|
For what it's worth, I like Aria. Most of the Asari are either inoffensively nice or "Will sell your kidneys for a dollar." scheming evil. Aria's just Aria, she rules Omega because Omega needs a ruler. She doesn't like you but she isn't actively against you and she helps you when your goals align. She also gives you Lash and Flare. So, you know, there's that. Edit: Update on the bottom of the last page.
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:
Quoting for new page. I hated Aria mostly because the first time you meet her they do this close up on her lips when she says "Don't gently caress with Aria". I found it so stupid. It felt like Bioware was trying to make a point and they overdid it. Plus the fact that she was so underused made her seem meaningless. I think there's a Mass Effect 3 DLC with her but gently caress buying that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I wanted to talk about Aria as well at this point but couldn't find a way to work it in. Aria's pretty unpopular with a lot of people, and I've never fully understood why - people claim she's a pet character of Mac Walters, which I can buy, but I don't see what about this makes her so offensive. She's got a very minor part in a series that's much bigger than her - if anything, she's underutilised as the anti-Council, though I suppose TIM has that job really. Still, if people have criticisms, this is the time to air them! Again, this is one of those player agency issues (in a game ostensibly built on the idea of player agency as a USP). When you first meet Aria in ME2, she goes on a long and quite pompous speech where she talks about how cool and important she is and tells you, "don't gently caress with Aria". And the only option the game gives you is to nod along politely and acquiesce to whatever nonsense she's going on about. This is in comparison to the Council or the Illusive Man, both of which give you a lot of dialogue opportunities to insult them, mock them and cut them off mid-transmission, if you choose to do so. Other than that, she's not particularly a bad character, but the fact that she's written to be untouchable puts people's backs up and gives the impression that the writers wanted her to be cooler than she actually is. In terms of the video, I think I mentioned before in the thread about how all of these little things that have been thrown in as callbacks do distract from the overall tone of the game and make it quite weird and jarring. So we jump back and forth between "everyone I've ever known is dead or dying" and "Shepard and Kaiden play a game of Elevator Squash against some really WASPy Hanar". Which is a problem if you want players to be onboard for the first one as being something more than being a background setting for Shepard's heroism. Of course, that was the case for the first two games. A lot of the charm of ME1 and ME2 are the silly Buffy The Husk Slayer bits where you take time out from your busy galaxy-saving schedule to bully the weaker races, mack on your co-workers, and to channel Daria Morgendorffer at major diplomatic functions. While the game certainly goes dark in places (See: leaving Ashley to be nuked; Kelly Chambers getting liquidated), it doesn't actually change Shepard's demeanour in any noticeable way. It therefore gives a certain impression to the player that this is the cost of doing war, and that Shepard is intrinsically cynical and hard-edged as a result. Hence when you introduce the mechanic of "BLOO HOO HOO A KID DIED" people start to complain that it's not in keeping with the Shepard that they play. If ME3 wanted to tell that story in a different way, Bioware really needed to put all of their eggs in that basket and focus on telling a coherent story with a coherent emotional narrative and an ending based on that. Whether that would have worked commercially, I don't know, but it would have avoided the problems they ultimately had.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
I think you may have missed that the characters themselves are supposed to take notice of each other. If Garrus hears the same stupid endorsement in several stores, he's going to eventually bring it up to score points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Quoting for new page. I hated Aria mostly because the first time you meet her they do this close up on her lips when she says "Don't gently caress with Aria". I found it so stupid. It felt like Bioware was trying to make a point and they overdid it. Plus the fact that she was so underused made her seem meaningless. I think there's a Mass Effect 3 DLC with her but gently caress buying that. She's kind of a living example of telling, not showing. All you ever do with her is hear about how 'awesome' she is. You never actually see her do anything particularly clever or amazing, and she's just kind of this petty dictator/crime boss, which the game has kind of primed you to think will at least have some bearing on the story, while she's just kind of there, telling you she's super cool. It falls pretty flat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Cryohazard posted:I think you may have missed that the characters themselves are supposed to take notice of each other. If Garrus hears the same stupid endorsement in several stores, he's going to eventually bring it up to score points. I actually missed that line because when I played I felt that deliberately missing was kind of insulting to Garrus but I thought it was rather entertaining considering in the same save I had indeed recorded the message for every single shop so Garrus joking about that silly thing I did in the previous game was a rather clever moment of continuity from my point of view.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
