Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Well, in matter of this topic i was only refering to races. laugh
I believe 6 member party, day/night cicle, reaction system, or time with pause combat style ... is not quite relevant for romance options. laugh


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Hey, Justice for Shorties! I mgiht predominately play halflings and gnomes, but I still enjoy a nice goblin or kobold from time to time. Especially kobolds. Those kobold boys are handsom devils in 5e.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I believe 6 member party (...) is not quite relevant for romance options. laugh
I mean....the more the merrier.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I believe 6 member party (...) is not quite relevant for romance options. laugh
I mean....the more the merrier.
Party members just adjust how many people you can drag with you to adventuring, not how many potential victims ... ehm, partners do you have in camp. wink


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Jul 2021
N
NemethR Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
N
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Honestly? It would feel okey to me ...
Im used to it from other games ... i was never able to romance Morigan as a Female, nor a Aleister as a Male, and my Dwarf-female in DA:I was sentenced for life in solitude, since she had no fiting partner present in game (Feel free to read as: I refused to let Iron Bull anywhere near her laugh ).

It just feels right. O_o
If i decide to play *XY* character, i should count with that character is *XY*, no matter if i would like that for myself or not ... and if his, or hers options will not please my eye all i need to do is simply "choose to spend night allone", wich is certainly there ... so no problem for me. laugh
If i would have option to play DA:I as Dorian ... and had option to have sex with Sera, i would concider it either bug, or massive immersion break. :-/

Simmilar that i really, honestly hope, with my whole hearth, that when Origin companions become playable, we would never be allowed to play Shadowheart as benevolent, friendly, allways willing to help, Githyanki-lover (and im not meaning it just sexualy right now) ...
Bcs that would completely ruin the character. :-/

This very much sums up my view.


And to add to this, I still think there should be a mechanism indicating the players preference, and something against that preference should not be forced onto the player.
This very much can fell inappropriate for people. For me certainly.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by NemethR
And to add to this, I still think there should be a mechanism indicating the players preference, and something against that preference should not be forced onto the player.
This very much can fell inappropriate for people. For me certainly.
And that is where we simply dont agree with each other ... and probably never will.

The fact that you dont find your companion (it dont really matter if that is Wyll, or Lae'zel) attractive, dont mean at all that s/he cannot find you attractive (especialy if your Tav looks like this ... rawr xD ) ... how else could s/he know, unless you tell him? O_o

I mean, as i said previously ...
I could imagine that there should be some dialogue options that will clearly state that your Tav is not interested in *same Sex* that should block out propositions from other party members of same sex ... since in this camp people react to all your decisions in real time anyway, so ... it seem acceptable.

But even that seem kinda uncomplete to me ... maybe in just perverd in this matter, but i cant understand how someone can mind that someone who is interested in him does also have penis, but is totally cool with fucking alien who lays eggs, have scales on skin, horns, tail and litteraly claws instead of nails, and w/e other stuff Larian adds. laugh
Your Tav would have problem that someone who likes him have something hanging in front between his legs ... but dont seem to care that Karlach have something simmilar, but 4times bigger in back between her legs. laugh laugh laugh
I hope you get the idea. laugh

But it could be also resolved by one general option, where our Tav tells anyone that he is not sexualy interested in different race than himself ...
Question there is if Larian dares to add such sentence in this modern days of obsession with political correctness ... and also if that would not be too much work to implement, when all you need to do is deny 4 different people. laugh :-/

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 23/08/21 10:17 AM.

Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
It's a problem in many modern western RPG's. As soon as the game involves romance every character and their pets has to be bi-sexual. I understand why they write them this way (To avoid the boohoo why can't i romance X with my male/female character).
but I think they could write more interesting characters if they had a more set sexuality. Sure, some characters works great as bi-sexual, Astarion for example. But some should be just gay and some just straight.

Last edited by Peranor; 23/08/21 10:53 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Once again, as said, many, mnay, many times now....

Playersexual =/= Bisexual
Bisexual =/= Playersexual

Not the same thing. Different things. Very different things. Completely different things. Virtually unrelated things, except in as far as they are both within the sphere of talking about an individual NPC's intimate preferences.

