Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

namelessthree

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    63

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by namelessthree

  1. namelessthree
    So true, maybe each of us are both of them. To be honest, I am just happy to discuss the issue with some nice people here. Purely under a selfish perspective, I get so much out of it because it shows me different point of views. You always learn something. By the way, all your comments are small jewels. It's very nice to read you. You've got your answer ten times over, plus you yourself answered the question on the first page. I don't even. And did you honestly use the "the only reason you are disagreeing with me is because you must not be smart enough to understand my points" excuse? Yes, I believe that I am smarter than everydoby else, in fact my real name is Edwin Odesseiron. I guess that's is why I've stated that we are all probably both tigers and sophists. -Sigh- You are dangerously talking like a dictator. Basically your persecution against every and each of my comments sounds like this: "I don't think this or that has to be discussed because I don't care about it therefore every comment that you make is irrelevant, bothers me and you shouldn't have made it in first place". No, sorry but if I want to talk about something I am as free as you are of doing so. If, on top of that, I am lucky enough to have some nice people responding me and engaging in dialogue that I find interesting I don't see how that's a problem for you. So please, do yourself a favor. You don't seem very happy with what I have to express. So simply ignore my comments just like I have done with so many of yours. Don't expect to be answered again unless that you start behaving in a reasonable fashion.
  2. namelessthree
    EA/Bioware don't do romances but ego stroking although I have to admit that your idea would be trolling in the funniest way possible.
  3. namelessthree
    So true, maybe each of us are both of them. To be honest, I am just happy to discuss the issue with some nice people here. Purely under a selfish perspective, I get so much out of it because it shows me different point of views. You always learn something. By the way, all your comments are small jewels. It's very nice to read you.
  4. namelessthree
    I do share your point of view completely in the Skyrim issue. Basically my point of view is that if something is going to shallow, you might as well not include it. Precisely because I have Obsidian in such a high praise as RPG developers is the same reason I feel it's a shame they are not including romancing roleplay options, because I believe they can do really something really unique and out of the norm with these... and finding something unique that moves the roleplaying forward and helps it mature I think it's a great thing. The game is feature locked and that's not possible? I am fine with that. But I do hope that now that they are not including romance, at least they explain in-game, story-wise, why those options are not possible. Can the the urgency of the situation, or that your character is tainted by something and basically survival instinct comes first, something like that. It would make more sene that way, at least to me. And of course, the game can be awesome and have plenty of roleplaying options either way but probably with more budget and time they would have include them. In the end it comes down to priorities. Mine are in favor of roleplaying. Other people would prefer more combat. That's fine. In the end it's the devs decision and will have to wait and see how this affects the final game when we play it.
  5. namelessthree
    Your concern was that having no romances would mean all the character interaction would be shallow and limited, because romance is somehow deeper and better than any other type of interaction, or at least that's how I interpreted it. Saying "Please, don't be an ass" is not like saying "You are an ass". The former indicates that I am willing to have a dialogue with you but only if you were to drop the cynical act. The second is indeed an insult. I never used the second with you. You can take the subject seriously or not at a personal level, that's none of my bussiness but If you decide to step in in a dialogue were people are trying to debate seriously (like I am trying), I think it's not very respectful to discard other people's opinons with cynisim like you did. No, you cannot reduce romance to boinking. Boinking in a game like this would be a mechanic while romancing is a roleplaying decision that involves a series of jugdements that you play as if you were the character you created. I guess that's where the problem is. We just have too very different conceptions of romance. If for you romance is boinking then I guess there is little else to talk about. So all this time you were trying to argue about something you haven't even tryied yourself? If you haven't played and tried the BG2/ Torments romances extensively, why trying to arm a case agaisnt them? Your last sentence: No. Please, read the post again. At this point I don't know if you are just trolling or simply don't understand why I tried to say. Also, Obsidian have a certain budget. This budget is not only for writing but for scripting and much more stuff, it's only common sense that they just measure what they can spend in what according to the budget so if they cut some scripting from some dungeon then can use that to open other options.
  6. namelessthree
    Exactly. That would be cool, yes, but still it's nice to have the "hide helmet option" too, just for practical reasons. EDIT: It would be nice too, now that I am thinking about it, if wearing helmets would affect the NPC reaction. For example, a villager would be more intimidated when talking with someone in full armor and helmet while if you let them see your face their reaction would be to be a little bit more chill about your presence. Something like that.