It occurs to me that polonium rounds and incendiary rounds means I'm starting fires and littering beta emitters all over the galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Polonium is highly radioactive and has no stable isotopes so yes you are indeed doing that. It's a source of alpha particles though, not beta particles. Oh and neutrons. You are however still leaving chunks of radioactive material all over the galaxy. e: Oh and Polonium vaporizes into air super easily at temperatures as low as ~50 degrees C so every time you shoot someone with those rounds you're creating a small puff of radioactive gas. Neruz fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Sep 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
I never particularly hated Aria but I rolled my eyes at her "don't gently caress with Aria" speech (maybe you're supposed to, every negative thought I've had about a Mass Effect character someone has said was intended, though I don't know why Bioware is deliberately writing so many unlikeable characters in that case) and in ME3 she was just there as a quest giver and minor lore dispensary, and to center an entire DLC around her was just baffling to me. It felt as arbitrary as making a DLC starring the krogan poet guy or that quarian general who was really sad that his men died, as if they've been major characters whose story needs to be told all this time instead of minor background characters. And that's why I get the "writer's pet" vibe from her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Thinking about romances in Bioware games gets me thinking about a few things. I think Dragon age: Origins had the better romances for their realism in a sense. It wasn't hard to say the wrong thing and spoil things. And they were more complex. Especially the Alistair romance, given it's ties to the storyline. I never went after Morigan, but she would have been similar, since there are strong storyline ties. Likewise, I think about Dragon Age 2(disappointment that it was in some ways) and the romance with Anders. That's the one I ended up following my first playthrough. Again, it was linked to the storyline and it made the ending of the game far more interesting, even if it ended up ending the romance abruptly. I think giving romances storyline ties makes them far more interesting. Though it's not required. When it comes to Mass Effect, I've gone through the Tali and Liara romances, spanning more than one game. They were an interesting contrast with Liara's being more.. normal? Probably not the right word. But in comparison to Tali's, which was more cutesy. I dabbled with a few others over various playthroughs of various games and I find I agree. It'd be more interesting if they were less one sided. You can't have full agency in an NPCs hands due to the fact that game AI is not true AI. But to have them initiate or even challenge the player due to actions not directly related to conversation would be interesting. Showing valor might lead to a 'good' companion becoming interested. Being ruthless might appeal to a character like Morigan. And shifts in how you act might prompt the character to challenge you or the like. From what I've heard, Bioware is making Dragon age Inquisition without the gamey elements that previous Dragon Age's have had when it comes to romances. As in, you can't just dump gifts on them to make them like you. I'm curious if they'll improve the formula in any other ways as well. It makes me more curious to see what sort of improvements they might make, given it looks like, so far, they're taking a good overall path with the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:Other than that, she's not particularly a bad character, but the fact that she's written to be untouchable puts people's backs up and gives the impression that the writers wanted her to be cooler than she actually is. She's a bit like the Poochie of the game. And as someone else mentioned, a bit too try hard without any real meat to show that she actually is any good, outside of being aggressive. The only example is the old Krogan in ME2 and he's all tell and no show. She was deeply underused and seems pointless outside of being yet another background NPC. I can't say I hate her though. I was actually hoping Aria would get more use than as just a quest giver with a punctuation mark over her head. But you never see her in action. You barely see much real personality from her when it comes to her being a leader. It's a big waste of a potentially interesting character that leaves her falling flat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
MidnightVulpine posted:I can't say I hate her though. I was actually hoping Aria would get more use than as just a quest giver with a punctuation mark over her head. But you never see her in action. You barely see much real personality from her when it comes to her being a leader. It's a big waste of a potentially interesting character that leaves her falling flat. The Omega DLC is all about Aria in action, she even becomes a temporary squadmate along with the universe's only female turian.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Yeah she proves to be perfectly competent in the Omega DLC which possibly justifies her reputation in-universe since 'competent' puts her head and shoulders above the majority of NPCs in Mass Effect. The female Turian is a wonderful example of artists hearing about this whole sexism in games thing that people are talking about and completely missing the point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
