.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Prince of Wales
-
Posts
29 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Prince of Wales
-
-
Now I know what's been missing from my life all those years.
Good. There's been enough discrimination against people with hazel eyes.
but that's precisely what's so good about IWD
I don't deny it, but again — not my type of thing. I like games that have i) a compelling story, ii) dynamic gameplay, and/or iii) the possibility to customize the main character in a significant way. Lots of combat doesn't do anything for me, by itself. Not even lots of really good combat.
IWD is amazing. I think it is unfortunate people think it is some sort of Dungeon Crawler. I mean there is lots of Dungeon Crawling but it has an amazing plot and memorable characters and gorgeous environments and music. Its reputation as a dungeon crawler seriously hurt its release and reputation to people who never played it forever. If you loved BG you will love IWD. Anybody who played both disagree?
I just remembered. IWD is the same place from The Dark Elf novels, right?
-
I admit I haven't played either of those games. They were before my time, so to say. But what I've heard of Icewind Dale doesn't make it sound appealing at all. Dungeon crawling is really not my thing.
but BG II is also dungeon crawling. only it has filler quests in between dungeons in the first half of the game
Maybe so, but if more recent BioWare games are anything to go by, I would expect BG2 to have more dialogue? I have been given to understand IWD is only dungeon crawling, and that's where the problem comes from.
-
been playing BG II (arguably the best game Bioware ever produced), and I've come to several conclusions:
- things I remember liking back when I first played it I don't like at all (crapton of quests and crapton of dialogue: most dialogue is just filler, some of it is very badly written to boot; quests are also simply there to reward the party with tons of xp to get the char to epic levels faster);
- things I didn't like about it I do like kind of (dungeons, their design and layout, a lot of dungeons are very well done and have been my favorite part so far; I also like how party members have small chats every now and then, nice touch, gives depth to characters);
- I had doubts before but now I can state without a doubt: Icewind Dale is a better game in every way;
- and most importantly: Neverwinter Nights is exactly the same as BG II, only with no party to control (and the party is my favorite thing about BG II, wtf were they thinking?!);
now, Obisdian is more similar to Troika, I think; Bioware just had a different approach to designing their RPGs, and a lot of trends you see in later games can be traced all the way back to BG II. that's why I think BG II is their best game: these trends weren't so accentuated in it yet
I admit I haven't played either of those games. They were before my time, so to say. But what I've heard of Icewind Dale doesn't make it sound appealing at all. Dungeon crawling is really not my thing. I am more inclined to take a makeshift story and makeshift characters over what most games have these days, e.g. nothing at all. That's a big part of the reason why I can enjoy BioWare games and the Starcraft II campaigns.
To be honest, my own approach to roleplaying games is largely inconsistent. I've heard The Witcher 2 has storytelling that puts BioWare to shame, but I couldn't get into the game because I find Geralt (I think the "g" stands for Generic) boring as a brick. BioWare games, on the other hand, have character customization, so even if their characters may not be great, mine have a chance at it. However, I really enjoyed Deus Ex: Human Revolution, even though it had a fixed protagonist. I guess I just found it a more dynamic game, and its premise was interesting enough to get me hooked where The Witcher 2 didn't. And maybe this is just a matter of perception, but Jensen felt like more of his personality was left to the player, not only through dialogue but also gameplay.
So that's why I like the cheesy, cliche, unoriginal BioWare games but can't get into IWD or TW.
-
And sex was never a part of a deep story.
Then you lack imagination. And some basic mythological knowledge.
-
2
-
-
Oh, I agree. I was merely questioning the realism argument. The idea that a band of dragonslayers couldn't possibly be thinking about getting laid is hilarious. Saying crusaders were as chaste as the crosses they were named after would suggest, even more so.Prince of Wales, I understood what you meant. Didn't think it came off as romanticizing rape in any way. Your main point was that people get horny and sex is part of everyone's life. But anyway...
real world "adventurers"
I think your comparison is off. (Or actually, NWN_babaYaga's comparison. But he's completely wrong anyway.)
There aren't really any real world adventurers like the ones in fantasy stories. Fantasy stories have always been influenced by epic poems and the like. It just doesn't work to say "an adventurer is like a crusader".
An adventurer is like a Greek hero, if anything. And yes, they thought about romance all the time! Ulysses wanted to get back to his wife. Perseus romanced Andromeda. Orpheus went to the underworld to save Eurydice. And so on and so on.
But this romance was also part of their main storyline.
Anyway. Don't compare adventurers to crusaders, it won't work.
