Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 9 10
Joined: Nov 2020
G
guy Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
G
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Verte
Originally Posted by guy
Shadowheart, I will assign as a self righteous lesbian.

So, DC to romance, as a female, is 6. DC as female gith is 17. DC to romance as male is 15. DC to romance as male gith is 20.

But if you are male, and her core character is lesbian, and you romance her.... it changes her character drasticaly, so dialogues with her suddenly change and are way different.
She is no longer the same person.

She suddenly stops being secretrative, and is suddenly super open because she was just broken from one major self desctructive habit, for example... and she is no longer the same person for it.


She is not a lesbian. Her daisy (dream lover) is male whom she's very attracted to. SH serves Shar, this is the reason to be secretive in the first place. She's just bad at keeping it in the secret because she mocks Selune at every occasion taken, not to mention gazillion Shar's markings on her gear.


She calls her dream lover daisy?

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: void
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: void
Daisy is a term in code devs used for all dream lovers. Check datamining thread.

Last edited by Verte; 05/12/20 01:30 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Nov 2020
IMHO, all characters preferences should be randomized so that way not everyone would fit with everyone else.

Explanation : I roll a Human warrior, then computer rolls the NPCs for my game.

1 is homosexual, 2 are straight, and 2 are bisexual.

next game I roll a dwarf cleric and everyone is homosexual;
next game I roll a drow ranger everyone is straight..;
this way, no one would know who he/she/it can romance and the romance game part would be more interesting. I want to romance Shadowheart, but halas she's straight and my character is female.... Damn... I have to forget this until maybe my next playthrough...

Who the hell cares? why would everyone be atracted to you? Who the hell are you?
Replayability? No one seems to understand that many RPG players are actually rolling multiple different characters with different ways of playing.

One playthough where I can romance all characters? Not needed, more, why would anyone want that!


What we need is something that tells the player that he/she is NOT THE MESSIAH and not everyone will like him/her + not everyone will want to have sex with him/her

That's a bit odd to call for sexual intercourse when the characters you deal with in your party knows you for 3-4 days and hasn't been in your party at all... I look at you Astarion, I don't use him much I prefer spell casters over anyone else. And Running water kills you anyway: you little shit.

Maybe there could be limitations in term of CHA or Reputation or maybe STR who cares?

My human Warrior is 17 str and 8 CHA, but this character only likes 16CHA PC, ok fair enough I'll pass then. But another Character is really attracted to me because my STR is higher than 15 and therefore as the prerequisite is met I can.

Also DROWS must be racist... Racism is essential in a world like the Forgotten Realms. Half-Elves aren't humans but they aren't elves either, so every dislike them because they're not pure bred... That's normal!

Racism isn't that bad... People always have preferences, or else the humanity would all look the same.

We are social animals, but animals still, we have something in our brain that commands our sexuality, that's not SOMETHING YOU CHOSE ! Hence if it's not something you chose, then non player character sexuality should be randomized...

Come tell me otherwise LGBT+ people smile

Joined: Sep 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Verte
Originally Posted by guy
Shadowheart, I will assign as a self righteous lesbian.

So, DC to romance, as a female, is 6. DC as female gith is 17. DC to romance as male is 15. DC to romance as male gith is 20.

But if you are male, and her core character is lesbian, and you romance her.... it changes her character drasticaly, so dialogues with her suddenly change and are way different.
She is no longer the same person.

She suddenly stops being secretrative, and is suddenly super open because she was just broken from one major self desctructive habit, for example... and she is no longer the same person for it.


She is not a lesbian. Her daisy (dream lover) is male whom she's very attracted to. SH serves Shar, this is the reason to be secretive in the first place. She's just bad at keeping it in the secret because she mocks Selune at every occasion taken, not to mention gazillion Shar's markings on her gear.

She has 0 Shar's marking on her gear, she has mere circles on her gear, while:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Shar's symbol was a black disk with a deep purple border.

Otherwise every single circle in the game is the Shar symbol, including some moons in Selune temple.

Joined: Nov 2020
G
guy Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
G
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
((to be clear, to Vometia, I was just illustrating what it is, to me, for characters to be 'playersexual'; I wasn't trying to suggest an alternative. I also feel it's something that does need to be handled with tact and skill, or else it comes off crass.))

Originally Posted by guy

Shadowheart, I will assign as a self righteous lesbian.

[...]
But if you are male, and her core character is lesbian, and you romance her.... it changes her character drasticaly
[...]

She suddenly stops being secretrative, and is suddenly super open because she was just broken from one major self desctructive habit, for example... and she is no longer the same person for it.

Before I get all the gay pride defenders, it is a example. [...]


To be honest, I'm far more concerned that you just decided to describe being a lesbian as a major self-destructive habit... and that you thought that was a good thing to do as your example.


