.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Ryz009
-
Posts
340 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Ryz009
-
-
Yeah I have to agree that map is massive and how Cohh spent like three plus hours in one section of the city is insane.
-
1
-
-
He lacks attraction to the thread, but still desires normal posting.
There is normal posting on other parts of the thread.
I’ve already been doing so, but I’ve said what I did for the sake of hyperbole and good fun. Also might get people talking about other things for a bit, which is all fine and dandy. I know that this thread will carry on no matter what I do, so I may as well try to have fun with it no matter how much I’d prefer it’s nonexistence.Ah fair enough but I doubt it'd get people talking about anything else.
Oh this is nothing. A few weeks after release there will be a waifu megathread for each companion with running battles between rival shippers spreading all over the board. This? This is fairly comfy.
Whee lawd and judging from EA I already know how it's going to go. One character is thirsty as hell.
(I am also a Sebastian Vael fan! Maybe all us imaginary people are.)
I mean really. Shameful.
That said I'm fine with Eder or Aloth. I'm a big fan of friendship turned to lovers
Oh this is nothing. A few weeks after release there will be a waifu megathread for each companion with running battles between rival shippers spreading all over the board. This? This is fairly comfy.
This is correct. For good or ill I imagine the Waifu/Husbando wars will rage. Although I doubt they'll reach the insanity of certain fandoms. You hear about certain things at a topical level nad WOOF are some fanbases aggressive.
I'm hoping these types of things will be more cordial than other games because let's face it we all want to bang the Eothas statue.
The statue booty is amazing.
-
2
-
-
Why not ignore the thread then? It's not like the topic is spilling onto other parts of the forum.
-
2
-
-
From what littel I saw from Coh stream(watched like 40min total or) am really gonna hate Xoti, give me back Durance plss :'(
Otherwise game looks awesome(outside POTD looking like a complete joke but I hope late game and mid game fix that)
eh they both are pretty iffy. Xoti at least doesn't make me wanna make a custom priest.
-
They should write in lots of torrid romance and steamy hot sex... but only between NPCs. PC would be all by his little self in the big captain's cabin on the Defiant, while the rest of the gang gets it on belowdecks.
The reaction would be epic.
This. AND have NPCs tease the PC for his failure to get in on the action.
What "IS" a Watcher, really? Maybe the PC is just into Voyeurism.
Yeah and then the teasing would be odd if the PC's asexual.
Wouldn't asexuality in the game be included by the sheer ability for the player to turn down a romantic advance though? Or for a companion to not be interested in a romance? Being asexual doesn't preclude others from being attracted to you, so I don't think it'd change much about how other characters would act towards the character in question.
Pretty much what Tar said yeah.
And of course I'd expect certain NPCs to be okay/not okay with it and that' dbe fine.
-
Get a 940m on my laptop, should be ok to play, just hope I don't need to tone done the grappic too much.
Which CPU and how much RAM do you have?
i5-600U @ 2.30GHz 2.40GHz;12G RAM
I'm guessing you mean 6200u or 6300u? In which case you should probably be able to get stable FPS on Medium. Do you have D: OS2? If you can run that game, like at all, you're good to go for Deadfire lol.
6200U, missed a number there.
I can play DoS2 just fine, except that one battle in Act 2, where it basically becomes a power-point for me.
Eh I played that fight on a 970 and got lag. That fight is just brutal period.
-
What about GOG though? No preload for us?
Nope we're just boned.
-
It does raise the question, though. How hard would it be to have an option, at a sex scene, for example, to say 'i'm not really into that, but I still like you'.It's an awfully rare thing to be worth dev time.
The romance could continue as normal (after skipping the sex), while being inclusive towards asexuals. It'd one one conversation at most in terms of required dev time, not too heavy.
I think that's when Edér says it was nice knowing you and starts boning Xoti.
My salt. I'd just have to run and cry in Aloth's strong oddly bared arms.
-
1
-
-
I'd really appreciate someone water-coloring these for me
-
1
-
-
Even after DAI? HOW?
In all my DAI playthroughs, he spent the whole game chilling in Starkhaven and waiting for his wife to get back from saving the world/Fade/whatever. Not sure where all these strange rumors about invading Kirkwall came from.
Ignorance is bliss indeed.