I really wish, wish, wish, that people would stop conflating the two.

So far, as defined by the story we have, in BG3, there are exactly ZERO companions that are canonically defined as bisexual. None. Not One. Not A Single One.

Last edited by Niara; 23/08/21 02:15 PM.
Joined: Dec 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
and there won't be. it's just much easier to make them playersexual. Why add in a bunch of extra-dialogue that at best would appeal to a very small portion of the community when they can just make everyone player-sexual and cover most of the minority and all the majority as well. Straight people will think the character is straight, gay will think they're gay and bi-sexuals will get whatever they're feeling currently. Yes, more nuance to relationships would be nice, but i just can't see them doing it.

Last edited by Boblawblah; 23/08/21 03:50 PM.
Joined: Aug 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2021
I agree with you both. Since they are playersexual it will not only make things easier on them, as it will make it better for players who like a certain character and aren't forced to play a gender they don't like just for the romance. This is far worst in my opinion.
The only thing they need to change in my opinion (and I'm pretty sure that they will if their interviews are to be believed) is the approach and add the dialogues, like flirting to let us, the players decide who to pursuit from the beginning and not having them all wanting to jump on our character at the same time.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
I would prefer the NPCs to have clear likes and dislikes up to and including specific races like in BGII personally; that would help define the character instead of a "...eh, whatever" attitude, however I understand you can justify the current thing as "This playthrough they're bi/homosexual and into halflings, the previous one they were straight and into elves". I don't really think there's a 'right' or 'wrong' one for this; you can make arguments for and against.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't see a romantic relationship as something you should get just because you want it, this argument that player-sexual NPCs are a way of maximizing content for the maximum number of players is not valid to me, and it gets at what I meant by diminishing the characterization of a player sexual NPC, they're written to be everything so they are kept from being more distinct individuals i.e. one who is gay or straight or bi-sexual or only interested romantically in medium-sized races etc.

@Niara I agree with you that player sexual NPCs are not just bisexual NPCs but I consider the 'multiverse of sexuality' head canon, the kind of mental gymnastics that is problematic for me. If the game is making me build a head canon around their indecisive writing, it lessens the experience for me. From my perspective, every thing in the world before I make my first decision is set in stone, these people existed and the narrative is now changing around the choices we make during the game.

Mentioning DA:I is good in this context, for all of that games other narrative problems, they did very good making the companion NPCs not fall into what is very commonplace in RPG, Also DA:II did it well too, but not many people played it I guess, you could even pursue a character who didn't return your affections, I can't think of another game that does that off the top of my head (Disco doesn't count)

Last edited by Sozz; 24/08/21 01:25 AM. Reason: dumb
Joined: Aug 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2021
Well, I for one would love if they looked at DA2 in the romance part as a reference. In there, yes, unless is Sebastian, a DLC character, all of the romanceable companions are bi, and that's it. however, you can feel that their sexuality is present in a way that certain characters feel better or open themselves more in relationships when romancing a certain gender, etc.

But I think doing something like this would be way too big for Larian at this point. Too many choices would be locked, etc. I never had an interest in playing BG1 and 2 because of this. Romance is a great part of what attracts me in RPGs, but the gender AND race-locked romances kept me away.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Does that mean you're not interested in playing an MC who isn't a stand-in for you?

Joined: Aug 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2021
Originally Posted by Sozz
Does that mean you're not interested in playing an MC who isn't a stand-in for you?

No, why would I? Because all the complaints I hear around here about the characters seem that is the same for everyone.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Avallonkao
Since they are playersexual it will not only make things easier on them, as it will make it better for players who like a certain character and aren't forced to play a gender they don't like just for the romance.
Disagree ...
In one of bigger (and im affraid allready locked) topics, there was interesting idea ... where its autor suggested that characters should have prefferences, BUT ALSO being playersexual ... if you know what i mean.
(My preffered option honestly.)