On the other matter, I'm not sure what I dread the most. Poorly written romance sidequests are bad, but a forced love interest in a RPG? I didn't get far in TW2 because I kept wondering why did I have to stand that redheaded bore. Although admittedly, having to stand that albino bore was even worse.
-
1
-
-
I don't think the divide between consensual and non-consensual sex was as great or clearly defined before the concept of human rights took hold like, two or three centuries ago, tops?@Prince of Wales, that's usually known as "rape," not "getting laid."
I mean, I had heard that some people have difficulties making the distinction, but still...
ETA: I apologize for the double post. It's kind of hard to multi-quote on a phone.
-
Did I? I was rather aiming for the opposite. My point is that real world "adventurers" were selfish jerks who were in it for the booty (gained mostly through theft) and the other kind of booty, often gained without the other party's consent, yes.
Way to romanticize rape.
Actually, it would seem one common secondary motivation for early settlers of the New World was getting native girls in the sack (the primary motivation would have been wealth). I have no doubt crusaders wouldn't have missed a chance with those exotic Arab women. What do you think went on when a city was sacked? And that's hardly the only way they could have gotten it.Anyone think that an indiana jones type of guy or a crusader (choose who you want) thought about romance romance romance and getting laid during their trip? I guess not... so this is all done because of money money and money and they sucked in a lot of strangers imo.
Getting laid is one of the oldest, strongest, most basic drives of the human race. It kind of has to, for it to has gotten this far. If you look at human history, you will see it pretty much anywhere, especially when it comes to adventurers
-
Anyone think that an indiana jones type of guy or a crusader (choose who you want) thought about romance romance romance and getting laid during their trip? I guess not... so this is all done because of money money and money and they sucked in a lot of strangers imo.
Actually, it would seem one common secondary motivation for early settlers of the New World was getting native girls in the sack (the primary motivation would have been wealth). I have no doubt crusaders wouldn't have missed a chance with those exotic Arab women. What do you think went on when a city was sacked? And that's hardly the only way they could have gotten it.
Getting laid is one of the oldest, strongest, most basic drives of the human race. It kind of has to, for it to has gotten this far. If you look at human history, you will see it pretty much anywhere, especially when it comes to adventurers
-
1
-
-
My issue is not the romances themselves in the games...of course I became disillusioned with Bioware after the Dragon Age expansion (Awakening I think it was called?) so maybe things have changed since then. I, generally, really enjoyed them.
But the community really suffered because of the romances. I just got so tired of how enraged and personally people would take every little decision Bio would make regarding the romances. Granted even back in the BG1 days we would have insane rantings about Bioware ruthlessly conspiring to ruin somebody's life by implementing a level cap or something but it seemed to get more and more crazy with each Bioware game.
By Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 2 it was getting a little nuts. Granted that was four years ago so maybe things are different now.
Hard to tell. Funny, I haven't heard a lot of romance talk with regards to DA2 or ME3. People rarely seem to talk about those games for anything other than remember how bad they were.
-
I must be turning into an old fart because I have no desire whatsoever to express my sexuality in a freakin' computer game. I'd rather express my homicidal and larcenous tendencies.
Interestingly enough, expressing a character's sexuality has nothing to do with romance, and I have no idea why people bring the former as an argument in favor of the presence of the latter.
-
2
-
-
Perhaps you should actively investigate it.
I don't mean that in a mean way mind you. It's just that, going off your post, you really don't know the opposing side's claim.
For most of my life I lived in a communist country where they just wouldn't stop droning about it. I'd say I'm fairly familiar with the "opposing side's claim". No offense, but I remain skeptical, to put it mildly.
-
Using increased emphasis on romances as a sign if their "decline" is a but curcukar, IMO, since that emphasis is placed there mostly by media/snarky gamers. For example, I don't think a romance has been morecore to a Bioware story than Bastila was in Kotor...It's NWNOC that is a dsigarce and evil, and that's pure FACT! r00fles!
Personally I couldn't care less about sexual orientation in games or real life, but it is frequently cited as a sign of Bioware's decline, along with increased emphasis on romances in general. Don't really care about romances of any type, except in that they're usually poorly executed.
Me2 has a wrong type of emphasis on romance in the npc stories due to locking out character interaction and progression outside romances, but it's something they did pick up on and fix for me3.
Truly, the whole "BioWare focuses too much on romances" is more than a bit of hyperbole. Romances are still a tiny, optional part of every game, and arguably their presence isn't any larger than it used to. Hell, some people who work at BioWare have expressed frustration that their fans won't shut up about it and bring it up in every situation, instead of, you know, focusing on other parts of the game.
