I'm pretty sure that line was a joke. Don't get me wrong, he does say he punishes anyone who's tried to rebel against him, but the impaling line sounded like a joke. Especially because it involves a gnome.
Perhaps, however, when AA wants to take Tav into his chambers, "you're mine", "I'll protect you" everyone loses their sense of humor and the difference of colors. Even though it's a princess from House of Night Star, his personality doesn't change, instead he's more open.
His approval of torture in Act 1 is no joke. Astarion laughed at "mercy" - that's no joke either.
[video:youtube][/video]
I guess there is no difference: gnome, human, other spawn, there are rules and there is punishment. I'm sure Astarion won't choose mercy. Impalement is one possible opition. But apparently it's a proven method.
The pleasure of killing also is still here, so probably when someone breaks those rules he will get high when they kill offender. Duage's run perfectly illustrates how bloodthirsty he is.
What I was saying is that I doubt that they were involved with Tav's face here, I explained why a couple pages earlier on this thread, basically that seems more of a cinematics' department thing.
Personally, I prefer talking in a general way rather than pointing the finger at someone in particular. So yes, your inputs are quite welcome, and maybe it's just a mishap there, yes. What still puzzles me, in that case, is like, don't they have processes before even green lighting things ? It seemed to me a snip of one of those scenes, with Gale in it and not the player's character, had served as a teaser before the release. Or I'm confused about it (which is quite possible, so I'm sorry if that's the case).
I noted the race because Astarion's gnome racism is a running "gag" throughout the acts and here he's saying he will punish someone who's killed a gnome. Neil's tone also sounds like he's joking.
That being said, I'm not debating Astarion having a knack for punishment or violence, like I said he does absolutely say as much in the UD ending in a line where he's clearly not joking. I'm just saying the impaling line sounds like a joke.
What I was saying is that I doubt that they were involved with Tav's face here, I explained why a couple pages earlier on this thread, basically that seems more of a cinematics' department thing.
Personally, I prefer talking in a general way rather than pointing the finger at someone in particular. So yes, your inputs are quite welcome, and maybe it's just a mishap there, yes. What still puzzles me, in that case, is like, don't they have processes before even green lighting things ? It seemed to me a snip of one of those scenes, with Gale in it and not the player's character, had served as a teaser before the release. Or I'm confused about it (which is quite possible, so I'm sorry if that's the case).
TBH, I'm unsure how much they monitor these things. I remember asking Rooney about a graphical update to Astarion back when EA was still a thing and he said he didn't know if anything had been altered because that wasn't his department. He also implies on an interview that he didn't have input over Astarion's design and that he "was surprised he looked so young" in the concept art. That being said, animations aren't graphical updates.
I know Rooney saw Astarion's crying scene during the ritual throughout its several stages of development, so that does involve some amount of monitoring. I'm unsure if kisses require that amount of writer's input there, though.
I'm unsure how those two statements contradict each other? Frankly I'm not sure what you're asking me here. Welch did write the AA romance, for better or for worse depending on your opinion. What I was saying is that I doubt that they were involved with Tav's face here, I explained why a couple pages earlier on this thread, basically that seems more of a cinematics' department thing.
Here you wrote this:
Originally Posted by jinetemoranco
I'd like to add that the Larian animators I've seen online seem quite aware of the story and characters, one of them even added in a hand kiss based on Gale fanart.
Originally Posted by jinetemoranco
Whether or not you agree or think this was the wrong way to do it they're trying to send out the message that A.Astarion is abusive, simple as.
Originally Posted by jinetemoranco
They conveyed why Astarion (or that version of Astarion, rather) is abusive or will become abusive plenty already in the game itself but that's a circular and pointless argument to have if I've ever heard one, I will say the story is still very clear to me at least, this patch has changed nothing for me. The narrative is painfully unsubtle, to the writing's detriment at times. It's a very well done depiction of an abusive person though, including one of the telltale abuser's technique of lovebombing (his fake sounding over-the-top sweet-nothings, basically) and everything. Nothing about his characterisation has changed.
