Dragon Age: Inquisition

[alanschu]

If one doesn't romance Garrus in ME2 then it doesn't feel like he's learned anything or achieved anything.

I'm not sure I'd agree, especially given you picked Garrus and I don't recall feeling the same way (and extending into ME3, he's probably one of my favourite "friend characters" in a lot of gaming).

[TheChris92]

 

If one doesn't romance Garrus in ME2 then it doesn't feel like he's learned anything or achieved anything.

I'm not sure I'd agree, especially given you picked Garrus and I don't recall feeling the same way (and extending into ME3, he's probably one of my favourite "friend characters" in a lot of gaming).

 

Really? Because the transition from ME1 to ME2. What did Garrus learn from Shepard's speech about not rushing into things? He joins a squad on Omega and ends up getting mopey it about after they all end up dead so he swears revenge. In other words -- He's learned absolutely nothing. And you have to 'fix' him again. He only gets that proper development if one romances him in ME2. Same with Jack -- She only ever truly opens up should you choose to romance her. It's fine if you like Garrus. I'd hardly call him the only character who doesn't really get much development at all from my perspective.

Edited March 11, 2014 by TheChris92

[SilverMoonDragon2]

 

 

If one doesn't romance Garrus in ME2 then it doesn't feel like he's learned anything or achieved anything.

I'm not sure I'd agree, especially given you picked Garrus and I don't recall feeling the same way (and extending into ME3, he's probably one of my favourite "friend characters" in a lot of gaming).

 

Really? Because the transition from ME1 to ME2. What did Garrus learn from Shepard's speech about not rushing into things? He joins a squad on Omega and ends up getting mopey about after they all end up dead so he swears revenge. In other words -- He's learned absolutely nothing. And you have to 'fix' him again. He only gets that proper development if one romances him. Same with Jack -- She only ever truly opens up should you choose to romance her. It's fine if you like Garrus. I'd hardly call him the only character who doesn't really get much development at all from my perspective.

 

 

I would say a reason for Garrus receding would be the loss of Shepard, he probably felt some form of survivors guilt (especially if said person cared for the person/people who died) for a while and that can mess with anyone's head regardless of what they may or may not have learned before. Garrus isn't immune to that kind of trauma. I do agree though that you do get more development with him if you romance him, but even if you don't you do get a decent amount and whether I romance him or not he is always one of my favourite characters. 

[TheChris92]

The problem I see is that romances shouldn't be the key to progressing in character arcs. To me, Garrus did not change at all and did not learn from his mistakes even in ME3.  Basically the switch in writers allowed the new writer (Patrick Weekes) to write him as a wise-cracking scoundrel all of sudden instead of just another cardboard cut-out Mac Walters character eating metal and chewing screws for breakfast. So yes, he essentially gained a personality as opposed to developing one. In the Persona games for instance, the romance option exists to open new doorways to take the character. In Mass Effect 'seqeuels' it felt forced and I didn't feel like the characters of Garrus or Tali grew at all outside of the romances, they've just been there collecting dust in the Normandy from the first game which I suppose gives them some sort of sentimental value.

Edited March 11, 2014 by TheChris92

[SilverMoonDragon2]

The problem I see is that romances shouldn't be the key to progressing in character archs. To me, Garrus did not change at all and did not learn from his mistakes even in ME3.  Basically the switch in writers allowed the new writer (Patrick Weekes) to write him as a wise-cracking scoundrel all of sudden instead of just another cardboard cut-out Mac Walters character eating metal and chewing screws for breakfast. So yes, he essentially gained a personality as opposed to developing his character arc. In the Persona games for instance, the romance option exists to open new doorways to take the character. In Mass Effect it felt forced and I didn't feel like the characters of Garrus or Tali grew at all outside of the romances, they've just been there collecting dust in the Normandy from the first game which I suppose gives them some sort of sentimental value.

 

That part I certainly agree with   

[Volourn]

" What I dislike about the romances in recent BioWare games is how obligatory token they've become."

 

No. They are not obligatory at all. They are such a minimal part of the game no matter how much talk about them.  You can play the games, not take pat in romances, and still take part in all the major happenings. They are 100% optional.

[TheChris92]

" What I dislike about the romances in recent BioWare games is how obligatory token they've become."

 

No. They are not obligatory at all. They are such a minimal part of the game no matter how much talk about them.  You can play the games, not take pat in romances, and still take part in all the major happenings. They are 100% optional.

Think you misunderstood what I said there. Read it like this "The romances have become obsessively token" -- That is to say, they will always be there and despite them being constantly tagged as 'optional' they still come off as being a priority for BioWare.

[Volourn]

  Your point? Theya re still optional. So what if they are included. A long sword is usually always optional but it's in almost every single rpg. This shouldn't be a big deal. Optional content is optional content no matter how many games it is in.