That's my point. Also, if you told the flower children in the 60s that drugs were destructive, they would react much like you just did, if they communicated as well as you do. Which you communicate well.
Objectively, homosexuality is a population killer. A woman and a woman, or a man and a man, together, do not produce a offspring.
Long term, destructive. Any other aspect, emotional or what not? Who knows. Who cares. You can blame it all on something else.

That's the point everyone focuses on in 2020.

Here is my core point - get over it.

I have been told I have a destructive personality for having, what I call, good work ethic. Following the rules to a T at work.

There are arguments that can be made either side.

Who cares how it is labeled. The moment you care, is the moment it IS destructive, either to yourself, or to someone else.

But that is enough of the psycho stuff.

Focus on the core point, and rebuild it in your mind to apply to the video game, and not to the current US identity crisis.

It is about the game play, about being imersed, and about the legacy of the first two BG games.

This game would be better labeled as D:OS 3 so far.

Not saying that there are not good aspects to the game. MANY parts are well done!

But I am not here for D:OS. I am not here for DA:O. I am not here for KOTR.

I am here for Baldurs Gate.

That is my feedback.

If this game turns into a spiritual D:OS3, I will respectfully request for my money back (not expecting I will get it) and post a several negative final review stating "buyer beware" as is my right as a consumer here in the USA.

My two cents.

Joined: Nov 2020
G
guy Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
G
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Verte
Daisy is a term in code devs used for all dream lovers. Check datamining thread.


I have been skipping the datamines.

I will admit, I avoid SH alot. she is way too whiny and emo.

Lae'zal, I tell her to shut it and move on.

Gale is the most interesting to me most days, because I like his stories.

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: void
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: void
Originally Posted by Zellin

She has 0 Shar's marking on her gear, she has mere circles on her gear, while:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Shar's symbol was a black disk with a deep purple border.

Otherwise every single circle in the game is the Shar symbol, including some moons in Selune temple.


Well, if someone is able to connect the dots, it's pretty obvious who she serves. Only thing her armor is missing is the purple part of the symbol.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Originally Posted by guy
Here is my core point - get over it.

Dial it back, please.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by BuckettMonkey
Originally Posted by Nyloth

In BG3, I see problem only in races, I hardly believe that Astarion sleeps with a gnome after he called them animals.

Racial restrictions on romance would be a pretty good solution. I think this is the best we can hope for.


It's easier for me to believe that they will cut out this phrase because someone will be offended again.


I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I like the idea of characters' sexuality being influenced by the players' willingness to pursue them. I'm gonna be a little shit, though, and say it's 2020. People apparentely got into an uproar over female Mandalorian armor. Strong independent lesbian character turning straight because male would attract all kinds of crazies.

I remember a lot of people getting angry because you couldn't do that with e.g. Sera in Inquisition and suspect that was the likely source of a lot of the hate for her, which was often excused as not liking her "stubborn" attitude. I don't really see the point of influencing a character's sexuality though: that's not really any different to the playersexual stuff we have already. I'm slightly on the fence about the subject; using DA as an example, I preferred Inquisition to DA2 but I suspect I would've had a very different opinion if the only characters I liked were unavailable because it wasn't a thing.


I hated Sera and it had nothing to do with romancing her, haha. I just find her obnoxious.

On the topic of Inquisition - I agree with people who say romance was handled better there, as much as I dislike DA:I. But let's move for a moment from the playersexuality discussion and consider another reason the romance system was better in that game.

It's that the characters don't push themselves on the player. You can be friends (or generally on good terms) with all of them WITHOUT them humping the PC's leg. Romance is player-initiated and clearly marked (a heart icon on the damn dialogue wheel). No accidental flirting, no pushy companions. My female Inquisitor could be friends with Sera (yeah, I hated her, but I wanted to see her quests) with no problem. It should be the same in BG3. Someone wants romance? Go for it. Someone hates romance? It's not pushed. Someone only wants to romance one specific companion and be friends with another? Also possible.

The current system also makes every companion universally slutty. Sex bots, as others said. Pushy ones. It would be reasonable to have Astarion flirty, and maybe (unfortunately) Lae'zel, but the rest? Really? All of them? Now it's the choice between playing with an all-slutty party and playing with a custom party.

It's especially bad that BG is largely about companionship and camaraderie - something Larian frequently noted themselves. And now the companion/party aspect looks like a cross between high school drama, soap opera and half-assed dating sim with extra porn. No camaraderie to be had when every companion is primarily concerned with how to bang everyone else.

Joined: Sep 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Verte
Originally Posted by Zellin

She has 0 Shar's marking on her gear, she has mere circles on her gear, while:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Shar's symbol was a black disk with a deep purple border.

Otherwise every single circle in the game is the Shar symbol, including some moons in Selune temple.