So on the one hand, it sounds like you think, it's on the cinematics' department (so accidently?), and on the other hand, you assume, they are aware of the story and they are trying to send a message (so intentionally?). Doesn't one exclude the other?
"I would, thank God, watch the universe perish without shedding a tear."
So on the one hand, it sounds like you think, it's on the cinematics' department (so accidently?), and on the other hand, you assume, they are aware of the story and they are trying to send a message (so intentionally?). Doesn't one exclude the other?
Not exactly. There is a chance it's accidental in that the mo-cap actor who played Tav assumed that that's a situation where you frown like that, and that then the animators used that as reference, I guess. My theory is that the cinematics department intentionally chose to stick to the narrative they perceived from that relationship (whether you think it's correct or not). Basically, they assumed (whether you think they assumed correctly or not) what the message of the romance was and animated accordingly to reinforce that. You quoted a message where I brought up that an animator added a hand kiss based on fanart, my point there is that the animators seem aware of the story and characters so they might be trying to reinforce the narrative.
I can't 100% say the writers had nothing to do with it of course, but I'm inclined to say they probably didn't have a lot of influence over something that specific, and like I said, innocent until proven guilty
I noted the race because Astarion's gnome racism is a running "gag" throughout the acts and here he's saying he will punish someone who's killed a gnome. Neil's tone also sounds like he's joking.
That being said, I'm not debating Astarion having a knack for punishment or violence, like I said he does absolutely say as much in the UD ending in a line where he's clearly not joking. I'm just saying the impaling line sounds like a joke.
M-m, the more I think about it, the less it sounds like a joke. First, it's odd that it was the gnomes, was chosen. Astarion couldn't cure his racism in six months. He doesn't care about gnomes, he calls them animals. He could have made them a permanent diet. Why mention the punishment is interesting, he can't worry about the gnomes. Suppose if they kill a gnome other gnomes hire monster hunters for revenge. Or the drow, duergar who use them as slaves, would be unhappy that their living goods is diminishing. It's not good. It doesn't matter who the spawn killed, even a mushroom, Astarion's rules are broken - punishment, there's irony in that Astarion doesn't care about mushrooms, gnomes, or strangers either. It can be two in one. When Astarion by the way thought decapitation was a good option, well the fastest. Not to just "I'll show them" but to Vellioth-punish when someone went against his rules. Honestly, Astarion can sweetly giggle talking about killing. Impalement is an available opition.
My theory is that the cinematics department intentionally chose to stick to the narrative they perceived from that relationship (whether you think it's correct or not). Basically, they assumed (whether you think they assumed correctly or not) what the message of the romance was and animated accordingly to reinforce that.
Since when are the animators responsible for the narrative? That's something that is in the hands of the writers. The animators and actors are then told how to present the scene.
So on the one hand, it sounds like you think, it's on the cinematics' department (so accidently?), and on the other hand, you assume, they are aware of the story and they are trying to send a message (so intentionally?). Doesn't one exclude the other?
Not exactly. There is a chance it's accidental in that the mo-cap actor who played Tav assumed that that's a situation where you frown like that, and that then the animators used that as reference, I guess. My theory is that the cinematics department intentionally chose to stick to the narrative they perceived from that relationship (whether you think it's correct or not). Basically, they assumed (whether you think they assumed correctly or not) what the message of the romance was and animated accordingly to reinforce that.
I can't 100% say the writers had nothing to do with it of course, but I'm inclined to say they probably didn't have a lot of influence over something that specific, and like I said, innocent until proven guilty
Okay, but have you seen the new scenes, ENTIRELY, also with free cam and in slow motions and are you aware, that it is NOT just "frowning"?
"I would, thank God, watch the universe perish without shedding a tear."
Okay, but have you seen the new scenes, ENTIRELY, also with free cam and in slow motions and are you aware, that it is NOT just "frowning"?