  7. namelessthree
    Yeah, that happened to me a lot in BG. Some of the helmets were so horrid looking and out of character that I just used the BG2 tweak option for them to not show. Worked like a charm. That is why I was asking.
  8. namelessthree
    Romances don't have to be about ego stroking. So yes, there are romances out there that are about roleplaying (BG2&Torment only being some of the good examples). You should play those games. Try those romances. See for yourself. For the love of god, don't compare them with the EA/Bioware ego bull****. Whoring and flirting with Fisto are not romances though but options for the player to express their sexuality. New Vegas did good in this front, with plenty of lines of dialogue where your could imply your tastes and let's face it, which other game let's you have sex with a robot? And a Fisto robot for that matter. Crazy stuff. All those options are some of the reasons why New Vegas is so awesome. I've beaten the game 5 times so far and I discover new content in every playthrough.
  9. namelessthree
    You perfectly know it's not about farting but the attitude that you used in that sentence and you are still using to some extent in this first sentence but at least you aknowledge that you were being and ass. So you are saying that including a mechanic of slapping people upside the head or give them noogies (your example) is as deep as a well developed romance like the ones in BG2 or Torment? Do you really think that? Please -Sigh- ***No, that's simply not true. It's a long post. I talked about lot of things. Used other as examples (asexual, etc...). I did talk long about my concerns of losing roleplaying options by losing the oportunity to express my character in a sexual way. It was a concern based on some previous content cut that goes along in the direction of expressing your character sexually (romances), but my concerns are only that. I never said otherwise. So don't use my opinion as a fact. Your last sentence: YES. I totally agree with you. That would be very interesting. The thing that happens in most RPG is that you don't have companions to whom being a parental figure. Imoen is the closest thing and you can argue you are a parental figure to her because she is all the time observing your behaviour and asks you about everything to learn from you. I think, there are some cases in cRPG were you were a parental figure in the sense that others take example from you and you are educating them in a way. My favourite is Dakkon where the character in the past was bound to you by a vow, a vow towards a person that was abusive to him but surprise, this new iteration of the nameless one has the option (roleplaying option) of truly being an enlightening kind of parental figure to him. Again, not parental figure in the sense you are related and one of the two is obvioulsy younger (although the second is true XD) but a learning one. And that is extremely interesting. One of my favourite relationships in a videogame ever. Last, but not least, I never said that one kind of relationship is superior to another. If you ever read the post again you will see that what I am talking about is about having options, having roleplaying options and I only expressed my concerns about romances because that is what was officially mentioned by the developers. EDIT: The more I think about it the more I realized that usually the main character is a parental figure to a lot of companions because you are suppossed to be special and others look up to you for learning and enlightment. Those moments feel important because it seems that you actually CAN change something on your companions (Dakkon, Viconia, Dorn, Imoen, Anomen, etc...) and some of these relationships ended up being, at least for me, one of the most interesting ones in the game. It was good to give this subject a thought so thanks for bringing that up. EDIT2: Damn, reinstalling Torment now XD.
  10. namelessthree
    Firstly no, not having romance does not make someone go psycho. Secondly yes you are being limited in a way, but again you are also being limited to playing the kind of person that doesn't, say, slap people upside the head or give them noogies and I don't see how one is any more valid than the other. Thirdly not having romances does not preclude having the option to put the moves on characters and be shot down or express your sexuality in some other way. josh sawyer if you read this plz give my character the option to fart at some point That's not what I understood. Maybe it's my english but I understood your post as the chance of a person having a relationship with another person and this relationship being so abrasive that it triggers some kind of psychopathy in him/her. I guess it can happen. Are you sure it can't? Again, poor comparison, not getting into it. And third, yes, having romances doesn't exclude the option of making moves, being shot down or express your sexuality in some other way but at this point those option are just speculation. Welcomed speculation -it would be nice if they include them- but speculation nonetheless. My concerns were about real options that they said were not pursuing. And please, don't be an ass (your last sentence). If you are gonna act like that I will simply ignore your comments. I was trying to make an effort and explain my point of view to you. There is no need to be obtuse.