I was disappointed with their choices for a female Turian but Aria at least got to do something in the DLC and turned out to be all biotic and whatnot. Flare is not unlike having a heavy weapon from ME2 that does not need ammunition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Sadly, I've been less inclined to buy up Mass Effect 3's DLC. I only have Leviathan. I might have to reconsider, eventually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
I didn't mind Aria's little song and dance at the start of ME2, and ultimately came to like her more in hindsight. She's incredibly cooperative with Shepard in both games, only ever actually putting her foot down in her own DLC. Otherwise, she gives you everything you want from her for nothing or next to nothing, and politely asks that you you don't screw her over in return.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
MidnightVulpine posted:Sadly, I've been less inclined to buy up Mass Effect 3's DLC. I only have Leviathan. I might have to reconsider, eventually. Leviathan is easily the weakest of the DLCs. Omega has a fairly self contained storyline with some decent combat and it gives you two biotic bonus powers that are *really good* if you're an adept or sentinel, and Citadel is fairly polarizing, some hate it, but I loved the hell out of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
MidnightVulpine posted:I think giving romances storyline ties makes them far more interesting. Though it's not required. When it comes to Mass Effect, I've gone through the Tali and Liara romances, spanning more than one game. They were an interesting contrast with Liara's being more.. normal? Probably not the right word. But in comparison to Tali's, which was more cutesy. I have a hard time believing anything about Liara is normal. While in the second game, the romances are one-sided because they must be initiated by the player, in the first the romances are one sided because they are initiated by the NPCs. As long as you do not specifically deny her attraction in you, Liara literally throws herself at Shepard, even when the player's expression of Commander Shepard is clearly not in her self-interest. I was surprised by just how much verbal abuse she would take from my renegade femshep, proving that Liara would stop at nothing to get in Shep's mindpants, even when those mindpants belong to a cold-blooded monster. I honestly felt bad or her, in a sense. It would've been out-of-character for that particular Shepard to stop Liara from making a terrible choice. Liara being the "normal" romance is more a thing that happened in the second game's DLC and in the third game, after the writers had some time to reconsider Liara a little bit better, and not just have her as the one crew member who is the surrogate for the asari in general. This frustrates me to some degree. Outside of gaming circles and in the larger mainstream press, Bioware is exalted for being the first major production house to include gay and lesbian expression within their games. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if this praise is undeserved. Writing romance was not Mass Effect's primary concern, so they were under no obligation to do a good job of it -- no matter what the orientation. MidnightVulpine posted:I dabbled with a few others over various playthroughs of various games and I find I agree. It'd be more interesting if they were less one sided. You can't have full agency in an NPCs hands due to the fact that game AI is not true AI. But to have them initiate or even challenge the player due to actions not directly related to conversation would be interesting. Showing valor might lead to a 'good' companion becoming interested. Being ruthless might appeal to a character like Morigan. And shifts in how you act might prompt the character to challenge you or the like. A textbook on AI I've been reading lately mentioned conversation trees in RPGs as one of the more antiquated forms of simple game agents, and is probably one of the things in gaming most overdue for an innovation with AI. If romance was something Bioware wanted to consider more seriously, then each character would've needed a small memory structure and an accompanying heuristic to understand it. Sadly, I can't think of very many writers or producers who would be comfortable doing that, as even branching storylines can lead to an expensive budget. Requesting them to even understand how to implement fuzzy logic might be a little much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
I think people dislike Aria simply because she's yet another example of Bioware's "you have full player agency until we need to railroad you further along our plot" issue. The plot requires that Shepard need Aria's cooperation, and she's written in such a way that she wouldn't help a hostile Shepard, and so the player cannot be confrontational to her in any way. Even if the player has no desire to even be confrontational in the first place, the lack of an option can be annoying. Also like others have said she just sits on a couch the whole game and is a great example of why show don't tell is a key writing component. For what it's worth, I like Vega because he's filling the niche that Wrex and Jack had in ME1 & ME2, respectively. That is, a newcomer who's confrontational to Shepard, and thus to the player, which is a nice change of pace from the rest of the party tripping over themselves to bask in Shepard's glory. Of course Bioware fumbles this as they do everything by removing the challenge from these confrontations. Renegade or Paragon, there is no way to not obtain Vega's respect outside of simply ignoring him the whole game. It would be