Yosharian

I think if you spam summons you're gonna have a great time. You cannot choose subclasses with companions. Some of them have their own subclasses, though.

From what I've seen, although it varies a bit, the higher level, and the highest level, abilities are quite strong. So I'd say it's not at all the case that multi is always better than single.

Is this an Avengers: Infinity War spoiler? Heh, no, I stole it from a Triumph The Insult Comic Dog video

How about this for a spoiler: you will die alone.

Its based off information direct from Josh Sawyer, the game's lead.

Plz no hype

Well I don't know about any of that but asexualism is, scientifically, a directly observable phenomenon. There are individuals who simply do not engage in sexual activity with others, are entirely unattracted to others, prefer not to engage in sexual activity with others, only engage in sexual activity with themselves, etc. From what I can see, there's been very little actual scientific research on it, though.

Yes but multiclass..

Awesome bait post. Well done.

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'. 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.

The big info in there: How can it not be by design? It's by definition 'by design' because they designed it. Makes no bloody sense.

Ah yeah that scene (elf necks were...something) is a horror show. ^_^ see should've romanced Isabela her scene at least is decent 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.

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.

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. 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). 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". > 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 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

You take that back! Liara is a goddess!

No, you can't use any subclasses with certain NPCs like Eder. Dragon Thrash is not very good in Deadfire apparently

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. 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). 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". > 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

Another example where BG2 rules: NPCs can form bonds with other characters irrespective of the PC's actions, or display interests/attractions of their own. (For example, Korgan hitting on Mazzy) The Tiefling guy, Haer'Dalis, becomes interested in Aerie, and if you're romancing her, it tears him up and he ends up leaving, or fighting you or something like that.

I had wondered how to split stats, and I'm glad to see you're not suggesting to completely tank con and res as I'm not too keen on that 1st playthrough. Why is might so essential in Deadfire? Penetration? And is Intelligence not going to be important for the duration of killers froze stiff? Intellect is important, which is why I set it to 10. Dexterity and Perception are more important for this build than slightly longer paralyzes.

I still have to finish my latest PoE playthrough =( Motivation is close to zero... Damn Persona 5...

Yeah and Josephine is on the far side of the spectrum along with people who have to wear paper bags over their heads in public

More than one person thinks the earth is flat. Saying someone else thinks something doesn't make it accurate. Again you seem to be equalizing me wanting acknowledgement with me wanting something not to exist. They're not same thing. Also you think Wuthering Heights portrayed its relationships as though nothing were wrong with them? LOL Again you seem to be equalizing acknowledgement with not wanting something to exist. An antagonist making a positive moral judgement on something isn't portraying it in a positive light. Or ignoring its flaws. That's why an antagonist would be supportive of it. Meanwhile if a protagonist supports something negative it's treated as a character flaw. Also a character can be positive towards something that's not positive. Plenty of people support things that they shouldn't. That's not a contradiction there's a difference in what an NPC does/says with how the game portrays an action. And for the most part most of those games don't even portray those flaws as positives they're just ignored completely. I.E. if a protagonist is usually pretty good but is sexist and has a very go back to the kitchen attitude. Someone acknowledging he's pretty sexist is just that. Doesn't mean he has to magically change his ways or get punished for it. It's just acknowledged that he's sexist. From there you can have him interact with certain characters in a certain way and so on. The same treatment isn't often given to romances however. Say he's still sexist the romance will ignore this and go on as though he's not. That's my main issue. Even if his female LI approves of such behaviors they won't be remarked upon they cause no conflict and essentially are completely glossed over. BDSMs are consensual relationships that revolve around you giving someone control yes. In controlled settings. They don't revolve around you literally allowing someone to put you in actual danger as in on a battlefield. Why would they not care about their commander making decisions based off who he/she is sleeping with in matters of life or death? If someone didn't care they'd be the minority at best. When did I say that? Why do you *constantly* put words in my mouth I did not say. I said nothing about all relationships feature discussions about consent. I said sometimes in the scenario of a boss sleeping with an employee who's life they hold in their hands it could be brought up. That's a very specific scenario and is nowhere near all relationships. Why are assuming this would be some tangent and not a discussion that the player is involved in? I began the discussion talking about toxic relationships in videogames being unacknowledged as such. You seem not to get that difference. > More than one person thinks the earth is flat. This isn't a good comparison. > Saying someone else thinks something doesn't make it accurate. True, but there are standards of beauty that exist because most people find them attractive. Look at supermodels, for example. No way in hell could Josephine be a model. > An antagonist making a positive moral judgement on something isn't portraying it in a positive light If something 'toxic' is occurring within a game, and all the other characters say it's a good thing, then of course that portrays it in a positive light. You're demanding that other characters make moral judgements on negative things that are occurring within a game. Otherwise, for example, the game risks portraying toxic relationships without acknowledging that they are toxic. I'm saying that artists should be free to create whatever they want within a game, without these arbitrary demands being placed on them. > Someone acknowledging he's pretty sexist is just that. No such acknowledgement needs to take place. That's my point. You're demanding that it should take place. I'm saying F that. Not least because one's definition of what is 'sexist' can differ greatly when compared to another's. > Say he's still sexist the romance will ignore this and go on as though he's not. That's my main issue. Even if his female LI approves of such behaviors they won't be remarked upon they cause no conflict and essentially are completely glossed over. But what if nobody else thinks its sexist except you? What if you're the minority? Why should all games cater to your specific views? > Why would they not care about their commander making decisions based off who he/she is sleeping with in matters of life or death? That wasn't my point, but most games don't fail to address this at all. > I said sometimes in the scenario of a boss sleeping with an employee who's life they hold in their hands it could be brought up. Ah 'it could be brought up'. But originally you said: > That said I'm fine with romances as long as they feel like an actual partnership and not the PC bribing the LI into boning them. Those relationships end up feeling toxic as hell but no one admitting how toxic they are (which again I have no issue with toxic relationships but there needs to be some acknowledgement and those romances just pretend that's health and okay when it's really not) which skives me out. I.E. you're not OK with relationships where consent isn't brought up. There needs to be some acknowledgement, you're not fine with them. 'it could be brought up' isn't the same as 'I'm not ok with relationships where consent isn't brought up'. > I began the discussion talking about toxic relationships in videogames being unacknowledged as such. And I'm saying that there is no such need for them to be acknowledged. The massive problem with videogames these days is this absurd need to lecture players on what is and isn't acceptable. Oh let's discuss consent in our latest videogame romance! That'll be fun!

Where have they said that? Several times actually. But you insist on fighting this argument that I don't want any relationship that's not healthy for some reason unless you get some moralizing "this is bad and this is why" tangent apparently. Provide the quote. It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself.

Where have they said that?

> Why wouldn't companions comment? That wasn't my point. > Perhaps they might congratulate you on being "firm" with your LI or "putting them in their place." Ryz isn't ok with that. They already stated that the only time such toxic relationships are ok is if the game acknowledges or admits it in some way. Example: > It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship