to do so. When they set themselves to the standard that 'every love interest should revolve around the protagonist', then they lose that creative liberty - hence a 'sacrifice of characterization'.
And yet you've agreed with me that romance and sexual orientation is irrelevant to character arcs. Can't have it both ways.
This has been an interesting discussion, but I think we're at an impasse - best we stop here, I think.
Comments
no offense intended, but have you all seen "Angry Joe" review of DA2? I mean he does have some points, even if I think not everyone may agree
'Wrong, and here's why: you can play through Dragon Age 2 without romancing anyone. At most, Isabela and Anders may toss a flirtatious line your way depending on how you talk to them, but most of your party will not express attraction to you unless you make the first move.'
I'm not talking about the point of view of the character, I'm talking about setting credibility from the player's point of view. And no matter what you do, it doesn't change the companion's characterization (as you said yourself) - of being attracted to you whoever, whatever you are, which is contrived to the point that it damages the setting's credibility.
'It proves that the blanket statements you're making about all the characters in the game is untrue. '
Every companion is avaiable as a love interest. True
Because every character is attracted to the protagonist independent of who or what he is. True
Wether the character pursues romance or not, that doesn't change the companion's characterization. True and confirmed by no other than yourself.
The second statement, to me, feels like a contrived scenario to become the staple of a entire series and damages, IMO, the setting's credibility. Subjective to discussion.
Where's the untruth?
'You do realize that these are exactly the same thing? If there are six party members, "adding more options" means making those six available to either gender, as opposed to... what are you even proposing here? Adding new party members just as alternates to optional romantic subplots? Really? '
No, characterizing people into simple romantic subplots whatever the protagonist is is how Dragon Age II did. I propose that, if there weren't enough love interests in Dragon Age: Origins and if that's enough of a issue, then more characters with proper characterization and variation should be added.
'That's player knowledge. Within the context of a specific game, you have no way of knowing who does or does not find you attractive - your love interest will reciprocate your feelings, and that's all. '
I'm not talking about the point of view of the character, I'm talking about setting credibility from the player's point of view. And no matter what you do, it doesn't change the companion's characterization (as you said yourself) - of being attracted to you whoever, whatever you are, which is contrived to the point that it damages the setting's credibility.
'And I view that as a failure of imagination. The DA2 format is ideal in my eyes because it doesn't exclude any version of the protagonist regardless of gender, orientation or alignment - your PC engages in a romance with the character you feel is best suited for them. '
No, that's a triumph of writting and imagination. A good writer creates people and imagines how they would react to given situations as opposed to simply using them as plot points.
I never denied that the DA2 format was potentially more convenient, I argue however that convenience is not always a good thing. Contrived writting so that everyone's 'tastes' are 'properly represented' is not, IMO, a good trade.
'You're conflating her character arc with her romance arc when the former exists independently of the latter. If the male Warden doesn't flirt with her, she will not express romantic inclinations towards him. '
The only possibility that either Morrigan or Leliana aren't attracted to a Male Warden (meaning, that they are unavaiable as a love interest, if that must be spelled out) is low approval rating.
The only possibility that nearly every companion in DA2 isn't avaiable is, never. Admire or Hate you, they are avaiable to you no matter what you do.
'Okay, you're just being deliberately obtuse here. Moving on... '
What do you want? A sex-less situation where the PC's orientation doesn't matter? Or are you saying that brothels are romantic places?
Is it choosing to be gay or not and as a consequence following up on that choice by not choosing certain suitors not enough relevance to you?
'Only someone speaking from a narrow-minded perspective would see inclusion as "a sacrifice of characterization" in a game genre where characterization is at least partly informed by player choice.'
This genre is about self-definition and self-expression. You don't create a world, you create a character. The rules belong to the Gamemaster (BioWare) and according to Dragon Age: Origins, Thedas isn't a world where every companion being your love interest is justifiable, that's contrived writting.
'You don't like the story, don't play out that story - but you don't have a leg to stand on in saying others shouldn't have that option just because it's not what you would choose.'
You know another story that I don't think works? Morrigan as a lesbian woman. Want to know someone that agrees with me? BioWare. Want to know how they could possibly do that? They had the creative liberty to do so. When they set themselves to the standard that 'every love interest should revolve around the protagonist', then they lose that creative liberty - hence a 'sacrifice of characterization'.