much more interesting if Shepard could express beliefs counter to Vega's that lose you his respect or confidence. Instead, you just mold him like putty to think like Shepard thinks, which is boring and dumb. MidnightVulpine posted:Thinking about romances in Bioware games gets me thinking about a few things. I think Dragon age: Origins had the better romances for their realism in a sense. It wasn't hard to say the wrong thing and spoil things. And they were more complex. Especially the Alistair romance, given it's ties to the storyline. I never went after Morigan, but she would have been similar, since there are strong storyline ties. Likewise, the Morrigan romance was an active reversal of the usual cRPG romance. Morrigan propositioned the player for sex instead of the other way around, and she did so very early in the romance instead of at the end. Likewise as you continued to romance, and Morrigan actually started to fall in love with the Warden, she would start to fear an actual commitment and begin to distance herself from the Warden, declining further romantic gestures. The player had to jump through hoops to keep the relationship going (which would just piss Morrigan off more), and even if you did at the end of the game she would leave no matter what the player did. I liked that no matter what the player said or did, it was impossible to keep the relationship intact. Of course in true Bioware fashion, they trampled over this completely for the sake of fan pandering in the Witch Hunt DLC, but it was interesting while it lasted.  DA:O is actually an uncanny example of Bioware's propensity to completely miss the point, and have themes or plot points that are almost provoking, and then trip right at the finish line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Morroque posted:Bioware is exalted for being the first major production house to include gay and lesbian expression within their games. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if this praise is undeserved. I remember the Mass Effect writers coming out and being very specific that the asari weren't lesbian, they were 'mono-gendered' and these women that liked other women didn't really count as homosexual. I'm still not quite sure whether that was a defence against Jack Thompson or just a weaselly dodge to avoid tackling the subject.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Have you mentioned Jack's romance, and how having sex with her immediately ends the relationship?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I remember the Mass Effect writers coming out and being very specific that the asari weren't lesbian, they were 'mono-gendered' and these women that liked other women didn't really count as homosexual. I'm still not quite sure whether that was a defence against Jack Thompson or just a weaselly dodge to avoid tackling the subject. Sounds like sci-fi writers trying to have their cake (they're aliens therefore normal human standards of sexuality don't apply!) and eat it too (but they look like super hot blue skinned space babes yeah!). Personally I liked the Asari a lot more in ME1 when it was vaguely implied once or twice when you overheard certain conversations that the Asari actually appear like a blue skinned attractive female of whatever species is doing the looking right now, suggesting some kind of psychic camouflage or defense. That little tidbit appears to have gotten dropped along with most of the plot going into ME2, I'm guessing because they lost so many writers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Neruz posted:Personally I liked the Asari a lot more in ME1 when it was vaguely implied once or twice when you overheard certain conversations that the Asari actually appear like a blue skinned attractive female of whatever species is doing the looking right now, suggesting some kind of psychic camouflage or defense. That little tidbit appears to have gotten dropped along with most of the plot going into ME2, I'm guessing because they lost so many writers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Paracelsus posted:Wasn't that a conversation between three bar patrons on Illium in ME2? I thought that conversation was in the stripper bar in ME1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Neruz posted:I thought that conversation was in the stripper bar in ME1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:Again, this is one of those player agency issues (in a game ostensibly built on the idea of player agency as a USP). When you first meet Aria in ME2, she goes on a long and quite pompous speech where she talks about how cool and important she is and tells you, "don't gently caress with Aria". And the only option the game gives you is to nod along politely and acquiesce to whatever nonsense she's going on about. This is in comparison to the Council or the Illusive Man, both of which give you a lot of dialogue opportunities to insult them, mock them and cut them off mid-transmission, if you choose to do so. Sydin posted:I think people dislike Aria simply because she's yet another example of Bioware's "you have full player agency until we need to railroad you further along our plot" issue. The plot requires that Shepard need Aria's cooperation, and she's written in such a way that she wouldn't help a hostile Shepard, and so the player cannot be confrontational to her in any way. Even if the player has no desire to even be confrontational in the first place, the lack of an option can be annoying. These two posts basically sum up my feelings over Aria. I don't have any great antipathy towards her, I'd even admit there are some interesting ideas, but the way she's