Well I had to port my rivalry Andersmance my god what a trainwreck that was. Also people on the old BSN forums got so salty I did it too. *cackles* The amount of times I got called a toxic abusive person that was a monster lmao. But yeah I wasn't pleased at what he did to Kirkwall.
![=]](//obsidian-forums.s3.amazonaws.com/emoticons/default_turned.gif)
-
That would require someone acknowledging asexual people exist. Current culture is a bit too sex obsessed for that.
Ooooh, I love adding to the list of reasons I don't exist. Chick on the internet, female gamer, asexual, Sebastian Vael fan... *slowly fades from reality*
Even after DAI? HOW?
Yeah and then the teasing would be odd if the PC's asexual.
That would require someone acknowledging asexual people exist. Current culture is a bit too sex obsessed for that.
I don't think its that bad. I think?
-
They should write in lots of torrid romance and steamy hot sex... but only between NPCs. PC would be all by his little self in the big captain's cabin on the Defiant, while the rest of the gang gets it on belowdecks.
The reaction would be epic.
This. AND have NPCs tease the PC for his failure to get in on the action.
What "IS" a Watcher, really? Maybe the PC is just into Voyeurism.
Yeah and then the teasing would be odd if the PC's asexual.
-
if anyone watched Cohh more than just character creation, tell me, did he used Attributes in dialogues? (intellect, resolve, might etc.). i don't know if i need put points in resolve to unlock more options, like in first game, or not.
Yeah there were at least 2 resolve options too. XD
-
I lost my Solas romance save anyhow.
Last time I tried to play it I couldn't get into my character, I kept restarting, it was a mess.
I romance Bull personally. BDSM king is right up my alley.
Aww that sucks.
-
One of these days I'm going to finish Tresspasser.
You should it's so good.
I'm not fond of the Solas romance (mostly because I'm not fond of Solas) but it does add a very nice touch to it. (Also your friends expressing disapproval of the PC being an idiot was nice.)
-
I know Sharmat was talking about romance initiations specifically but my comment was more about the quality of the romance writing in general, and especially that scene
But yeah, you're right, I brought it on myself, sadly
Ah yeah that scene (elf necks were...something) is a horror show.
^_^ see should've romanced Isabela her scene at least is decent
Liara is a pretty good character...in the second game and onwards. She is functionally a completely different person in the first game and, yes, kind of awful nerd bait in how she's written.
OH SHEPARD WON'T YOU TEACH ME HOW TO LOVE??? I AM SO NAIVE AND NERDY.
Oh that's complete nonsense. Some of the dialogue is a little hammy, but compared to Hawke/Merrill, for example, it's bloody Shakespeare. And she barely even features in ME2...
If anything, Liara leads Shepard on how to 'do' it. He even says 'just tell me what to do'. She's not the naive, timid waifu you make her out to be.
There's a moment where you can say 'I'll keep you safe' and she slaps Shepard down, saying 'I'm not looking for a protector'.
But whatever, it's cool to hate on Liara I guess.
Liara is a super naive waifu in ME1. It's only in ME2 that changes
Also don't tempt me to air my many grievances about Liara and her revolving personalities through the game. (Not to mention keeping Shep's busted armor in a display case. WTF)
Yeah I quite liked the Isabela romance.
Liara is not that naive.
Her change in ME2 is reasonable, given the context. ME3... who cares about that game.
She's not Merril level no. But Merrill's ditzy enough to need strings to get around
She's naive enough.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. As for ME3 I care D:
-
I know Sharmat was talking about romance initiations specifically but my comment was more about the quality of the romance writing in general, and especially that scene
But yeah, you're right, I brought it on myself, sadly
Ah yeah that scene (elf necks were...something) is a horror show.
^_^ see should've romanced Isabela her scene at least is decent
Liara is a pretty good character...in the second game and onwards. She is functionally a completely different person in the first game and, yes, kind of awful nerd bait in how she's written.
OH SHEPARD WON'T YOU TEACH ME HOW TO LOVE??? I AM SO NAIVE AND NERDY.
Oh that's complete nonsense. Some of the dialogue is a little hammy, but compared to Hawke/Merrill, for example, it's bloody Shakespeare. And she barely even features in ME2...
If anything, Liara leads Shepard on how to 'do' it. He even says 'just tell me what to do'. She's not the naive, timid waifu you make her out to be.