The first step was to add more dialogues ofcourse ...
But there should be some dialogue that would be just like "well, i never was with another man before, but you ... dunno, w/e" or simmilar stuff, im exhausted and out of inspiration right now. laugh

To put it simply ...
Gale expressed his interest in Shadowheart in your first meeting ... therefore if you play either Human, or Elf, or Halfelf woman ... you should feel that fiting his preference maked his romance easier for you ... than somoene who would play Dragonborn male. laugh

IMPORTANT!!!
Note that it should be only FEEL ... i would not even change the amount of flirting dialogues, or amount of reputation you would need ...

Example: Lets say for Gale preferences are: Gender: Female ... Races: Human / Elf / Half-Elf ...
If you fit both his preferences > first flirt ... he should be flattered, and welcoming your attitude.
If you fit one of his preferences > first flirt ... he should be kinda reserved, but friendly and opened to that option.
If you DONT fit your preferences > first flirt ... he should be surprised with your attitude and admit he never even thought about this. laugh

That way characters would have preferences > therefore they would seem a little deeper.
Yet nobody will be as you said "forced to play a gender (and i would add or race) they dont like just for the romance". Thefore in my eyes, everybody should be happy! smile

The only question here is ... if Larian would concider this to be good investition of time and resources. laugh


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Aug 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Avallonkao
Since they are playersexual it will not only make things easier on them, as it will make it better for players who like a certain character and aren't forced to play a gender they don't like just for the romance.
Disagree ...
In one of bigger (and im affraid allready locked) topics, there was interesting idea ... where its autor suggested that characters should have prefferences, BUT ALSO being playersexual ... if you know what i mean.
(My preffered option honestly.)

The first step was to add more dialogues ofcourse ...
But there should be some dialogue that would be just like "well, i never was with another man before, but you ... dunno, w/e" or simmilar stuff, im exhausted and out of inspiration right now. laugh

To put it simply ...
Gale expressed his interest in Shadowheart in your first meeting ... therefore if you play either Human, or Elf, or Halfelf woman ... you should feel that fiting his preference maked his romance easier for you ... than somoene who would play Dragonborn male. laugh

IMPORTANT!!!
Note that it should be only FEEL ... i would not even change the amount of flirting dialogues, or amount of reputation you would need ...

Example: Lets say for Gale preferences are: Gender: Female ... Races: Human / Elf / Half-Elf ...
If you fit both his preferences > first flirt ... he should be flattered, and welcoming your attitude.
If you fit one of his preferences > first flirt ... he should be kinda reserved, but friendly and opened to that option.
If you DONT fit your preferences > first flirt ... he should be surprised with your attitude and admit he never even thought about this. laugh

That way characters would have preferences > therefore they would seem a little deeper.
Yet nobody will be as you said "forced to play a gender (and i would add or race) they dont like just for the romance". Thefore in my eyes, everybody should be happy! smile

The only question here is ... if Larian would concider this to be good investition of time and resources. laugh

+1 to this, this is actually a great idea tbh.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Avallonkao
Originally Posted by Sozz
Does that mean you're not interested in playing an MC who isn't a stand-in for you?

No, why would I? Because all the complaints I hear around here about the characters seem that is the same for everyone.
I'm afraid I couldn't follow this.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Avallonkao
Since they are playersexual it will not only make things easier on them, as it will make it better for players who like a certain character and aren't forced to play a gender they don't like just for the romance.
Disagree ...
In one of bigger (and im affraid allready locked) topics, there was interesting idea ... where its autor suggested that characters should have prefferences, BUT ALSO being playersexual ... if you know what i mean.
(My preffered option honestly.)

The first step was to add more dialogues ofcourse ...
But there should be some dialogue that would be just like "well, i never was with another man before, but you ... dunno, w/e" or simmilar stuff, im exhausted and out of inspiration right now. laugh

To put it simply ...
Gale expressed his interest in Shadowheart in your first meeting ... therefore if you play either Human, or Elf, or Halfelf woman ... you should feel that fiting his preference maked his romance easier for you ... than somoene who would play Dragonborn male. laugh

IMPORTANT!!!
Note that it should be only FEEL ... i would not even change the amount of flirting dialogues, or amount of reputation you would need ...