presented just makes me roll my eyes. Too much tell, not enough show. Honestly most points I'd like to bring up about the video have already been said. I guess I could say that at the very least, Garrus' "favorite spot on the Citadel" joke isn't really as forced as some of the other fandom-referential ones. You could even argue that it is because Garrus who's doing it, it seems a bit more genuine. Acknowledging some of the dumber things Shep does but in the manner friends will poke jabs at each others' faults. Probably wasn't the writers' intention, but hey, it's at least somewhat consistent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I remember the Mass Effect writers coming out and being very specific that the asari weren't lesbian, they were 'mono-gendered' and these women that liked other women didn't really count as homosexual. I'm still not quite sure whether that was a defence against Jack Thompson or just a weaselly dodge to avoid tackling the subject. Which is pretty weird since there was totally human homosexual romance in Jade Empire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:Which is pretty weird since there was totally human homosexual romance in Jade Empire. Jade Empire is a really strange odd one out when compared to almost all of Biowares other works; I can't help but feel that the team responsible for Jade Empire was a one-off team that doesn't exist anymore. Which is a pity because Jade Empire is probably the best game Bioware have ever made.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:
Aria is sort of annoying in ME2, and moderately so in ME3, provided you just leave her to hang around in her club and be cooler than you. If you actually purchase all the DLC though... (presumably the people who bought it would be interested in Aria being cool, which... fair enough, but still) (I was about to remark on the coincidence of having Clauda Black as her voice actor... but turns out that isn't actually the case. Odd.) ... I don't quite follow some of the complaints about CRPG romances. Not to echo Patrick's "I'm paying 60 currency units, so you better get down and start pandering right now" arguments... but a lot of heroic videogame stories are rather explicitly about wish fulfillment. As to the issue of your videogame NPC romance partners being... videogame NPC's - with pre-programmed reactions that can be gamed... Well, yeah? ... And? Those are the interactions you have in a typical CRPG. Are we worried that children playing these games are being presented with a wrong model to base their romantic interactions upon? They're also being presented with the wrong model of bluffing people, influencing them, haggling, and human interaction in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:I don't quite follow some of the complaints about CRPG romances. Not to echo Patrick's "I'm paying 60 currency units, so you better get down and start pandering right now" arguments... but a lot of heroic videogame stories are rather explicitly about wish fulfillment. Well, let's see if I can at least make a coherent argument against CRPG romances. Do you remember Dragon Age II, where your character could romance almost anyone, and in most cases it was irrelevant which gender you were? People weren't fans of it because the NPCs were 'player-sexual'. If your character was male, then every male character was gay, or at least bi, and Vice versa for girls. It's not really a backlash or something inherently wrong with Dragon Age II (there's other reasons why it's bad), but it's indicative of how Bioware sees its universe, and by extension, your character and the role you play in the game. I'm really not a fan of romances in CRPGs, hell, I'm not a fan of romances in games in general. Far too often, romances either feel shoehorned in, because 'we need a romance' or they're tangential to the story. In which case, why have them at all? CRPGs are unique in that they are one of the few genres that can be represented well on the tabletop. A fairly straightforward statement, as RPGs generally came from the tabletop to begin with. But the reason why romances work significantly better on the table top is simple: Because computers are bad Dungeon Masters. See, in a tabletop world, the DM is capable of adapting his story to fit the needs of his players. Thus, the story that emerges is a collaborative effort: The player suggest actions that his character takes, and the DM figures out how those actions affect the world and how the world responds. In those cases, romances can be powerful, both as character traits and as plot hooks. DM's can choose how much impact the romance has on the story, either tangentially as throwaway gag ('How's your wife?') or as important plot points ('You can't do anything because I have your wife. Nyah!') But computers aren't capable of adapting. They have pre-programmed phrases, plans that are only affected by your choices in almost always a Boolean fashion ('Did he do this? If Yes, do... If No, Did he...'). Are these even 'romances'? They're pre-packaged, a series of strings that you can get JUST by saying/doing the right things. It's like watching robots do sex talk. Entertaining, I suppose, but ultimately without consequence or meaning. As for wish fulfillment, what wish are you fulfilling? Wish fulfillment with fighting or being smart works because ultimately, the wish being fulfilled is about you. You're smart, You're strong, You're the biggest badass in the room. But with romance? Are you trying to fulfill the wish about having a real girlfriend? Because if you are, trying to get it in a video game is pathetic. Unless you just want to experience romance, at which