Well, if someone is able to connect the dots, it's pretty obvious who she serves. Only thing her armor is missing is the purple part of the symbol.

Purple and disks being black. The only black disk she has is in her circlet.

Joined: Nov 2020
G
guy Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
G
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by BuckettMonkey
Originally Posted by Nyloth

In BG3, I see problem only in races, I hardly believe that Astarion sleeps with a gnome after he called them animals.

Racial restrictions on romance would be a pretty good solution. I think this is the best we can hope for.


It's easier for me to believe that they will cut out this phrase because someone will be offended again.


And people aren't offended by sex in video games?

Larian went out on a branch for that.

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Online Content
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I like the idea of characters' sexuality being influenced by the players' willingness to pursue them. I'm gonna be a little shit, though, and say it's 2020. People apparentely got into an uproar over female Mandalorian armor. Strong independent lesbian character turning straight because male would attract all kinds of crazies.

I remember a lot of people getting angry because you couldn't do that with e.g. Sera in Inquisition and suspect that was the likely source of a lot of the hate for her, which was often excused as not liking her "stubborn" attitude. I don't really see the point of influencing a character's sexuality though: that's not really any different to the playersexual stuff we have already. I'm slightly on the fence about the subject; using DA as an example, I preferred Inquisition to DA2 but I suspect I would've had a very different opinion if the only characters I liked were unavailable because it wasn't a thing.


I hated Sera and it had nothing to do with romancing her, haha. I just find her obnoxious.

On the topic of Inquisition - I agree with people who say romance was handled better there, as much as I dislike DA:I. But let's move for a moment from the playersexuality discussion and consider another reason the romance system was better in that game.

It's that the characters don't push themselves on the player. You can be friends (or generally on good terms) with all of them WITHOUT them humping the PC's leg. Romance is player-initiated and clearly marked (a heart icon on the damn dialogue wheel). No accidental flirting, no pushy companions. My female Inquisitor could be friends with Sera (yeah, I hated her, but I wanted to see her quests) with no problem. It should be the same in BG3. Someone wants romance? Go for it. Someone hates romance? It's not pushed. Someone only wants to romance one specific companion and be friends with another? Also possible.

The current system also makes every companion universally slutty. Sex bots, as others said. Pushy ones. It would be reasonable to have Astarion flirty, and maybe (unfortunately) Lae'zel, but the rest? Really? All of them? Now it's the choice between playing with an all-slutty party and playing with a custom party.

It's especially bad that BG is largely about companionship and camaraderie - something Larian frequently noted themselves. And now the companion/party aspect looks like a cross between high school drama, soap opera and half-assed dating sim with extra porn. No camaraderie to be had when every companion is primarily concerned with how to bang everyone else.


Lowkey, the party banter being for the most part them all flirting with one another was way more cringey to me than the romance stuff. Pretty sure the only ones who have none of that going on between eachother are Lae'zel and SH.

Last edited by Innateagle; 05/12/20 02:12 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
G
guy Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
G
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I like the idea of characters' sexuality being influenced by the players' willingness to pursue them. I'm gonna be a little shit, though, and say it's 2020. People apparentely got into an uproar over female Mandalorian armor. Strong independent lesbian character turning straight because male would attract all kinds of crazies.

I remember a lot of people getting angry because you couldn't do that with e.g. Sera in Inquisition and suspect that was the likely source of a lot of the hate for her, which was often excused as not liking her "stubborn" attitude. I don't really see the point of influencing a character's sexuality though: that's not really any different to the playersexual stuff we have already. I'm slightly on the fence about the subject; using DA as an example, I preferred Inquisition to DA2 but I suspect I would've had a very different opinion if the only characters I liked were unavailable because it wasn't a thing.


I hated Sera and it had nothing to do with romancing her, haha. I just find her obnoxious.

On the topic of Inquisition - I agree with people who say romance was handled better there, as much as I dislike DA:I. But let's move for a moment from the playersexuality discussion and consider another reason the romance system was better in that game.

It's that the characters don't push themselves on the player. You can be friends (or generally on good terms) with all of them WITHOUT them humping the PC's leg. Romance is player-initiated and clearly marked (a heart icon on the damn dialogue wheel). No accidental flirting, no pushy companions. My female Inquisitor could be friends with Sera (yeah, I hated her, but I wanted to see her quests) with no problem. It should be the same in BG3. Someone wants romance? Go for it. Someone hates romance? It's not pushed. Someone only wants to romance one specific companion and be friends with another? Also possible.

The current system also makes every companion universally slutty. Sex bots, as others said. Pushy ones. It would be reasonable to have Astarion flirty, and maybe (unfortunately) Lae'zel, but the rest? Really? All of them? Now it's the choice between playing with an all-slutty party and playing with a custom party.

