Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by LeBurns

  1. I had just mentioned this in another forum (yeah I get around ... and am occasionally stalked) but how about just a casual romance or just sex ... for fun?


    As an example I give Kelly from ME2. There were other full romances there in the game, but Kelly was very likable, cute, flirty, and when a convenient time came would have sex with you (and even dance). No talk of the future, or how we're going to beat the next mission, or long drawn out tragic histories, or side missions that needed to be completed. Just some fun between consenting adults to just forget about the stress and life and death struggles right outside the bedroom door. And sure that can lead elsewhere, or just stay as it is. I think that trying to put into two or three months of game time what in RL may take a few years is kinda out of whack anyway. I mean heck I loved the Kelly character and what was gladly missing was all the drama that often comes with the forced written romances of RPG's these days.

  2. Guys let me ask you something in regards to virtual romance. This question applies to EVERYONE here. 


    SERIOUS QUESTION: If you were to design a female romance option for a straight male gamer, would you make her ugly and masculine?  If so, why?

    Someone's been playing DAI. Obviously the romance options in that game were designed for a very small demographic of the gamer population. BioWare can be really proud of themselves for that.


    If I were to design my own it would be more like the 'girl next door' type as that's what I find attractive. Cute, athletic, but not overly made up or shaped.


    Right. Let's remove friendship and rivalry as well. Let's remove companions' reactions to our actions altogether. Let's make all characters in the game devoid of personality, existing only as quest distributors and exposition vehicles. We can't possibly allow the player character to form any sort of bond with them, now can we? No, I have no clue why anyone would want that in their roleplaying game. Everyone knows RPGs are only about hacking and slashing your way through monster-infested dungeons. Human emotions are for dating sims and Bioware games.


    You say that, in I hope is sarcasm, yet I have friends that prefer their rpgs to be straight hack and slash dungeon crawls with as little "rp" as possible. It makes me shed a tear, a single perfect tear, on the inside everytime I hear something like that.


    There are games like that. Particularly those where you create your whole (or most of) party and your non-main characters are just assets to the combat and nothing more. I get people can like that, but that's just not me. Even in DOS I wished we didn't create two of the party members ... and I really wish the NPC's you could recruit actually had more personality. W2 another one where you can make most of your party, essentially rendering them to be nothing but combat assets. To me that's all just lazy development and someone just not wanting to put in the effort necessary to make interesting NPC's and companions. In this day and age where games are being funded and all but paid for before the game even goes on sale you'd think they could try harder ... but whatever.

  4. The allure of fantasy games is that we undertake quests and activities not possible in the "real" world--it's an alternate reality.  So why clutter that up with a bunch of cartoon porn?  It's one thing to slay imaginary monsters and evil-doers in fantasy RPGs, quite another to have cartoon-fantasy sexual activity in a game.  There is enough of that on the Internet as it is...wink.png  No need to foul up the game with that kind of thing, imo.  I have no clue why people want this stuff in an RPG, and then want to fantasize even further and call it "romance."  When Geralt visits a whore for some (hopefully) VD-free fun in the Witcher universe, what does that do for the person playing the game?  Not much, actually.  I guess it's okay if your game of choice is the Sims. I guess.

    But a lot of people play The Sims (not me, but I know some) so mixing some SIMS features into any game could be very appealing to them. As long as it's something you can ignore if you want and it's not shoved in your face (like DA2) then why not. To me just about anything you add just adds depth to the game.


    C. S. Lewis wrote about the four types of love.  He considered friendship to be love.  I agree with him.

    Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another: What! You, too? Thought I was the only one


    If have no idea what people consider friendship if they don't consider it love.


    As far as the Greek term goes I've only heard of the these:


    AGAPE which is the complete giving of love to another person. Brotherly love. Love thy neighbor type of thing.

    PHILEO which is the affection, emotion, a fondness one person has for another. Friends, family, being treated as equals.

    STORGE which is the natural affection. Parent/child love.

    EROS which refers to love between a husband and wife. Sexual, passion.


    So I suppose the game could use a little philia and eros.

    • Like 1
  6. If PoE had romances I would have pre-ordered it instead of waiting on a sale like I am now. Just as well I guess since it's still being de-bugged.


    Honestly from what I've seen of the main companions ... hard to say as they all seem pretty shallow (not owning it doesn't stop me from watching a lot of vids). If they added romance they would have to work on making the companions a little more interesting also ... which would actually take some work ... which may explain why there isn't any romance. I guess I'm waiting for a developer willing to put some effort into their characters.