point, the game isn't going to fulfill that wish for the reasons listed above (unless its reallywell written). I'm not implying that people who enjoy the romances are any of those things, but that's how I see the arguments against CRPG romances. e: the other example that I was going to use is if, in a tabletop game, someone says 'I romance the tavern wench', and then the DM not only goes along with it, but has a script prepared and lovingly describes the process. Fine in the abstract sense of 'I seduce the tavern wench''Fine, you flirt, fade to black.'; not fine in the very creepy 'You gaze lovingly into her eyes as you carry her towards the bedchamber....' Torchlighter fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Sep 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:"Writing comedy is easy" is an opinion a lot of desperately unfunny people share. Ouch. e: to expand, the reaction to ME3 and Citadel in particular should show that many people are happier and more accepting of bad writing that tries to be funny rather than bad writing that tries to be sad or angry. but whatever quote:I don't quite follow some of the complaints about CRPG romances. Not to echo Patrick's "I'm paying 60 currency units, so you better get down and start pandering right now" arguments... but a lot of heroic videogame stories are rather explicitly about wish fulfillment. Well, one part of Sawyer's (and my) argument is that stories should be about more than just wish fulfilment, and wish fulfilment isn't a particularly worthy goal for a story, for a writer or an audience. There are pitfalls, dilemmas, impossible situations and tragedies that you can never really explore if the story is focused around giving the player what they'd like all the time, which means that when you do write victories and successes, they mean less. Would Bioware romances have such a maligned reputation among the non-obsessive fanbase if some of them were more like the Prince of Persia romances (i.e. Farah forgetting the relationship she had with the Prince, only possibly to rekindle it at the very very end of the trilogy; the blossoming romance between Elika and her Prince being fractured by his tragic choice at the end of the 2008 game)? The issue with romances between the player and NPCs is that it's difficult to craft a strong romance between equals when they are decidedly unequal. An NPC will by definition never be able to exercise the same agency as a player character, so ultimately every romance will - in some form - be a relationship where one person initiates all dialogue, makes all the decisions, keeps the relationship going or breaks it up. Even when you fail a romance and the NPC dumps you, it's because of a choice you made, the player made. I think this leads CRPG romances towards being simple, easy and all about meeting the needs of the audience - rather than any real exploration of relationships or emotions. Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Sep 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:e: to expand, the reaction to ME3 and Citadel in particular should show that many people are happier and more accepting of bad writing that tries to be funny rather than bad writing that tries to be sad or angry. but whatever I think this has to do with how humor works compared to other emotions. We accept that some people have different tastes in humor so we can forgive a joke that fell flat. However, emotions like anger and sadness don't have that similar caveat so when a sad scene makes you laugh or just doesn't affect you the way the writers were trying, your immersion begins to falter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
The first example that comes to mind is Jerome K Jerome's (or Robert Heinlein's, whatever) Christmas Kitten. To elaborate - the kitten is a few weeks old, all alone, stuck in an abandoned building. It's snowing outside, the kitten is hungry and confused about being abandoned. Besides all that, something mangled its right paw. Worse things yet await that poor little furball in the near future. Now. I (and Jerome's / Heinlein's writer character) am quite aware of the fact I'm making a crass and cynical effort to squeeze some tears out of you. And yet, just writing this out makes me a bit verklempt. The same thing can be done with... actually, skip the hypotheticals, and lets go straight for the obvious example - the death of not!Grunt. A bit of sappy piano music, a bit of slowmotion, some noble sacrifice, and you might well tear up for this no-name NPC that didn't even get the minor development accorded to not!Mordin. Can't quite get the same calculated effect with humor. And I'm saying that as a desperately unfunny person who's been using (quote unquote) humor as a defense mechanism for a few decades now. Lt. Danger posted:Well, one part of Sawyer's (and my) argument is that stories should be about more than just wish fulfilment, and wish fulfilment isn't a particularly worthy goal for a story, for a writer or an audience. I've never played DA2, nor am I going to, but I've been given the impression that the player character and her friends gently caress up everything they ever touch, and having a romance just contributes to loving things up even more rather than playing into a happy ending. Torchlighter posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