That happened, its a fact. Wether we think that's worth it or not is a matter of personal preference. I myself disagree with it. You don't. You have your reasons, you like the convenience (a convenience that I don't deny, though I've come to disagree with many of your points defending it) and I have mine, which I already presented in the thread.
There's no right choice in here. If BioWare reverted to the DA:O way of doing things, I'd be happy because I'd be in a more consistent and less contrived universe. But that wouldn't make your concerns of BioWare writting a character in such a way that doesn't fit your story like a glove disappear - just as you being happy with the convenience doesn't make my concerns disappear either.
This is why our argument started with 'Which is horrible, IMO'.
IE one character falls in love with you from the get go while another you have to work your ass off because they usually just don't swing that way. Gives everyone every romance option and adds some depth and spice to the characters.
People complaining that not every character can be bi might want to read up a bit on the subject.
While I find other men rather disgusting even outside the sexual realm I do believe there is something to the thoughts of all humans having bi tendencies.
Anders says some shit about templars and mages (again)
You can either be a dick off the bat and that leads to no change and ends the conversation or you can continue the conversation (like a normal person) in which case you're locked into either professing your love or getting rival points. It's impossible to say "Yea dude, I get the plight of the mages and support you, but I'd rather not sleep with you." without Anders thinking you killed his cat.
Basically you have to meta-game like a champ but that kind of defeats the purpose of an RPG.
It's that conversation. The only way to not get rival/love is to cut him off right at the start which is kind of the opposite of what I want to do in a game about talking to people.
What possible purpose could saying something this inflammatory serve?
And I totally love this thread. Indeed what was awesome about BG2 is it wasn't entirely clear at first that you were "romancing" them. They were normal friends talking to you. Then things started to eventually get a little more interesting.
(I have to say, the time I had Aerie, Jaheira, AND Viconia in an open argument about me really sticks out in my mind as one of the most hilarious, great moments ever. Then the sheer disappointment from both Aerie and Jaheira when I picked Viconia. Amazing.)
And please stop misconstruing my comment about characterization: you've conflated that with orientation, whereas my point is that character arcs aren't substantially changed if the character is a romance option or not - therefore, there's no reason for differentiation in terms of who's available to whom. Inaccurate: five companions are potentially available as love interests, but only one is relevant for any given playthrough. Agreed. The untruth is in the way you're representing the romances and your conflation of player/character knowledge. Every character can be attracted to Hawke, but you don't experience every possibility in a single playthrough, just like you can't see every possible outcome of a plot-based choice at the same time. We as players know that Hawke can romance almost anyone in his party, but once that choice is made, all other members of your party are closed off to you and - in that version of events - may not be interested in you at all. (Indeed, the game implies that Isabela and Fenris have a fling if you're not involved with either of them.) And that's exactly what they did. Isabela, Fenris, Anders and Merrill are as varied a group as you can get, they're all properly characterized and distinct, and they're all available as mutually exclusive love interests. Again, you're repeating my point without actually understanding it. The player has no reason to question the credibility of the setting because every version of the game world allows you to pursue a specific teammate. They won't all express an interest in you at the same time and force you to choose. In some versions of Thedas the Warden executes Nathaniel Howe, in some he survives; by the same token, Fenris is gay when a male Hawke romances him and straight when a female Hawke romances him/when a male Hawke does not romance him. The variables don't detract from the world, they add to it. That's an unbelievably entitled stance to take. Your preferences should take priority over another player's because you think it's contrived to be otherwise? Please. Again, that's fundamentally inaccurate. One companion can be locked into a romance, at which point every potential partner you didn't pursue is not available to you anymore (and, as far as you know, they were never interested in you to begin with). It's the exact same feature as the origin stories in the first game: Duncan could potentially show up in one of six places based on your choice of character, and once that choice plays out, the other five possibilities never happened. Your original comment claimed that the PC's sexuality is important to the overall story of the game. This is categorically untrue, in that it only affects the romance plot. (And yes, the Pearl counts because your love interest will disapprove if you do business there and nothing you do in the Pearl has any effect on other components of the story.) Did you miss the part where it's the same GM and the same writer in both games? Obviously, Thedas is a world where you have the option of pursuing a specific love interest, it just took them a second try to get the concept right. And yet you've agreed with me that romance and sexual orientation is irrelevant to character arcs. Can't have it both ways.
This has been an interesting discussion, but I think we're at an impasse - best we stop here, I think.