  7. With the system PoE uses you get a certain number of spells per rest and per encounter. You can choose four different spells for a wizard per spell level.      You can also use scrolls based on your lore level.  You also have talents.  I feel the system works very well.

    A lot like the old D&D really. I recall playing a lowly wizard and after casting one or two magic missiles just tossing darts for the rest of the adventure. Good times.

    • Like 1
  8. I get pretty attached to my party so I generally spend a WHOLE lot of time on just CC for my PC.  I can't count the number of times I restarted games like Skyrim and such because I soon realized I didn't like something about how the PC looked.  I do prefer the companions to be well written in-game characters though, not one's I just make up with no in-game personalities, quests, etc.


    Personally I don't think I'll be using any portraits.  I'll just grab a screenshot of the character as I'm making it, pop that into an editor, make a portrait of the actual character and use that.  Only way you can really get a pic that actually looks like your character anyway.


    I don't think the in-game graphics are up to par for that purpose.


    Considering the angle and max zoom distance we get with the game, I find the actual character appearance to not matter overmuch. It's the portraits that I associate with the characters.


    I saw someone do it and it didn't look half bad.  The problem is I'll pick a portrait and then try to make the avatar match it, which is all but impossible in most cases.

    • Like 1


    Also, I was wondering if one of the Photoshop/GIMP wizards might be kind enough to get rid of the knife in this one. Got an itching for a Dwarven Monk. (Would blackening the beard be asking too much?)


    I attached your monk. Also, I spent a couple minutes smoothing the screenshot somebody posted of their character. Removes the jaggies, gives it more of a painted look while retaining the accurate representation of their in game avatar.



    I think I may try to just edit a screenshot of the actual character in PSP.  Beats trying to make a character that matches some random fantasy image.

  11. Resting in dungeons may not feel realistic, but it allows players of different experience levels and difficulty settings to enjoy the game. It also avoids the need for cheesy exit doors and elevators at every dungeon level for the less-experienced players, which would seem just as unrealistic to me. At least with resting, there is some tension in managing your dwindling camping supplies as you go deeper.


    I just assume the party is resting in shifts, with one member always on watch. 


    Well and it could be worse.  It could let you time-stop and eat 25 apples, 4 venison roasts and a half dozen small health potions and then start time again ... kind of like Skyrim.  The problem is the devs make the combat system they want and then devise a method of healing that works for their system.  Emphasis on the combat system and not on the healing system.  Skyrim's is beyond ridiculous, but it's the only thing that will work with the combat system they wanted.  Same with this game's combat system, you either have to allow something unrealistic like camping in the middle of dungeons, or you have to rework the whole combat system.  The easy answer is to just have some minor healing spells, but that would of course get overused as everyone would just heal up after every single encounter, so you might as well just auto-heal after every battle, which is again unrealistic.  You end up tweaking the combat, then the healing, then the combat until you end up with something that works most the time and try to ignore any immersion breaking it may cause.  No real perfect system that I'm aware of.


    Even when I played D&D back in the early 80's I thought they were odd.  Who really runs at someone with a bladed weapon and armor tries to punch them?

    Someone with supernatural fighting ability, probably.

    In a game where you have wizards and psychics and people who literally fight by singing a song, monks are the part that seems unrealistic?



    I guess what doesn't make them fit IMO is that they don't fit Tolkien lore, which most everything else about D&D is based on.  They are kind of an odd ball just stuck in there.  Doesn't mean they can't be cool to play, as I've said I played some back in the day, but they do kind of stick out.  I guess it's the same reason I think guns don't really fit since they were not in Tolkien lore either.


    Yeah I know not every fantasy game needs to follow Tolkien lore, but it is the definition I measure fantasy up to.  But other than when I played AD&D Oriental Adventures or BioWare's Jade Empire, monks just seemed an odd addition.  So while they might be cool to play I wouldn't mind if they just were not there.

  13. Even when I played D&D back in the early 80's I thought they were odd.  Who really runs at someone with a bladed weapon and armor tries to punch them?  I played a few for fun as they had some real OP abilities at higher levels, but did they 'fit'?  No, not really.


    Course I don't think firearms 'fit' the fantasy world either so I try to pretend they don't exist.  Seriously as soon as any untrained peasant can pick up a gun it makes archers and spell casters obsolete really quick ... along with armor.

  • Create New...