  11. namelessthree
    I don't have to admit that at all because that is absurd. Probably my character will never get a chance to fart but that doesn't mean my character never does it. At some point you must concede that the game is an abstraction and not a complete life simulator and some of the role playing is going to have to go on in your own imagination. I could play my character as thirsty for Eder the entire game but maybe off on an adventure is not the right time to discuss these things, or he's not interested, or already has someone, or whatever. Or maybe I really want to slap him upside the head but the game won't let me do that either, so really, how is that any different than wanting to sleep with him? Also why would not romancing another person make you a psychopath, unless you think you will be able to try to force your attentions on someone. THAT would be psychopathic. Ain't nothing wrong with being asexual, either. And certainly nothing wrong with not being interested in the people around you. I don't think it's absurd. I guess it comes down to different kind of players and ways of playing. For example, we all assume that our characters eat, drink and fart. But those are biological needs. It's not quite the same as making up a whole realtionship with an NPC in your head. We are not talking simulations here -at least I am not- but roleplaying. You can roleplay a romance if you have an option to do it. Drinking and eating, well, you can just assume it happens. Those are mechanical things and if the mechanic is not included, the options are for us to assume it happens or simply ignore it. A romantic relationship is not a mechanical thing that you need to do like drinking or eating. You need another NPC for that and for that you need a story, a writer, to give you the options. I don't see how your comparisons apply in this case, but that's just my opinion. About your second paragraph: It can make you go psycho I guess (a lot of things can), but that's not the point. I am not judging here or saying this option is better than this other roleplaying option. I think you are sidetracking here. I just used those examples to explain why is not likely that you would not romance anybody for a long period of time. That it can happen is obvious,and it can be for very different reasons (the ones in my example and much others). That's not the point. The point is that without the posibilities to express my character romantically, at least I feel that my character is being forced down a certain path, and that for me, the roleplaying aspect of the game breaks a little bit a that point. I don't know what else to add to try to communicate this idea.
  12. namelessthree
    I can assure you that I found that post randomly while trying to search stuff. Think what you like, really. But sorry about the "dude". I use it in a general way because my girlfriend (american) does too with either boys or girls.
  13. namelessthree
    You are right, but to be honest I am not much of a forum user, so thanks for the tips. Regarding the forum itself, you wouldn't believe how I get into this post to respond, it takes me a lot of clicks because I don't seem to find anything so I guess that explains something XD. EDIT: I still haven't found that search bottom in the top right that you mentioned. Yes, I know, I am a loser with this kind of things XD. Well you did start off by implying anyone not romantically interested in the people around them is a psychopath. Sorry If you felt ofended. But that is not quite right. I mentioned nothing about the people here (obviously!), I was talking about the characters. And you have to admit that if your character has zero options to express their romantical feelings for a long period of time, said character is either asexual, a person that has serious problems socializing (psychopath) or simply someone not really really interested in any kind of romantical connection. I didn't explicitly said that your character has to be forcibly a psychopath. Again, sorry if you felt ofended but I was talking about the roleplaying.
  14. namelessthree
    Yes, because I was absolutely aware that there were 40 posts threads about the subject before mine. - Sigh- No dude, I just created the post when I heard about the romance issue myself. You are right. Seems like the game will be awesome either way, or at least, I hope so. There is not much else to say after all the comments that have come in the last day. Maybe only thank those kind enough to respond politely, and thank even more to those which engaged in constructive dialogue. It was really welcomed.
  15. namelessthree
    I don't think the poll was a bad idea. They had two good options. If 90% of the players had gone with RTwP, problably Numenara combat will be RTwP today and that is probably as good as the game being turn based. I voted turn based in that poll by the way and I would been fine if the results would have been RTwP. The problem is when you want it your way no matter what and without any reasoning. That's what brings bad blood but I don't think that's either Inxile nor the poll's fault but more about a question of maturity.
  16. namelessthree
    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. You are absolutely right. The problem is that they usually fail to hit the mark . I also think the preconceived notions of what a "romance" is has a lot tot to do in this failing. Interesting what you mention about the Avellone interview since his are one of few romances that really stand out in my opinion. If you find the interview, please do share.
  17. namelessthree
    Dungeon crawling and role playing are not mutually exclusive gameplay concepts. The latter can occur in spades inside the former, and *has* in a few Obsidian games I've played. So yes. I deny your concerns. Yeah, but the only way you can roleplay when killing things in dungeons is deciding which combat strategy you are gonna choose. Is more a metadecision than a roleplaying one. Deny my concerns? LOL They are just a feeling, an opinion. How can you deny someone else's concerns? Please, don't be ridiculous.