There's a moment where you can say 'I'll keep you safe' and she slaps Shepard down, saying 'I'm not looking for a protector'.
But whatever, it's cool to hate on Liara I guess.
Liara is a super naive waifu in ME1. It's only in ME2 that changes
Also don't tempt me to air my many grievances about Liara and her revolving personalities through the game. (Not to mention keeping Shep's busted armor in a display case. WTF)
-
3
-
-
What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.
Also some games have romances that were pretty in your face. Not mandatory, but very hard to avoid. Which is fair enough, sometimes unwanted come-ons happen in real life, except the way it was written was like some fat nerd walking up to me, shoving an anime body pillow in my face and saying "NOW KISS".What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.
Removing quality of writing issues, I think people feel the romance content can take resources away from making the character interesting / responsive if the PC doesn't romance them. So if the character has 1000 lines of dialogue, but 800 are tied to the romance, it means the non-romance player gets a character with only 200 lines.*
*I have no clue how many lines of dialogue characters actually have.
I think that's part of the rationale for those who don't like romances, because they figure create one single path for a relationship and put the resources elsewhere and that as they are they're not worth the resource effort.
Yeah I think they're worth a little effort because they give some bang for their buck as the saying goes. There's several games I wouldn't have looked twice at but bought because it had a romance in it.
Of course there's the too much of a good thing saying
Since I like characters, I enjoy exploring the relationships between the party (PC-NPC, NPC-NPC, whatever).
> the way it was written was like some fat nerd walking up to me, shoving an anime body pillow in my face and saying "NOW KISS"
Cough*MERRILL*cough
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgvCvXunF5E&t=115
You literally can not trigger Merrill's romance without hitting the obvious flirt option so you brought that on yourself.
As in she will not flirt with you whatsoever without that trigger. (Some LIs hit on you without it like Anders and Isabela) Merill however will not flirt with you without a heart trigger. So yeah calling Merrill forced when you hit the obvious romance starter?
Unless you mean its just awkward in which case yeah but you brought it on yourself so
-
What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.
Removing quality of writing issues, I think people feel the romance content can take resources away from making the character interesting / responsive if the PC doesn't romance them. So if the character has 1000 lines of dialogue, but 800 are tied to the romance, it means the non-romance player gets a character with only 200 lines.*
*I have no clue how many lines of dialogue characters actually have.
I think that's part of the rationale for those who don't like romances, because they figure create one single path for a relationship and put the resources elsewhere and that as they are they're not worth the resource effort.
Yeah I think they're worth a little effort because they give some bang for their buck as the saying goes. There's several games I wouldn't have looked twice at but bought because it had a romance in it.
Of course there's the too much of a good thing saying
Since I like characters, I enjoy exploring the relationships between the party (PC-NPC, NPC-NPC, whatever).
Same. I'm a character focused person. I can suffer through terrible combat and a so so story if I like the character relationships and how they interact with the player.
-
I think that's part of the rationale for those who don't like romances, because they figure create one single path for a relationship and put the resources elsewhere and that as they are they're not worth the resource effort.
Yeah I think they're worth a little effort because they give some bang for their buck as the saying goes. There's several games I wouldn't have looked twice at but bought because it had a romance in it.
Of course there's the too much of a good thing saying
-
Again, that's just an example. I don't mind that one specifically (since you'd have people reloading every battle to protect their character - if it was a breakable moment it'd need to be an extremely high number to cause more than an expression of concern over the situation with a lot of ways to mitigate/reset the counter), but its an example of how the NPC-PC relationship is ironclad unless the PC decides to end it (kicking them out of the party, picking dialogue to end the relationship) or its an element of the plot ("oh noes, my romance was with the villain the entire time!" *choke*). It - to me - makes the characters less like characters and just an extension of the players will.1
And its one, I think, that could address a lot of why people feel dissatisfied with them and see them as mini-games (say the right dialogue, get a sex scene or fade to black). A well written NPC could have an equally interesting romance/non-romance path and the NPC could be given a lot of logical reasons to start (or accept) a romance and continue or end it. Not trivial, but I think if romance is going to move from the current mixed perceptions to something that's an interesting design for the character and for the player to deal with from the perception of their PC, its a necessary step to take.