There is much legitimate criticism to throw at BioWare. Their romances being cliche, cheesy and fan service is one of them. Their romances being the focus of the game, not so much.
-
3
-
-
So, he's gonna be another generic fighty character, and I'm expected to find him a pinnacle of originality? I guess I'll pass.
Wait, people are still expecting originality from BioWare? Oh, you poor things
That's like going to a Transformers film expecting more than flashy special effects and eye candy. I don't think BioWare's characters are meant to be deep or complex or original or anything of the sort. They're just supposed to be endearing, in a rather simplistic way. You either set your expectations low and try to enjoy it for what it is, or just drop the whole thing and go looking for something else. Both are equally valid approaches.
-
2
-
-
Meh. Never seen the appeal myself. I am picky enough about my friends that I don't have that many or that big of a gap between how much I like them. In what would a "bromance" be different from a friendship? My previous experiences with the phenomena in video games ended up with me being forced to stick close to characters I didn't care much about, so I feel rather... skeptical about the notion and the cheesiness usually attached to it.
Romantic love is overrated anyway, and not necessary for RP or memorable companions (as said more eloquently by tons of members of this board). Platonic love all the way!
Ah, but romantic love is just like platonic love, only with an extra layer of sex! What's not to like?
ETA: Unless we're talking video games. Then romantic love is just like platonic love, but with higher chances of taking a deep cheese dip.
-
1
-
-
And what does Role playing have to do with anything? Romances aren't role playing. They're dating sim minigames. The only "role playing" options that happen in romances are "should I role play the attentive listener/strong shoulder, or should I be the insensitive ****?
To be fair, there is roleplaying potential in the general concept of "romances". The implementation is usually terrible, but that doesn't mean the basic premise has no value from a storytelling and roleplaying standpoint. I don't think "romances" are intrinsically any worse (or better) than friendships or any other type of relationship, despite failing to hit the mark much more often. I'd be more inclined to blame that tendency to the writers and they're preconceived notion of what "romance" should be like rather than the concept itself.
It's hardly a video game only problem, by the way. And it's not just good writers who fall for it, really. To me that Chris Avellone interview where he was questioned on the topic actually suggests in a really ironic way that he himself is affected by the same attitude.
-
1
-
-
Massive wealth inequality, poverty, huge incarceration rates (especially for minorities), sexism, racism, slavery, child-labour, exploitation of the third world, imperialist wars...Some of the problem being that we don't really have anything to fight for, I guess.
Its all still there.
I will never understand why this is a problem. It seems to me it just stems from general pettiness and envy: "I don't want to be filthy rich, I want everyone to be filthy poor!". Which is what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is all about, really. Making everyone equally miserable is the only way you can make everyone equal at all. And it even fails to do that.
It's a flawed concept. It shows a remarkable lack of understanding of human nature. Communism, collectivism, equality of opportunity and similar concepts would only work in a world where humans were ants.
It would be incredibly intellectually dishonest to compare the Soviet Union in its supposed "glory days" to your standard modern Western liberal democracy.Can we stop pretending that Western liberal democracy isn't objectively superior to the dictatorship of the proletariat or any other political system practiced in the USSR?
At its time of greatest successes it was attempting rapid industrialisation, undergoing and recovering from a famine, prepping for a war with a major fascist state, fighting a world war with a fascist state and then recovering and re-industrialising after said war (in which it bore most of the damage).
It'd be tough to live through that no matter what the political system.
But here's the thing: you're measuring a system's viability by its accomplishments in the international arena. I examine its desirability from what it offers to or detracts from the individual. And while totalitarian systems may be effective when you're trying to become a world power, they do so at the expense of their citizens.
-
1
-
-
"Like they're trying to lure in an extra lonely kind of videogame playing geek and it's just uncomfortable to even think about."
No such thing. All video game playing geeks are lonely so they can't be 'extra lonely'.
Is that joke still funny?
Was that ever remotely true?
Or is it just in the US? Americans.
taking vol serious, about anything, is what is funny. don't be that guy.
is not your fault, 'cause chances are you don't know better, but vol reason is not necessarily human reason.
HA! Good Fun!
Don't worry, it didn't go over my head. Which is why I wondered whether that joke was still funny.
Not upset. Just curious. Honest.
-
A few things:
- Meaningful, deep interactions are not restricted to romance.
- That your character cannot engage in romantic interactions with companions doesn't mean he/she won't be able to express his/her sexuality and/or emotions in different ways.
- Being unable to form long term relationships does not make someone asexual.
-
8
-
"Like they're trying to lure in an extra lonely kind of videogame playing geek and it's just uncomfortable to even think about."