I have, and what I can say is that the body language is 100% coming from the mo-cap actors. So, that could lend some credence to the theory that it came from the actors themselves. They might have been given instructions to act a certain way, that I don't know. I know Neil mo-capped at least one of the AA kisses though, but not which.
EDIT: Also, I'd say generally that if the scene isn't showing something it might not be meant to be shown or analysed, so the rest of the body language probably wasn't given a lot of thought to when staging the shots.
What I was saying is that I doubt that they were involved with Tav's face here, I explained why a couple pages earlier on this thread, basically that seems more of a cinematics' department thing.
Personally, I prefer talking in a general way rather than pointing the finger at someone in particular. So yes, your inputs are quite welcome, and maybe it's just a mishap there, yes. What still puzzles me, in that case, is like, don't they have processes before even green lighting things ? It seemed to me a snip of one of those scenes, with Gale in it and not the player's character, had served as a teaser before the release. Or I'm confused about it (which is quite possible, so I'm sorry if that's the case).
TBH, I'm unsure how much they monitor these things. I remember asking Rooney about a graphical update to Astarion back when EA was still a thing and he said he didn't know if anything had been altered because that wasn't his department. He also implies on an interview that he didn't have input over Astarion's design and that he "was surprised he looked so young" in the concept art. That being said, animations aren't graphical updates.
I know Rooney saw Astarion's crying scene during the ritual throughout its several stages of development, so that does involve some amount of monitoring. I'm unsure if kisses require that amount of writer's input there, though.
Also, I'd say generally that if the scene isn't showing something it might not be meant to be shown or analysed, so the rest of the body language probably wasn't given a lot of thought to when staging the shots.
I don't think so. The scene is acted according to instructions and then animated, polished and edited by the cinematics department. They just choose what to keep or hide and what to focus on when doing that, most likely discussing it with the writers.
If you've seen the body language in that scene you'd know it perfectly fits the abused victim narrative.
EDIT: Also, I'd say generally that if the scene isn't showing something it might not be meant to be shown or analysed, so the rest of the body language probably wasn't given a lot of thought to when staging the shots.
I disagree with that in this case, because you just clearly see, what most people have seen or felt with the ingame camera angles: SA/DA, sexual deviant context. It's clearly animated or "mocapped". There's a reason why a lot of people were triggered by these scenes, even, without seeing the whole body of Tav.
But in general, I would agree, not everything is fleshed out in some scenes away from the camera angles. But the body languages of the characters speaking or being involved, are most times clearly animated.
Originally Posted by Ametris
Originally Posted by jinetemoranco
My theory is that the cinematics department intentionally chose to stick to the narrative they perceived from that relationship (whether you think it's correct or not). Basically, they assumed (whether you think they assumed correctly or not) what the message of the romance was and animated accordingly to reinforce that.
Since when are the animators responsible for the narrative? That's something that is in the hands of the writers. The animators and actors are then told how to present the scene.
I would assume the same, or I am wondering, they or someone who know the story would at least take a look onto new scenes, especially, with those kind of intensive scenes.
Originally Posted by Ametris
Originally Posted by jinetemoranco
Also, I'd say generally that if the scene isn't showing something it might not be meant to be shown or analysed, so the rest of the body language probably wasn't given a lot of thought to when staging the shots.
I don't think so. The scene is acted according to instructions and then animated, polished and edited by the cinematics department. They just choose what to keep or hide and what to focus on when doing that, most likely discussing it with the writers.
If you've seen the body language in that scene you'd know it perfectly fits the abused victim narrative.
Yep, it was specifically chosen to show Tav's scared, sad, pissed-off faces, and how Tav is not enjoying a thing and is suffering.
"I would, thank God, watch the universe perish without shedding a tear."