[TheChris92]

  Your point? Theya re still optional. So what if they are included. A long sword is usually always optional but it's in almost every single rpg. This shouldn't be a big deal. Optional content is optional content no matter how many games it is in.

What do you mean my point? How is that related to anything I've been talking about. I'd almost go as far as to ask what the point in this line of questioning is. The fact that they are optional doesn't make them immune to criticism. Downright ridiculous to think otherwise. It's like saying "Hey, that mage armor sure is awkwardly designed, but because I'm playing a warrior then I can't really comment". I've just spent most of my previous posts discussing my feelings on how I feel romances have become shallow. -  What is there to prove? There's nothing. I'm stating my opinion in regards to a question a user earlier asked me about whether I felt I was in this or that crowd. Feel free to disagree

Edited March 11, 2014 by TheChris92

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hey bro, Volo is a troll.

[Meshugger]

And the best there is. 

[BruceVC]

 

  Your point? Theya re still optional. So what if they are included. A long sword is usually always optional but it's in almost every single rpg. This shouldn't be a big deal. Optional content is optional content no matter how many games it is in.

What do you mean my point? How is that related to anything I've been talking about. I'd almost go as far as to ask what the point in this line of questioning is. The fact that they are optional doesn't make them immune to criticism. Downright ridiculous to think otherwise. It's like saying "Hey, that mage armor sure is awkwardly designed, but because I'm playing a warrior then I can't really comment". I've just spent most of my previous posts discussing my feelings on how I feel romances have become shallow. -  What is there to prove? There's nothing. I'm stating my opinion in regards to a question a user earlier asked me about whether I felt I was in this or that crowd. Feel free to disagree

 

 

 

Hey bro, Volo is a troll.

 

I wouldn't say he is a Troll but don't engage in serious debate with him or get upset with him. He doesn't care about the principle of debating etiquette

[TheChris92]

I'm obviously new to the Obsidian forums so I can't say I'm familiar with the people too much except for the few people I recognize from the BSN.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Volo is an old troll. Is usually funny and doesn't take things too seriously.

 

obyknven is a troll pretending to be a hardcore Russian nationalist woman.

 

Pretty much every poster here engages in part time trolling.

[BruceVC]

I'm obviously new to the Obsidian forums so I can't say I'm familiar with the people too much except for the few people I recognize from the BSN.

 

Well welcome to the forums, I am enjoying your posts and input

 

Oh and welcome to the forums as well Silvermoondragon

Edited March 11, 2014 by BruceVC

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Volo is an old troll. Is usually funny

 

Whoa whoa whoa, let's not go that far.

[Gromnir]

 

 

If one doesn't romance Garrus in ME2 then it doesn't feel like he's learned anything or achieved anything.

I'm not sure I'd agree, especially given you picked Garrus and I don't recall feeling the same way (and extending into ME3, he's probably one of my favourite "friend characters" in a lot of gaming).

 

Really? Because the transition from ME1 to ME2. What did Garrus learn from Shepard's speech about not rushing into things? He joins a squad on Omega and ends up getting mopey it about after they all end up dead so he swears revenge. In other words -- He's learned absolutely nothing. And you have to 'fix' him again. He only gets that proper development if one romances him in ME2. Same with Jack -- She only ever truly opens up should you choose to romance her. It's fine if you like Garrus. I'd hardly call him the only character who doesn't really get much development at all from my perspective.

 

am finding your pov to be somewhat... trite. don't take offense, 'cause we sees similar issues with the bio romances and as you like those, perhaps we is actual complementing you. for the nonce, we will ignore the opportunities for double-entendre and bad pun related to your poor word choice in stating that jack "only ever truly opens up," as it relates to romance. that being said, a companion achieving some kinda enlightenment via the half-dozen or so tangential and optional romance dialogues in-game is just one of the things that is terribly and irredeemably wrong with bio romances. the synthetic drama o' bio romances, almost wholly dependent on laboured exposition, is creating a tangential story arc that occurs at speeds greater than the normandy may achieve-- is difficult to describe resulting climax as satisfactory when it comes with such brevity. (<-- intentional) as damaged as bio seems wont to make the companions (wanna talk about melodrama?) achieving epiphany through childishly superficial and abbreviated romantic dialogues is straining not only credulity but good taste as well. sadly, we sees your characterization o' romanced garrus and jack as complete bass ackwards-- the romances destroy characters.

 

is ironic. we recognize that bio's romance scheme is complete broken and utterly beyond repair. as long as romances is optional and tangential they will necessarily suffer. at the same time, the only reason we can endure bio's clumsy romance efforts is 'cause they is optional and tangential-- we need not actual experience the libelous pretense o' those abominations bio/ea has the temerity to label "romances."  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[TheChris92]

 

 

 

If one doesn't romance Garrus in ME2 then it doesn't feel like he's learned anything or achieved anything.

