Amentep

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. 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?

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 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.

That's part of the season pass. Also part of the season pass is the day 1 pee into a cup at the clinic DLC. Are you sure you're not playing American Peeing Simulator rather than American Trucking SImulator?

Or play it casual and pretend your playing those Shining Force sequels we'll never get because SEGA.

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. This mean that Fenris doesn't really have a character based interest in the player, the player subsumes his character under their will. To be honest this can even be applied to the single sex and/or single race romances as well, its just got a gender/race based condition on it but the essence of the romance being solely the player's choice, not an element of character remains. What I'd like to see would be an advancement of criteria; if a Fenris-like character has an established interest in an Isabela-like character in the game, this should be based on the interests and attractions of the Fenris-like character; then if the player also does or says things that match this interest, then the player also can meet the interest of the Fenris-like character. That doesn't necessarily mean gender for bisexual character, but perhaps expressing dialogue choices/worldview that are similar or consistant (to attract) or too dissimilar or inconsistant (to not attract). That would make the Fenris-like character's pursuit/acceptance/continuation of a romance with the player seem to be more a part of his character and not the PC clicking the right dialogue option to go forward or deny the romance per their will. It'd also (theoretically if implemented correctly) cut off the Fenris-like NPC from flirting with everyone, by narrowing down who they flirt with to a consistent personality design ("I know you just slaughtered all of the puppies in town, and I'm the puppy avenger, but since you've deigned to talk to me, I find you really hot right now >...")

I did play the Fenris romance (I played all of them because I liked DA2 an awful lot despite its flaws). That was a long time ago; I also wasn't trying to argue what happened so much as use Fenris-Isabela-Player to illustrate the problem I see rather than talk about what actually happened in the game specifically (other than going from memory that Fenris doesn't go after Isabela if the Player goes after Fenris). But you are probably right in that the episodic nature of DA2 (jumping it time several times) makes any of the characters a poor example since so much of the development can be left to the time gaps. RE: Aveline what I liked was that you could try, even though it was obviously doomed. I appreciated that they let the player fail rather than succeed in wooing her from Donnic. She turned me down before she ever discovered Donnic. I recall thinking that she was so much cooler than Hawke that she should have been the real hero of DA2. I don't recall her turning me down so much as being oblivious whenever it was brought up.

So to my mind - rightly or wrongly - for an NPC character to be a true character in their own right, they have to actually have some consistent standard of behavior. They can't have that if they're programmed to always like the player regardless of who the player is. To my mind the playersexual NPC is part of the same problem of a good NPC having a relationship with a known evil PC. You don't have a character, you have something that exists due to player's whim. YMMV. I can't really say I followed DA2's development closely (bioware's changing boards was too much for me, so I just followed loosely the development), so you may be right about Fenris being built around the m/m romance. But to my mind, since you mention Fenris being attracted to Isabela - at no point in the game, if you show interest in Fenris, will he ever as a character choose Isabela over you (yes I know a real romance isn't written there, the principle remains, I think). This means that Fenris' character is sublimated to the player's choice. This makes him less of a character, to me. Had he been written as bisexual natively, you could establish that he was attracted to the player and Isabela both and dealt with that as part of the romance, even including a point where - based on your actions - he chooses to not romance either of you or tries to start a romance with Isabela instead of you. It'd be a deeper investment into his character. But this is a subset problem, in general, because almost all characters are written as playersexual to greater or lesser degrees at the moment (unless they're NOT romance options). One of the greatest things DA2 did IMO was to allow you to flirt - and fail - with Avelline, to be honest. It made her character feel stronger to me than any of the others because it made her characterization consistent.

I do think that Fenris, Anders and Merrill's character were hijacked for their romances because they weren't portrayed as natively bisexual (Isabella, as I recall, was established as bisexual; that said I honestly can't remember if Anders expressed anything one way or the other in DAO:A right now or not). They were portrayed as being natively attracted to whoever the Champion was, which meant that an aspect of their character was left to the decision of the player, so that aspect was sublimated to the player rather than resulting from a character who is well fleshed out and whose own likes and interests align to how the player plays their character. Just establish the character as bisexual if that's the route you want, as you find out more about them. I agree with you there should be more places to break a romance and it should be based on your actions. It should be valid for an NPC to break up with you, for the romance to fail for more reasons than the player chose "nope not interested" in a dialogue tree, IMO.

To be fair, RPG Codex is one of the forums that (as I remember it and I find my memory cheats more and more as I get older) was started by former BIS/Interplay posters during a period when a lot of former posters were flocking to other forums. Because their approach to moderation is fairly light, allowing people to say/act any way with consequences mostly being social rather than administrative, the forums tend to be a free-for-all; as such there are a lot of polarized opinions, long memories for grudges and such. There is a love/hate relationship between them and other parts of RPG fandom; some see them, as they see themselves, as the torch bearers for True RPGs, others as the Mos Eisley spaceport of RPG forums. Anyhow, because they started out as a hardcore RPG site, they also did reporting on games that fit the classic style and made connections with people who made those games. Avellone is one of those, but they've done interviews with other developers and broke news stories before.