Example: Lets say for Gale preferences are: Gender: Female ... Races: Human / Elf / Half-Elf ...
If you fit both his preferences > first flirt ... he should be flattered, and welcoming your attitude.
If you fit one of his preferences > first flirt ... he should be kinda reserved, but friendly and opened to that option.
If you DONT fit your preferences > first flirt ... he should be surprised with your attitude and admit he never even thought about this. laugh

That way characters would have preferences > therefore they would seem a little deeper.
Yet nobody will be as you said "forced to play a gender (and i would add or race) they dont like just for the romance". Thefore in my eyes, everybody should be happy! smile

The only question here is ... if Larian would concider this to be good investition of time and resources. laugh
Locked Topic indeed. This is more in the vein of DA:II, which had characters clearly with a past inclination, but who could be romanced by either gender. Unlike player sexual heroes, I considered most of these characters to be written with a dominant sexuality, but who were written as being open to romancing anyone (in this case every one was bi-sexual). I considered that a good thing because it was well written. It definitely doesn't appear to be what we're getting in BG:3.

Last edited by Sozz; 23/08/21 06:34 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Sozz
I don't see a romantic relationship as something you should get just because you want it, this argument that player-sexual NPCs are a way of maximizing content for the maximum number of players is not valid to me,

In a world where the only rules of preference that exist are made by those who are crating to product with the specific intention of appealing to, and being enjoyed by, as many people as possible, why do you feel that it is NOT a fair expectation that anyone who wants to pursue romance with a fictional character they like the characterisation of, should not be ale to do so? I can't see any reason at all to justify that stance, so I'd welcome you explaining it to me.

I want to stay up all night drinking wine and having arcane discourse scattered with dry humour with a well-educated and well-spoken wizard, and then retire for an exchange of a more bodily pursuit afterwards... Why, exactly, do you feel that I should *Not* be free to expect that I can pursue that, simply because that's my want in this game? Give me a reason why I shouldn't.

Quote
it gets at what I meant by diminishing the characterization of a player sexual NPC, they're written to be everything so they are kept from being more distinct individuals i.e. one who is gay or straight or bi-sexual or only interested romantically in medium-sized races etc.

No, this is a fallacy. A person's specific genital preference for intimate bed activity is not, and should never, EVER be the primary defining feature of their character and characterisation. The argument that it waters down their characters or undermines their characterisation is completely false, unjustified and without merit. Justify to me - explain to me - How a character is incapable of being a fully fleshed out, engaging interesting and consistent character, without explicit description of what they like to do with their genitals in the company of others. Justify that, because that is what you need to be claiming, to say that player-sexual characters are inherently weaker or lacking characters.

((To put it another way as I've seen quoted elsewhere: "Exactly what Astarion chooses to put his dick in is not, and should never be teated like it is, an important part of his character."))

Quote
I agree with you that player sexual NPCs are not just bisexual NPCs but I consider the 'multiverse of sexuality' head canon, the kind of mental gymnastics that is problematic for me. If the game is making me build a head canon around their indecisive writing, it lessens the experience for me. From my perspective, every thing in the world before I make my first decision is set in stone, these people existed and the narrative is now changing around the choices we make during the game.

Now, this bit I can appreciate to a certain extent - if you personally do not like accepting an "Undefined" in your world space, for even the smallest of things, then it's understandable that having an "Undefined" within each and every major companion might feel a bit wearing on you. That, I can understand and appreciate. I'd still comment that that's on you, though - in an individual play though, there are no undefineds. Each character *IS* and has *Always Been* the way they are, at least insofar as the game reckons this. In another person's game, the world as a whole is a little bit different in mostly insignificant ways. Certain NPCs died or didn't, certain events happened or didn't, and there is no defined canon for many, many things. In worlds where we can choose our background more solidly, then there are things before the start point that will vary game game to game and player to player as well. In some game universes, every female walks around with their tits out and has done so for all history - in others, the origin companions are helped by a renegade mindflayer, and not a material plane denizen at all. In less extreme iterations of the world, some games have a world where the player character has the option of getting Shadowheart out of her pod, while other instances of the world present a world where this is simply not possible for them (people playing on different patches)... those are all other instances of the world that other people play... and you have to accept that whether you're a fan of it or not. It doesn't affect your game though, and, more importantly, it doesn't make anything in your game more fuzzy or less defined in the ways that it is. The same is true for the fact that in some other instances of the game, Lae'zel only considers pursuing physical recreation with males, while in other instances of the game, she will pursue whomever she views as the most appealing for said recreation, regardless of their genital configuration. On the scope of things, that is an infinitesimally minor difference between one world space and the next, and like all the others, does nothing whatsoever to water down, muddy or fuzz the things in your own game or how well defined they are... So I don't understand how you can feel like the lesser one is a problem for your gaming experience, while the major ones do not.

=

Ragnarok's comment is an interesting example of what I feel many of us would like from the game, which is a more responsive, more differentiated interaction experience that acknowledges the more unusual situations and makes them feel justified - it would add more depth to the characters for them to do that, rather than just flipping pronouns around and calling it done, which is what I think many people are worried is all we'll get.

Last edited by Niara; 24/08/21 12:26 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
You've made a lot of work for me let's start:
Originally Posted by Niara
In a world where the only rules of preference that exist are made by those who are crating to product with the specific intention of appealing to, and being enjoyed by, as many people as possible, why do you feel that it is NOT a fair expectation...
Originally Posted by Sozz
I don't see a romantic relationship as something you should get just because you want it, this argument that player-sexual NPCs are a way of maximizing content for the maximum number of players is not valid to me,

In a world where the only rules of preference that exist are made by those who are crating to product with the specific intention of appealing to, and being enjoyed by, as many people as possible, why do you feel that it is NOT a fair expectation that anyone who wants to pursue romance with a fictional character they like the characterisation of, should not be ale to do so? I can't see any reason at all to justify that stance, so I'd welcome you explaining it to me.

I want to stay up all night drinking wine and having arcane discourse scattered with dry humour with a well-educated and well-spoken wizard, and then retire for an exchange of a more bodily pursuit afterwards... Why, exactly, do you feel that I should *Not* be free to expect that I can pursue that, simply because that's my want in this game? Give me a reason why I shouldn't.
I guess at the root of this is we view stories differently, I don't think the point of a good story is to appeal to the greatest number of people. Some of the most powerful stories are pretty unseemly, with characters and protagonists that aren't sympathetic.
What you're describing is a power fantasy/wish fulfillment narrative, people want to be the main character in this story, they never want to be told they can't, they never want to hear the word no. I can enjoy that story, but what it means for every companion character is they are just another accessory to your characters potency; making any companion what you the player wants them to be, has to mean something to the story, otherwise they're just cutouts for you to game into their good-graces.

I want a game that doesn't patronize me. To use your example, I want to stay up all night drinking wine, having an arcane discourse with a well-spoken erudite wizard, and then have him say that he doesn't see me that way, the reasons for the character why can be anything. If you want the reason why I want that, it's because the character's been written with his own character in mind instead of whatever will please the player.
Originally Posted by Niara
No, this is a fallacy. A person's specific genital preference for intimate bed activity is not, and should never, EVER...
Originally Posted by Sozz
it gets at what I meant by diminishing the characterization of a player sexual NPC, they're written to be everything so they are kept from being more distinct individuals i.e. one who is gay or straight or bi-sexual or only interested romantically in medium-sized races etc.
No, this is a fallacy. A person's specific genital preference for intimate bed activity is not, and should never, EVER be the primary defining feature of their character and characterisation. The argument that it waters down their characters or undermines their characterisation is completely false, unjustified and without merit. Justify to me - explain to me - How a character is incapable of being a fully fleshed out, engaging interesting and consistent character, without explicit description of what they like to do with their genitals in the company of others. Justify that, because that is what you need to be claiming, to say that player-sexual characters are inherently weaker or lacking characters.