I never quite got the whole rapey subtext before you showed the footage of seducing Cortez without the mission breaks that would usually accompany the dialog and that's when I noticed how bad the poor bastard has it. Especially from his commanding officer This kind of thing is why I liked Fallout 3 so much, it's not that you can just follow the right dialog tree and get the perfect result. Even when you have the specific skills being used in the encounter, there is a chance to fail a dialog attempt based on how good you are and what you're doing for the characters you're talking to Sure, you could probably game it to get the "perfect" result with quick saves or mentats or something, but if you fail, you're SOL in regular game play IIRC, KOTOR 1 did something similar with skills and attributes, but it's been a long time since I played it and I don't really care to check because the only big decisions that impacted my game were binary light/dark side interactions, and that doesn't care about skills and attributes
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:e: to expand, the reaction to ME3 and Citadel in particular should show that many people are happier and more accepting of bad writing that tries to be funny rather than bad writing that tries to be sad or angry. but whatever One has to come before the other. The first Mass Effect game didn't have a humourous bone in its body -- except for a few lines with Joker, but I wouldn't necessarily classify him as having bones. It was only later on after some time had passed were the games able to begin sharing in on a few jokes about itself. There isn't much out there in terms of timeless comedy, or comedy that exists within a vacuum. Even the most well-done comedy ages at a faster rate than the worst drama. Dante's Divine Comedy can't actually be read as a comedy in modern terms since we no longer understand what exactly is so funny about it. With time, Mass Effect was able to set up a frame of reference in which it could operate as a simple platform to execute simple comedy. What you are describing is more of a thing that happens when a particular text becomes overdeveloped. I wouldn't generalize it the larger population.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
That's a good point - although ME1 does have quite a few jokes sprinkled around, they just don't stand out as much. One of my favourite lines is still Garrus talking about impotent krogan buying extra krogan testicles at "10,000 credits each. That's 40,000 for a full set." It's a subtle joke (for Bioware) and they play it completely straight. The equivalent scenes in ME2 or 3 have a lot more mugging for the audience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:It's a subtle joke (for Bioware) and they play it completely straight. The equivalent scenes in ME2 or 3 have a lot more mugging for the audience. This pretty well reflected in how Wrex transitions between the 3 games. In ME1 he's a sort of grizzled, bitter, darkly sarcastic, fairly intelligent warrior guy overall. In ME2 he's a little less dark, and a little more macho-warrior for what little we see of him. Makes sense for the most part; he has to flex his reptile muscles now that he's the big cheese for his clan. Then in ME3 he just turns into a macho meathead and they use him as a vehicle for delivering some lame jokes based around that. "We'll name one of the kids after [Mordin], maybe a girl!" HA HA, SO FUNNY. THANK YOU FOR HUMOR, BIOWARE.  He's a bit more amusing to me in the Citadel DLC, but that's a pretty subjective viewpoint. (As is everything I just said.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Morroque posted:Dante's Divine Comedy can't actually be read as a comedy in modern terms since we no longer understand what exactly is so funny about it. Actual ancient humour varies between incomprehensible and timeless. The latter category includes things like fart jokes, which transcend all cultures.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:There's nothing funny about it and there never was; the word "comedy" itself did not particularly imply jokes in those days. Most Laconic humor is pretty timeless, too. quote:Philip II of Macedon sent a message to Sparta: "If I invade Laconia you will be destroyed, never to rise again." The Spartan ephors replied with a single word: "If"
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Xander77 posted:Yes. But the same is true of every interaction. You aren't wrong, they are all pre-packaged. But non-romantic NPC writing has the advantage of simply being part of how the game functions. Romantic writing isn't and that brings a lot of scrutiny with regards to agency or how it's written to sound. To put it another way, when the computer gives you a quest via dialogue, it's about the quest. The fact that it's delivered via a pre-packaged route is irrelevant, it had to get to you somehow. NPCs that give out quests could be seen the same way as the storygiver from any Call of Duty sequence. They chose you because you're the player character ('Ramirez, do everything....'). It's a method of moving he story along. Not necessarily a good method, but a method nonetheless. Romantic writing isn't. Romantic writing is you choosing a person, then driving it down particular routes until you get what you want. It's a very poor representation of actual romance, and to be honest, it sounds exactly like the 'Nice Guy' Theory of How To Get Women. It reduces things to a transaction, like a vending machine. I input kindness, I get sex, or in this case, a fade to black scene. There's no in-game benefit, there's no real reason to do it, and all it does is titillate or (badly) fulfill some sort of wish. The guy who came up with Talisweat.jpg? He bought into the idea that romance works like that. It's the difference between interacting with a machine that tells you what to do, but has no other connection to you, and romancing a realdoll.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:06
|
|