As the conversation around the cinematic department is back full throttle, I went to compile my sources about their process, and you can take the conclusions you want to, mine was that cinematic artists here seem to have leeway to add stuff. I'm sure there are other cinematic animators on twitter, but this is the one I know that's very active in the community:
As the conversation around the cinematic department is back full throttle, I went to compile my sources about their process, and you can take the conclusions you want to, mine was that cinematic artists here seem to have leeway to add stuff. I'm sure there are other cinematic animators on twitter, but this is the one I know that's very active in the community:
Well, I don't mind their opinion. But you clearly see, that the person stated, they are not working on Astarion and "can't say much", and still find these scenes fitting for this route. That alone makes the whole problematic issue visible, when people, who don't understand a thing of the romance, probably never played the romance, add their two cents about it("find them fitting pretty well") , which has no substance ("can't say much / not working on it")
"I would, thank God, watch the universe perish without shedding a tear."
Furthermore, no one "deserves" power. Everyone deserves freedom, yes, but power isn't a thing anyone should be entitled to. Power should come with responsibility, with checks and balances. Nobody should be allowed to do whatever they want without limitations. Nobody. The fact that people in the world do essentially get that is a great injustice that should not be tolerated. Astarion deserves freedom, he deserves to heal, he deserves love, but he does not deserve power.
Perhaps the word "deserves", as applied to the game character and my personal game choices, was a bit emotional. But I don't pretend to present this opinion of mine as some kind of truth in the last instance. But every player has the right to make their own game choices, a player has the right to love a companion character, to take their fate as the main quest in their game, and to try to give that character everything they want and everything that character deserves, in the player's opinion. Another player can decide the fate of characters based on some general principles of morality, try to find some kind of balance for themselves, make it so that everyone is free, no one died, there were no casualties, etc., as you described in your post. The third player may think that all companions deserve only severed arms, heads and in general nothing good, and they, the lonely evil son of Baal, will go to wreak death and chaos on their way. The game allows for this option as well. In the closed thread you mentioned such a game as Pillars of Eternity.
"My go-to example is Pillars of Eternity. You start as a blank slate there, but in those games the Watcher can be a dynamic character within the plot if you put some effort in and meet the game where it's at. I've made multiple characters in those games and given them personal character arcs that span both games. But in BG3 Tav never really gets to be dynamic, even if you put the effort in."
I really like this game too, and I agree that it's a great example of a good RPG. But tell me, if in any of your playthroughs for the multiple characters (perhaps there was an "evil" playthrough too?) you suddenly (and these things are exactly that, sudden and beyond human control) encountered the effects of a trigger and felt very bad about it, would you also call that a good game? I can also cite Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous (and the previous game in the series, Pathfinder: Kingmaker) as a great example of good RPGs where different paths are available, each with its own atmosphere.
If we're talking in terms of what a player deserves and should be able to do, that's a very different discussion which I'm happy to have. I think you make a good point, but I will also say that the game shouldn't have to account for everything every player would want to the detriment of the themes of the game. A good game (like PoE) can have a lot of flexibility in how events come off and can be read, but that's not the case in ever game, that goes for BG3 too. If you consider Astarion's story in the context of the wider game, particularly the companion stories, then the themes and ideas at play become a lot more obvious, I find. The companions start out with beliefs and ambitions that they hold, and that will lead them down a dark path if they don't see the mistake of their beliefs and change. Lae'zel and Shadowheart's paths seem to be the most obvious in this regard. I think that everything being all rosy in AA's path goes against the themes present within the rest of the game and actually end up contradicting them.
All that being said, I've come out already in support of changing the new kiss, because it's harming players and it doesn't make any sense for its purpose in the game; being a repeatable action that will mainly take place at a point before the fullness of Astarion's inevitable villain turn would become apparent and will thus clash with other events in the game. As for the question of encountering triggering content, I am fortunate enough that I don't have any trauma triggers to worry about, but if you're talking about if I personally would call the game a good game in that scenario, I probably wouldn't. It might still be a good game, but I doubt I would call it such.