((To put it another way as I've seen quoted elsewhere: "Exactly what Astarion chooses to put his dick in is not, and should never be teated like it is, an important part of his character."))
This one seemed a little more heated than the others so let me be clear, genitalia wasn't on my mind (a rare occurrence) and nothing in what I said was meant to be taken as making it the single defining characteristic of a person's relationship with another person. But while I don't view it in such absolute terms I do think that for most people it does come into the equation, for some people it is a zero-sum, these are all valid ways of dealing with it in a story.
Where Astarion sticks his dick might not mean a lot to him(itself a way of characterizing him) but it does seem to mean something to ShadowHeart, it's also interesting where Astarion won't stick his dick, and how it can be just a matter of what dialogue you choose with him.

That has very little to do with what I was getting at though; which is that, for me having it exist is better than having it not exist, and by not exist I mean what happens for player sexual NPCs, it's not that they don't have preferences they have nothing, they can't have preferences and they can't not have preferences because it's something that will never enter the equation. I guess this is where the confusion between bi-sexual and player-sexual characters comes from because bi-sexual characters can express such preference and still work within this frame-work. dunno

Originally Posted by Niara
Now, this bit I can appreciate to a certain extent - if you personally do not like accepting an "Undefined" in...
Originally Posted by Sozz
I agree with you that player sexual NPCs are not just bisexual NPCs but I consider the 'multiverse of sexuality' head canon, the kind of mental gymnastics that is problematic for me. If the game is making me build a head canon around their indecisive writing, it lessens the experience for me. From my perspective, every thing in the world before I make my first decision is set in stone, these people existed and the narrative is now changing around the choices we make during the game.

Now, this bit I can appreciate to a certain extent - if you personally do not like accepting an "Undefined" in your world space, for even the smallest of things, then it's understandable that having an "Undefined" within each and every major companion might feel a bit wearing on you. That, I can understand and appreciate. I'd still comment that that's on you, though - in an individual play though, there are no undefineds. Each character *IS* and has *Always Been* the way they are, at least insofar as the game reckons this. In another person's game, the world as a whole is a little bit different in mostly insignificant ways. Certain NPCs died or didn't, certain events happened or didn't, and there is no defined canon for many, many things. In worlds where we can choose our background more solidly, then there are things before the start point that will vary game game to game and player to player as well. In some game universes, every female walks around with their tits out and has done so for all history - in others, the origin companions are helped by a renegade mindflayer, and not a material plane denizen at all. In less extreme iterations of the world, some games have a world where the player character has the option of getting Shadowheart out of her pod, while other instances of the world present a world where this is simply not possible for them (people playing on different patches)... those are all other instances of the world that other people play... and you have to accept that whether you're a fan of it or not. It doesn't affect your game though, and, more importantly, it doesn't make anything in your game more fuzzy or less defined in the ways that it is. The same is true for the fact that in some other instances of the game, Lae'zel only considers pursuing physical recreation with males, while in other instances of the game, she will pursue whomever she views as the most appealing for said recreation, regardless of their genital configuration. On the scope of things, that is an infinitesimally minor difference between one world space and the next, and like all the others, does nothing whatsoever to water down, muddy or fuzz the things in your own game or how well defined they are... So I don't understand how you can feel like the lesser one is a problem for your gaming experience, while the major ones do not.
First off, the first decision we all make is finalizing our character, so I consider the set in stone part of the world to be built around that.
The one thing I don't consider to be on the table with an RPG like this is an individual playthrough, even if it isn't going to be on the first playthrough, I will be seeing all or most of the dialogue in this game, half the draw to these games is the effect on the story we as the player can have through our choices and actions, I think most of us view the story in that context. So in a very narrow sense, if you play the game only one way you'll never have to deal with the dissonance that such malleably written characters can have but it's just a non-starter for me. If I play one game as a woman romance Wyll then play another as a man romance Wyll and the game does nothing to recognize this it forces me to question the verisimilitude of Wyll's character.

=
Originally Posted by Niara
Ragnarok's comment is an interesting example of what I feel many of us would like from the game, which is a more responsive, more differentiated interaction experience that acknowledges the more unusual situations and makes them feel justified - it would add more depth to the characters for them to do that, rather than just flipping pronouns around and calling it done, which is what I think many people are worried is all we'll get.
I have nothing to add here, considering we all seem to be in agreement.

Last edited by Sozz; 24/08/21 01:44 AM.
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5