It's especially bad that BG is largely about companionship and camaraderie - something Larian frequently noted themselves. And now the companion/party aspect looks like a cross between high school drama, soap opera and half-assed dating sim with extra porn. No camaraderie to be had when every companion is primarily concerned with how to bang everyone else.


Lowkey, the party banter being for the most part them all flirting with one another was way more cringey to me than the romance stuff. Pretty sure the only ones who have none of that going on between eachother are Lae'zel and SH.


They have some good banter.

Imagine companions having romance behind your back

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Lowkey, the party banter being for the most part them all flirting with one another was way more cringey to me than the romance stuff. Pretty sure the only ones who have none of that going on between eachother are Lae'zel and SH.


Yeah, that's also something that'd bother the hell out of me. That's what I also meant in my last sentence you quoted. It, again, feels like a high school trip which horny teenagers treat as an opportunity to get into each others pants. I'm not a fan of companions romancing each other. And certainly not all/most of them. It should be an exception rather than a rule, like in BG2.

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Online Content
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by guy

They have some good banter.

Imagine companions having romance behind your back


Don't know about that. I got the idea to get their every banter after i went to Orzammar in Dragon Age:Origins and got a good number of banters for the companions in that game. The difference was sharp.

Last edited by Innateagle; 05/12/20 02:31 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
G
guy Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
G
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Lowkey, the party banter being for the most part them all flirting with one another was way more cringey to me than the romance stuff. Pretty sure the only ones who have none of that going on between eachother are Lae'zel and SH.


Yeah, that's also something that'd bother the hell out of me. That's what I also meant in my last sentence you quoted. It, again, feels like a high school trip which horny teenagers treat as an opportunity to get into each others pants. I'm not a fan of companions romancing each other. And certainly not all/most of them. It should be an exception rather than a rule, like in BG2.


BG and BG 2 had some interesting companion dialogue.

You walk along and the box pops up, and the first time, you look at it, confused.

But it was all just a side thing. either you got it, or you did not.

Last edited by guy; 05/12/20 02:21 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by guy
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Lowkey, the party banter being for the most part them all flirting with one another was way more cringey to me than the romance stuff. Pretty sure the only ones who have none of that going on between eachother are Lae'zel and SH.


Yeah, that's also something that'd bother the hell out of me. That's what I also meant in my last sentence you quoted. It, again, feels like a high school trip which horny teenagers treat as an opportunity to get into each others pants. I'm not a fan of companions romancing each other. And certainly not all/most of them. It should be an exception rather than a rule, like in BG2.


BG and BG 2 had some interesting companion dialogue.

You walk along and the box pops up, and the first time, you look at it, confused.

But it was all just a side thing. either you got it, or you did not.


Banter and party dialogue were great in BG2. I think the only real romance was between Haer'dalis and Aerie... and Korgan flirted with (or just teased?) Mazzy. Minsc made Aerie his new witch, but it was a bond of protection and care, not a romantic interest.

Joined: Nov 2020
G
guy Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
G
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by guy
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Lowkey, the party banter being for the most part them all flirting with one another was way more cringey to me than the romance stuff. Pretty sure the only ones who have none of that going on between eachother are Lae'zel and SH.


Yeah, that's also something that'd bother the hell out of me. That's what I also meant in my last sentence you quoted. It, again, feels like a high school trip which horny teenagers treat as an opportunity to get into each others pants. I'm not a fan of companions romancing each other. And certainly not all/most of them. It should be an exception rather than a rule, like in BG2.


BG and BG 2 had some interesting companion dialogue.

You walk along and the box pops up, and the first time, you look at it, confused.

But it was all just a side thing. either you got it, or you did not.


Banter and party dialogue were great in BG2. I think the only real romance was between Haer'dalis and Aerie... and Korgan flirted with (or just teased?) Mazzy. Minsc made Aerie his new witch, but it was a bond of protection and care, not a romantic interest.


I actually liked that alot, minsc and aerie.

But aerie still wasn't dynaheir... Weird cleric mage build...
That is beside the point

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by guy
I actually liked that alot, minsc and aerie.

But aerie still wasn't dynaheir... Weird cleric mage build...
That is beside the point


Yeah, I liked that too. I actually had both on my recent run, despite not liking Aerie (she was still the best fit for my neutral/good run lacking another mage). And she's actually a pretty solid caster, with Vecna's and some trinkets she's a spellslinging beast. Admittedly suffers a bit from slower spell progress.

(Sorry for continuing off-topic. :P )

Back to something more on topic, these are the kinds of relationships I'd love to see more of. Minsc being protective over his new witch, Jan and Mazzy's conversations that start with her losing her poise in annoyance and end with her being surprised at Jan's surprisingly thoughtful point to his story, a humourous one of Mazzy making Valygar her "squire", Jaheira and Mazzy "mothering" Aerie... and those are just the positive interactions (and not all of them).

Page 3 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 9 10

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