I'm not sure I'd agree, especially given you picked Garrus and I don't recall feeling the same way (and extending into ME3, he's probably one of my favourite "friend characters" in a lot of gaming).

 

Really? Because the transition from ME1 to ME2. What did Garrus learn from Shepard's speech about not rushing into things? He joins a squad on Omega and ends up getting mopey it about after they all end up dead so he swears revenge. In other words -- He's learned absolutely nothing. And you have to 'fix' him again. He only gets that proper development if one romances him in ME2. Same with Jack -- She only ever truly opens up should you choose to romance her. It's fine if you like Garrus. I'd hardly call him the only character who doesn't really get much development at all from my perspective.

 

am finding your pov to be somewhat... trite. don't take offense, 'cause we sees similar issues with the bio romances and as you like those, perhaps we is actual complementing you. for the nonce, we will ignore the opportunities for double-entendre and bad pun related to your poor word choice in stating that jack "only ever truly opens up," as it relates to romance. that being said, a companion achieving some kinda enlightenment via the half-dozen or so tangential and optional romance dialogues in-game is just one of the things that is terribly and irredeemably wrong with bio romances. the synthetic drama o' bio romances, almost wholly dependent on laboured exposition, is creating a tangential story arc that occurs at speeds greater than the normandy may achieve-- is difficult to describe resulting climax as satisfactory when it comes with such brevity. (<-- intentional) as damaged as bio seems wont to make the companions (wanna talk about melodrama?) achieving epiphany through childishly superficial and abbreviated romantic dialogues is straining not only credulity but good taste as well. sadly, we sees your characterization o' romanced garrus and jack as complete bass ackwards-- the romances destroy characters.

 

is ironic. we recognize that bio's romance scheme is complete broken and utterly beyond repair. as long as romances is optional and tangential they will necessarily suffer. at the same time, the only reason we can endure bio's clumsy romance efforts is 'cause they is optional and tangential-- we need not actual experience the libelous pretense o' those abominations bio/ea has the temerity to label "romances."  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Don't take offense - But I have no idea what you just said sunshine. There is definitely  a point in this incoherent mess of exposition -- So, let me just say that I liked Jack's character arc but I did not really find it fulfilling. Once I saw the romance part on Youtube, however, it was a different story. Feel free to disagree though.

Edited March 11, 2014 by TheChris92

[TheChris92]

 

I'm obviously new to the Obsidian forums so I can't say I'm familiar with the people too much except for the few people I recognize from the BSN.

 

Well welcome to the forums, I am enjoying your posts and input

 

Oh and welcome to the forums as well Silvermoondragon

 

Thank you! I like yours too. Good to have nice discussions. I don't overtly participate on the discussions on BSN anymore because I severely dislike most of the forumites there. I like the feel of this one so far and actually prefer most of Obsidian's games over BioWare. One of my first western-RPGs were Kotor 2 which I found way more fun and interesting than the first game.

[alanschu]

I do agree that Jack's romance has problematic elements for sure.

 

But yeah, this forum is smaller with a bit of a leaning towards a game style/writing of a KOTOR 2 and whatnot. Gromnir is one of a few that speaks in character, just as a heads up.

Edited March 11, 2014 by alanschu

[Guest Slinky]

I stopped trying to translate Gromnir's posts a looong time ago.

[Orogun01]

We should also warn him/her about Oby, do not listen, engage or otherwise regard it as a serious poster.
And then there's Volo.

[SilverMoonDragon2]

 

I'm obviously new to the Obsidian forums so I can't say I'm familiar with the people too much except for the few people I recognize from the BSN.

 

Well welcome to the forums, I am enjoying your posts and input

 

Oh and welcome to the forums as well Silvermoondragon

 

 

Thanks for the welcome!   I've actually been here for a couple years, posted a little teeny bit at the beginning and then went dark here until just recently...but anyway, thanks again! 

[TheChris92]

I do agree that Jack's romance has problematic elements for sure.

 

But yeah, this forum is smaller with a bit of a leaning towards a game style/writing of a KOTOR 2 and whatnot. Gromnir is one of a few that speaks in character, just as a heads up.

Oh, hai Allan! I only just now realized it was you. Didn't know you roamed these parts too. I take back everything I said about BioWare now xP

[Humanoid]

That one bit in Saints Row 3 (an otherwise thoroughly ordinary game), where you're just cruising around town with Pierce while singing together, distills the essence of friendship far better in the course of two minutes than all the interactions in Mass Effect put together, romance or no.