1And yes I acknowledge that if the PC is given tactical command directly of the NPC, as in PoE games, they are literally an extension of the players will in combat.
true but I think Aloth died like 20 times over my playthrough
he was very delicate. Not to mention how in every group interaction he ended up with an injury.Oh that's true. It's just in my experience you usually end up with that costing resources from somewhere else and I'm not a big fan of that. I rather keep it simple.
-
1
-
-
Moving away from specific characters, because I seem to not be able to get across my point well that way, If NPC A likes NPC B because she's a free spirit, then liking the PC because he has expressed free-spiritedness can work. Liking the PC because he helped free NPC A from slavery also works if you're going for the relationship blooming from that start.
It doesn't work as much if the PC is a slaver and NPC A ignores it; it violates the established NPC A liking free-spiritedness and it also violates the idea of the NPC falling for the PC for freeing them from bondage. At that point NPC A isn't a character anymore because whatever has been established about NPC A is thrown aside in favor of having the player get the relationship dialogue from NPC A simply because the player wants it.
That's actually good and I think I can understand this. But now I would like to know in which way does this apply to Fenris?
It's been quite a long while since I last played Dragon Age 2. If Hawke is really pro slavery and Fenris falls for him nevertheless, then yes I would see your point.
It doesn't apply to Fenris, I was trying to make a general example using characters that existed and the analogy went splat like trying to toss pizza dough does when you're trying to toss pizza dough the first time.
So to sum up, I was trying to talk in general terms, not about Fenris-Isabela-Hawke specifically as they existed in DA2. And I'm crap at explaining things.
But that's not really how attraction works though? I'm willing to stake my life on you being able to point to 3 people that are pretty different that you're currently attracted to. Most people's types aren't that structured. Now there's deal breakers (If you're a dog person someone who hates dogs is just no) of course but when it comes to who you're attracted to a lot of people have a good selection. Being rigid in who you're attracted to is a good way to end up with few to no options. Of course this doesn't mean you're going to throw yourself at anyone who even smiles at you. And I get your someone who's pro freedom would drop someone who's pro-slavery (of course there's context in which this would work like with Fenris or Anders but for the most part you should get dumped like a hot potato and they should attempt to attack you or leave the party). (Also for this we're ignoring that the PC often has set attributes that all versions of the PC meet. Even a custom character often has a predefined base to work with) and I do support that.
Deal breakers I get. Saying someone's not a free spirit therefore someone wouldn't be attracted to them is kind of miss for me though. Just because you like something about a partner doesn't mean you require it on all your partners. For the most part the things they have to have in common are usually solved through things like approval/disapproval. (provided the game doesn't allow you to bribe them with gifts).
So my analogy is more about relationships being a two way street. I may be attracted to A, B, and C. But A is attracted to 1 and 2, B is attracted to 3 & 4, and C is attracted to 5 and me. Then the only possible relationship I'm getting at that time at least and maybe if things work out, is with C.
But with video games, if the PC is attracted to A, B, and C then A, B, and C rarely have a choice as whether they are attracted to the PC from a character standpoint outside some rather broad gatekeepers (gender and race, sometimes). They lack definition in that part of their character that can create a rather large disconnect between who they say they are on the page and how they actually act.
Let me use this as another example. PC has begun a romance with NPC42. NPC42 keeps dying in combat and has to be resurrected (or gets knocked out and awakened after combat depending on your system). Why is NPC42 still following the PC, much less in a romance with them? Currently the way romances are handled NPC42 would never break the romance off because the PC kept putting them in vulnerable, unprotected positions in combat. But shouldn't they?
Eh the PC usually has attributes that are attractive to them by default though. It's not like the PC is some shapeless blob.
I don't see it. For the most part that's solved by an approval system without gifts. You'd have to do things they agree with and see as attractive for them to even want to romance your PC.
Oh god no. I'd never be able to romance Aloth. Don't do to me. He keeps dying because he's squishtastic and his AI is dumb that's not my fault.
-
I don't think not wanting to lock people out of content is a necessarily a good excuse; I'd say its an argument for having only a single relationship path if you don't have the resources to create a viable and interesting character whether the player romances the NPC or not; its like saying "We don't want to have an evil path, because it'll lock good path players out of content" instead of "we don't have an evil path because we don't have the resources to do it" and maybe only marginally better than "our evil path is the good path, but everyone is more frowny when you are evil".