  18. namelessthree
    It's neither of those. You are just letting the devs know where the majority stands. They are the ones deciding, that's why they are the devs. What makes you think PoE's gameplay makeup isn't already more Role playing options and less dungeons? Or a decent 50/50 split? Sheesh, I thought the "OMG Icewind Dale 3!" worries would have ended the moment they showed us those scripted interaction screenshots, which they promised would be very common in the game. 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 ****? That's why this post talk was about concerns, not certainties. In any case, you cannot deny there is a lot of emphasis in non roleplaying options like endless dungeons and such. Just out of curiousity, do you consider the romances in BG2 romances or a sim date? Because if it is the latter, you might as well start calling your companions "friendship sim mini games" and every dialogue that you choose in the game "character decision sim mini game". No, you are wrong. Romances ARE roleplaying as much as friendships or responding to any NPC are. Why? Because you are roleplaying a character, you are pretending to act like him/her. You can decide if you want to do something, say something and how. That's why there are always multiple answers in any good cRPG. They are leaving the player room to roleplay their character. To decide how they want to behave and that applies to every NPC and kind of relationship you are going to have in said game. The only difference between "friendship" dialogue and "romance" dialogue is the notion that you have of friendship and romance, but mechanically they are the same thing and the obey the same propose AKA roleplaying.
  19. namelessthree
    You sure you'd want this? You seem pretty confident that if Obsidian were to email/poll us about Romances in PoE, that the result would be a majority of backers voting "Yes, do romances", instead of the most likely result: a decisive "hell no", or a "meh", which wouldn't do the Pro-mance side of the discussion any favors. By the way, Objectively speaking, Romances are not in the Infinity engine game tradition. Only 2 out of the 5 IE games had them. (1 out of 5 if you exclude PS:T's, which I wouldn't call a romance. It was a 3 line flirt session). It's an exception to the rule. It's Omission wouldn't make PoE seem any less IE-like. I am pretty sure I would want that, yes. Just because it would be nice to be at least asked about that subject. Also, I am curious about what the backers would respond if given the option of reaching a compromise like less dungeons/ more roleplaying options. Not that is gonna change anything with the game being feature locked and all but if it wasn't and if Obsi were to offer said option I would be totally fine with what the majority would decide in that case. Really, not such a big deal. But here is the problem, I don't see romances as a prelude to sex or a reward in that regard but a relationship that happens to make you very close to somebody, also psyshically, so yes, I consider the relationships with Annah, Fall-From-Grace a romance. You are right though, only 2 of 5 games had romances but I think most of us think of BG2 when they think of the Baldur's saga mostly because of the improvement in roleplaying options over the first installment is overwhelming. Also both Torment and BG2 are the most popular and fan favourites for the most of us so it's not unreasonable to think that those are the bar to top. But again, you are right, you can arm a case either way.
  20. namelessthree
    They both have the same amount of content. I mean, you said so yourself. So, if they both have the same amount of content... one doesn't automatically have MOAR content because they have different content. You're making huge, absolutist claims while at the same time saying that you're not. That's no way to discuss anything. No, they don't!! XD How is it possible that they do have the same amount of content? Both have let's say 5000 lines of content for friendships and the second one has 3000 more for romances (just examples). They definitely don't have the same amount of content. Maybe you are reading what I am saying as claims but I assure I am only trying to express what I think and what is only my opinon. That's all. They have limited development time for the game. Every moment they spend on romance lines comes at the expense of something else. So, what would you sacrifice for romance? That is the crux of the issue. I doubt many would object to romance if it were cost free. I know that and like you said, that is the crux of the issue. What to cut instead? My idea was some dungeons but like others pointed me out, the game is feature locked. @C2B I know that, like I said, I was offering the idea of cutting some dungeons instead of those roleplaying options.
  21. namelessthree
    Sorry, dude, but your original post was too about romances (plural), not roleplaying options in general. You did assert that no romance = no roleplaying options, but that's an obvious non sequitur. If you had been concerned about roleplaying options, then you would have written a completely different post. Romance might have been mentioned in there somewhere, but it would not have been the main theme. Like this, for example: "Hi folks. One thing's been bugging me about P:E from the start. It's all been very mechanically oriented, and most of the stretch goals were stuff like a megadungeon, a stronghold, and more character classes. I really enjoyed the relationships I built with my party members in PS:T and BG2, and I'm concerned Obsidian might be neglecting this aspect to make a more IWD-like dungeon crawler thing. What are your thoughts on that?" Had you done that, I'm pretty sure you would've gotten a warmer reception here, and the discussion would've been better too. 'Cuz the romance thing with P:E is the to end all 's. But if the only roleplaying options that I know they are being left out are romances why would I talk about anything else? That's the whole point. But that doesn't mean this is not about cutting roleplaying options. That is really what is important to me and I think I am clear about it. If OBsi were cutting other kind of content (like evil roleplaying options I would have started with that too). And I would have argumented why I think those are important in the same way I argumented why I think romances are important. I wrote what I wrote in the way I wrote it for probablly various reasons, and maybe you are right and there was a better way of putting it, but I also wanted to elaborate in why I thought those options were imporant.