Originally Posted by Zayir
Originally Posted by jinetemoranco
As the conversation around the cinematic department is back full throttle, I went to compile my sources about their process, and you can take the conclusions you want to, mine was that cinematic artists here seem to have leeway to add stuff. I'm sure there are other cinematic animators on twitter, but this is the one I know that's very active in the community:
Well, I don't mind their opinion. But you clearly see, that the person stated, they are not working on Astarion and "can't say much", and still find these scenes fitting for this route. That alone makes the whole problematic issue visible, when people, who don't understand a thing of the romance, probably never played the romance, add their two cents about it("find them fitting pretty well") , which has no substance ("can't say much / not working on it")
I don't think it's indicative of anything. Somebody asked him about the Astarion scene and he admitted he didn't have anything to do with it but he thought it was fine. What else would you expect in that situation? He probably said that to reflexively defend his colleagues who did work on it. There's nothing to read into this exchange, I feel.
What creates the dissonance is that some see the game as a dark romance story, which - by definition of the genre - should allow them to indulge in this kind of fantasy and it feels moralising when they are forbidden from it. While other see it as fantasy story with elements of cosmic horror that explores the topics of power, identity and fellowship, and has romance subplots, which means that your romantic fantasies are not necessarily indulged. Question of perspective.
And if someone doesn't want cosmic or any other dramatic/traumatic horror for themselves, but wants a role-playing game with a logical plot (personally, I just can't and won't choose to reject ritual, I'm not going to torture Astarion or myself, I don't need such a "dramatic" world where I don't want anything in it except to burn it to the ground), then these "fantasies" should be discouraged to the point of including traumatizing content in the game without warning?
Then that's your take. I also get the impression that you feel attacked, while I was trying to add some information for @JandK to maybe get a more lenient view on @LiryFire's explanation of the dynamics in a type of romance novel, because they contain a fantasy that is not the most intuitive.
Originally Posted by Marielle
Originally Posted by Anska
There is the whole Smooch-discussion which has sprouted insane conspiracy theories (3D sadistic porn animator - really? ) and an absolutely wild spiral of outrage and ever repeating arguments of self affirmation and victimhood.
I think people have a right to say they are hurt by this game. But that's just my opinion.
You can totally say why you don't like something and why it hurts you, I have also said why I don't like the new A!Astarion kisses. But when you start making up wild stories about how the writers and the company are going to great lengths only to make you miserable, and perpetuate these stories as facts, it is not ok. It's what bullies and rumour-mongers do. It is also why multiple warnings were issued in various kiss-related threads.
What is also not ok is demanding greatest care and attention for your own feelings, traumas and triggers while treating those of other people as wrong and negligible.
I don't think it's indicative of anything. Somebody asked him about the Astarion scene and he admitted he didn't have anything to do with it but he thought it was fine. What else would you expect in that situation? He probably said that to reflexively defend his colleagues who did work on it. There's nothing to read into this exchange, I feel.
Well, you didn't understand what I was trying to say with it - whatever the reason, but it's all right. I will not comment it further.
"I would, thank God, watch the universe perish without shedding a tear."
If you consider Astarion's story in the context of the wider game, particularly the companion stories, then the themes and ideas at play become a lot more obvious, I find. The companions start out with beliefs and ambitions that they hold, and that will lead them down a dark path if they don't see the mistake of their beliefs and change. Lae'zel and Shadowheart's paths seem to be the most obvious in this regard. I think that everything being all rosy in AA's path goes against the themes present within the rest of the game and actually end up contradicting them.
I actually find this spin on the companion narrative to be poorly presented, boring and insulting to the characters. They basicly turned all companions into bumbling idiots who supposedly don't know what they need, they're not adults who should think for themselves but instead are clueless children who need a messiah Tav to guide them and tell them how they should live their lives, because apparently Tav knows best and is the greatest life coach ever.
What about Wyll? He believed in self-sacrifices and ended up with horns. If his father is not saved he remains a monster hunter. If he's helped with Ansur then he chooses to keep playing a hero in Avernus. The only way to really tell him what to do is to free himself from the pact and to become the Duke. So following this logic of Tav having to dissuade everyone for the most optimal results, is that his best outcome then?
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/fvrFg3p/image.png)