I'm probably explaining it poorly, but let me try it this way--
We know that at some point, Fenris can become interested in Isabela. Granted some of that development happens off-screen. Now the player they can be the opposite of Isabela in personality, temperment, interests and still interest Fenris. So with respect to the Player, Fenris has no standards. He's playersexual.
I don't see any problem in that. I can imagine that someone can fall in love with two very different people for very different reasons.
Fenris may very well like Isabela for some complete different reasons than the reasons for liking Hawke. And actually that makes it interesting to me. Because he doesn't have that one type. There are so many people who would reject someone because they are not their type that I find it refreshing to meet someone who'd be more open minded.
Also what do you think of people who simply refuse to label their sexuality? Is their character any less complete? What if someone simply doesn't want to call themselves bisexual or gay or hetero or asexual or whatever (independently from what their sexuality actually is). What if they simply don't want to label it? Does only make a fixed label, that they openly declare, their character worthy?
Yes people can have more than one type, my point is that an NPC liking the player regardless of who the player is or what the player does is having no type. The character is no longer a character but a sock puppet for the whims of the player. And I find that to be an unfortunate thing.
Moving away from specific characters, because I seem to not be able to get across my point well that way, If NPC A likes NPC B because she's a free spirit, then liking the PC because he has expressed free-spiritedness can work. Liking the PC because he helped free NPC A from slavery also works if you're going for the relationship blooming from that start.
It doesn't work as much if the PC is a slaver and NPC A ignores it; it violates the established NPC A liking free-spiritedness and it also violates the idea of the NPC falling for the PC for freeing them from bondage. At that point NPC A isn't a character anymore because whatever has been established about NPC A is thrown aside in favor of having the player get the relationship dialogue from NPC A simply because the player wants it.
But that's not really how attraction works though? I'm willing to stake my life on you being able to point to 3 people that are pretty different that you're currently attracted to. Most people's types aren't that structured. Now there's deal breakers (If you're a dog person someone who hates dogs is just no) of course but when it comes to who you're attracted to a lot of people have a good selection. Being rigid in who you're attracted to is a good way to end up with few to no options. Of course this doesn't mean you're going to throw yourself at anyone who even smiles at you. And I get your someone who's pro freedom would drop someone who's pro-slavery (of course there's context in which this would work like with Fenris or Anders but for the most part you should get dumped like a hot potato and they should attempt to attack you or leave the party). (Also for this we're ignoring that the PC often has set attributes that all versions of the PC meet. Even a custom character often has a predefined base to work with) and I do support that.
Deal breakers I get. Saying someone's not a free spirit therefore someone wouldn't be attracted to them is kind of miss for me though. Just because you like something about a partner doesn't mean you require it on all your partners. For the most part the things they have to have in common are usually solved through things like approval/disapproval. (provided the game doesn't allow you to bribe them with gifts).
Moving away from specific characters, because I seem to not be able to get across my point well that way, If NPC A likes NPC B because she's a free spirit, then liking the PC because he has expressed free-spiritedness can work. Liking the PC because he helped free NPC A from slavery also works if you're going for the relationship blooming from that start.
It doesn't work as much if the PC is a slaver and NPC A ignores it; it violates the established NPC A liking free-spiritedness and it also violates the idea of the NPC falling for the PC for freeing them from bondage. At that point NPC A isn't a character anymore because whatever has been established about NPC A is thrown aside in favor of having the player get the relationship dialogue from NPC A simply because the player wants it.
That's actually good and I think I can understand this. But now I would like to know in which way does this apply to Fenris?
It's been quite a long while since I last played Dragon Age 2. If Hawke is really pro slavery and Fenris falls for him nevertheless, then yes I would see your point.
The funny thing is Isabela actually was a slaver.
-
1
-
-
To be honest when it comes to RPGs like Pillars I rather there be only like 2 or 1 LIs. I have visual novels for my gauntlet of romance options honestly.
(also before it even starts dating sims and visual novels are not the same. Some dating sims are visual novels but not all visual novels are dating sims.)
![=]](http://obsidian-forums.s3.amazonaws.com/emoticons/default_turned.gif)
Companion custom subclass details?
in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Characters Builds, Strategies & the Unity Engine (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted · Edited by Ryz009
Kons is a Skald. (From Cohh's EA stream).