That might be fine for a game where the player - not necessarily the character - is intended to be scared (say a 1st person VR game). If the intention of the game narrative is to scare the character in the game, then the game should address the fears of the character (like in Silent Hill 2 where Pyramid Head is a specific reaction IIRC to the main character, not the player). Well… http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SingleTargetSexuality The problem with that as a comparison, IMO - and its a good point to make - is that isn't how its payed out in games (ie a soulmate kind of thing where the attraction is between to people regardless of anything else). For example if NPC A and B were Single-Target Sexuality (thus appearing to the player to be player sexual), they should either come into conflict (because they both want the same thing) or they should agree to share a relationship (which, kind of happens I guess in the Jade Empire threesome, sorta). But generally the game treats the players choice as an on-off switch for the NPC - ie they love the player if the Player wants them to and if the Player doesn't then they express no real romantic interest in the player beyond the first flirting to relationship decision point. They can even express interest / pursue romances with other NPCs if they're not picked by the player, violating the single-target sexuality idea. But I guess if a player sexual character was to work, it'd be as a single-target sexuality.

Hilarious. I think you mean GLORIOUS!cailan> My problem with player sexual companions is that it means the character has no real character of their own; their personality and interests are sublimated to those of the PC. I'd rather a bisexual companion be bisexual because that's who they are, not because the player wants to sexxor them and happens to be one gender or another. That to my mind is treating the relationship as a reward to the player rather than a character based story arc that the player and the NPC are both a part of. YMMV, but I think it should be okay for the NPC to reject the player, and for the player to pursue a romantic relationship that is ill-advised (and will end badly). The reward is the alternate character based content, not sex at the end of a dialogue string.

Its a bit of a "when did you stop beating your wife" situation isn't it? Obsidian says nothing - "They won't address Chris' charges and satisfy the fans! They're evil!" Obsidian denies the claims, generally - "They dare say Chris is a liar! They're evil!" or "They didn't deny all the claims specifically! Chris was right on those claims! They're evil!" Obsidian deny the claims, each one, line by line - "It's proof they had it in for him! Only a company that hates Chris would put so much effort in to crushing the poor man speaking his feelings! He's a martyr to incline! They're evil!" The only real path is to not engage in it and wish Chris well when asked about it. Which seems to be what they're doing.

Can't remember, I haven't read The Infinity Gauntlet story since 1991.

I'll try to remember to ask again in a couple of months.

What, specifically, did you find nonsensical about the end?

If there is, I'm not aware of it (but other users may chime in). I certainly couldn't figure anything out to rescue my lost deck (but I didn't post here, guess I should have).

I didn't keep up with it really, but RE: Stick of Truth - I was under the impression (from press around the time when Fractured But Whole was announced) that Matt and Trey initially wanted Obsidian back. Did subsequent interviews reveal differently? I was also under the impression that despite Obsidian stating (again around the time FBW was announced) they didn't have time to work on it when asked, it was a forgone conclusion that Ubisoft would put development with one of its ~43(!) subsidiaries rather than using a 3rd party like Obsidian. Ubi wasn't like THQ who'd started Stick of Truth in using 3rd parties (and with 43 subsidiaries, who can blame them?).

I had that happen to my Seoni once. Moved her out of the party by accident - I was trying to move another one out and pulled a fat-finger on it and moved the wrong character. When I moved her back in, she had the standard deck. I just went ahead and started rebuilding her deck running through lower adventures until I had enough cards to try higher ones again (I'm only up to AD4 though, so a lot less invested than you!). I was playing lower ones for daily challenges anyhow as I didn't have time to tackle knew adventure scenarioes at the time too. That said, have you emailed support@obsidian.net as well regarding your issue including the following information? What platform are you on? Stream/Android/iPad, etc. What version of the OS are you running? Android 4.4, iOS 9.3, etc. What model is the device? Galaxy Tab 3, iPad Mini 4, etc. What is your PFID#? (Located in the settings menu)

Okay I'm going to try to move this to the correct forum. Hopefully no detours this time...

Have you also emailed support@obsidian.net ?

I enjoyed it. Not a lot I csn say about it that isn't a spoiler.

After specifically warning about not wanting "don't post here" type posts, you're really going to post to tell someone to take a break from the forum? Seeing the productiveness of this thread - if there was one - gone, this thread is locked.

Is this in response to me? I don't think it violates any rules, but isn't it allowed to reply with opinions critical of a poster constantly reposting the same, rebranded, negative spiral? It was a general request to all posters not directed at any individual; a couple of posts in this thread seemed to have the potential to lead the thread towards a "don't post here" or "your thoughts are not welcome" form of self-policing. As there have been some high-tensions running on the forum this week, I thought perhaps a proactive comment may help rather than to be re-active later on once a discussion has taken a turn for the worse. Being negative in comments about PoE II or being critical of those same comments are not, in and of themselves and without further context, posts that violate the guidelines.