No such thing. All video game playing geeks are lonely so they can't be 'extra lonely'.
Is that joke still funny?
Was that ever remotely true?
Or is it just in the US? Americans.
-
1
-
-
By the late 80's the "mainstream left" had already been in disarray for decades.For the mainstream left in the late 80's Command Economics was a given. The final collapse of the Soviet Union plunged a dagger into it's heart.
Throughout the Stalin era the Soviet Union represented a successful alternative model that was rapidly rising and showing signs of actually surpassing both the U.S and Britain.
Successful does not equal desirable. After all, success means different things for different people.
-
Love is a subjective concept. It is about whatever you want it to be. For me, it's just that section of the Venn diagram where friendship and sexuality overlap.
.... whut?
In other words, love/romance is just a subset of both friendship and sexuality that combines aspects of the two, as far as I'm concerned.
-
"complete miss the point o' ravel, but you can read as you wish. is a game, so your interpretation, no matter how wrong, is complete valid for you."
So, to you, love is about trying to murder the one you claim to 'love'. It's been awhile but I distinctly remember Ravel trying to murder my TNO. that's not love. That will never be love.
Love is a subjective concept. It is about whatever you want it to be. For me, it's just that section of the Venn diagram where friendship and sexuality overlap. No need to come up with grandiose definitions.
-
best game romance for us don't even have a close second: ravel puzzelwell & the nameless one.
is not having cheesey and awkward sex scenes, and it is critical path, but ravel love for tno is the single most moving romance we can care to name from a crpg. in spite of the game's many flaws, ps:t is our favorite crpg and ravel is our favorite character. ultimately everything ravel did to and for the nameless one were done outta love. folks who suggest that Gromnir don't appreciate game romance is complete and entire wrong. our issue with bio romances is that they don't come anywhere close to matching ps:t efforts. is comic bad by comparison.
HA! Good Fun!
That is the issue. Well written romances can be great, but most of the ones you find these days in any form of media are passable at best. It's hardly a video game only problem. You see it in novels, in movies, in TV shows, in comic books, and pretty much any and every storytelling medium...
I llke Ravel. She is one of my favorite characters ever but she did not love TNO. Unless you think love is about abusing the one you love. But, I don't blame Ravel because is an evil being who is acting in her nature - much like an abusive spouse who beats up their significant other 'out of love'. LMAO
...and personally I believe this is one of the main reasons why. Love is awfully overrated. Or maybe it is better to say it is so often given strange definitions that come stuffed with cheese. Victorians weren't satisfied just with ruining fairies and fairy tales, no, they had to come up with this "romantic love" nonsense and curse their descendants to a hell of terrible storytelling. Oh, well.
-
Don't like it, you don't have to have it. Thank goodness romances generally aren't mandatory to advance RPG plotlines
Sometimes I play out a romance plot, sometimes I don't, perhaps it has to do with me having a RL spouse waiting for me to log off the game but I'm generally not impressed with the romance plots I've come across in games. Is it a function of me usually creating a female PC while writers spend more effort on the male PC/female NPC pairings? Maybe, given the one such subplot I found most satisfying was Planescape:Torment's Platonic meeting of the minds of Nameless One and Fall-From-Grace. But my dear one tells me most of the romance options offered male PCs in D&Dish RPGs are just as awful as the meager fare offered my female PCs... I can only cringe at the realization that that creepy stalker Elanee was apparently meant as a romance option for some poor souls while hoping I'm not the only one who found hilarity in pursuing Casavir.... as a female orc. (As Gromnir says, HA! Good Fun!)
I don't think whether you are "impressed" or not by your run of the mill romance plots has anything to do with your actual life situation. Stereotypes are mere generalizations, and those are rarely right. I doubt it has anything to do with who gets the most attention either. Quality is quite a subjective concept.
And that's the thing, right? While I find romances in any storytelling media to have an annoying tendency to fall into cheesiness, cliches, poor writing, and similar curses... Well, let's just say some people have taken quite a liking to cheese, hmm?
The Official Romance Thread
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
I'm surprised this is still kicking. Clearly the only thing to match the passion of promancers is that of antimancers.
But seriously, what is the problem with romance, as in, the concept itself? It's a priceless source of storytelling ideas, even if the implementation is lacking more often than not.
I don't think they would necessarily be a bad thing as long as they weren't Bioware-like. I can see exactly the kind of crowd that would attract. It's not the promancers that I'm worried about (most of them are merely very enthusiastic about something, and there are worse sins to be had) but the social justice warriors.
I shudder to think of it. Maybe you're right