  22. namelessthree
    This is my problem with modern English users, they forget the basics of the language and what an effective tool it can be if used correctly, elaborating on a point is fine if it needs expanding, if not they are wasted words. An example I often like to use is Shakespeare, whom it is very fashionable to knock, but who it cannot be argued birthed the modern English language: Iago could spout paragraphs of prose on why Desdemona is guilty, he can refute her outraged cries with long sentences, instead he simply say. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much!" A worm of doubt that sneaks into Othello's ear and lays its venomous seed, why is she so outraged? Why does she not simply laugh? Elaboration is fine but rambling over the same simple points is a waste of words, it simply loses ones audience, and Shakespeare knew how to keep an audience on the edge of their seats while making masterful use of his native tongue to argue his points. Worth bearing in mind if you wish to grab your audience, and make an impression. Well, I am definitely not Shakespeare XD, I am not even a native english speaker so maybe that's one of the reasons I cannot be more concise in english. Thanks for the response though, it was interesting and I would certainly keep that in mind if I become a writer As it is, I was just trying to do my best with the knowledge of english I have.
  23. namelessthree
    They both have the same amount of content. I mean, you said so yourself. So, if they both have the same amount of content... one doesn't automatically have MOAR content because they have different content. You're making huge, absolutist claims while at the same time saying that you're not. That's no way to discuss anything. No, they don't!! XD How is it possible that they do have the same amount of content? Both have let's say 5000 lines of content for friendships and the second one has 3000 more for romances (just examples). They definitely don't have the same amount of content. Maybe you are reading what I am saying as claims but I assure I am only trying to express what I think and what is only my opinon. That's all.
  24. namelessthree
    I am really sorry that you have those problems, I hope you are in a better place now. (It seems that way). My case is different. I've never had a problem to make friends or have girlfriends or anything and for me games always were games and reality always has been reality. The post wasn't really that much about romances (if they had cut friendships I would have written the same letter just changing romances for friendships) but the idea of cutting roleplaying options. More concern that anything else really, because cutting roleplaying options is always bad news, justified or not. Even if you don't use them. I always like to read for example, the evil-mean respones that you can give in BG2 even though I rarely use them. Just imagine the devs saying they are cutting those, I would have be concerned all the same. It was more about that. Just fear that the game will be more Icewind that Torment. But, let's have faith in Obsi I guess. I still like the rest of what they are showing a lot.
  25. namelessthree
    1. Not really a case of being witty sir, more a case of effectively arguing ones viewpoint. In a vast morass of words meanings and ideas become difficult to find, however in a sharp, short and concise bullet point style one retains a punchy and memorable first impression. Brevity works, this is why memes, slogans and sayings are existant. 7. Content gating is fine, so long as one path is not the obviously optimal one. In the case of romances one either has a number of responses and interactions with the love interest, or they effectively disappear from the game. This is not really content gating, it's punishment for those whom choose not to partake in romance, and it comes at the cost of the npc themselves, making of them nothing but a romantic partner rather than an actual character. Re: Apology, explanation. Take it as you wish sir, I may have been a little flippant in my first post. 1. Umm, I don't agree with you. Brevity works in advertising, where you are trying to sell something. All memes, slogans, ads and the like share the same quality, they are being simplistic therefore there are more prone to misunderstundings because people assume what is left out. If I would have talked about romances without explaining what those meant to me, every person responding would have just assumed I was refering myself to the way they understand romance. I think elaborating is a more valuable tool in an argument where sharpness and brevity can be dangerously misleading. In any case, nothing worked better for Bioware in the old times like "To the eyes, Booo!!" so I might be wrong. 7. In the particular case that you mention, I agree with you. If the character is only going to be there as a romantic thing and nothing else, they might as well leave all that out. But I've seen some positive cases where these characters where interesting either romanced or not just to think Obsidian would botch romances like that. Well, in any case, it was nice to talk with you, sir.
×
×
  • Create New...