Jump to content

-Zin-

Members
  • Content Count

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by -Zin-

  1. In video games... I don't mind there being cutscenes and exposition to one of our main villains.

     

    In DnD as GM though, I would be VERY careful introducing overpowered characters that the party can't fight.

     

    It's essentially like introducing a big red button saying: "Don't push." They really can't help themselves but to do it. I'm not saying that's always the case, but certainly don't have too many unbeatable characters appearing continously because then the player will get bored and feel like "It's never the time to attack!" They will get bored and attack just because they haven't had enough opportunites to express themselves.

  2. It's just a weird question, OP.

     

    But you're right. People shouldn't be rude just because they don't agree with your preference. One shouldn't always conform to other people's opinion after all. What's best for others isn't always best for you. But it's like ordering a basic bowl of tomato soup, and ask to eat it with a knife. It's strange for other people around you to hear that, because the spoon is optimized for tomato soup. The spoon is great for this very task! We just want you to be like The Tick:

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBocpO2XUu0

     

    Spoon!

  3. In fact I think to this day, the most satisfying romance I ever felt I played through--in any video game ever, not just any Obsidian game--was Annah in Planescape Torment, which culminates in no more than a quickly cut off kiss and of course more or less ends tragically. But through the dialogue, I felt the tension there, and I could see clearly how she felt and how she struggled with her feelings, and thus it felt to me like a real story of love. The moment where she says, "He matters to me more than life," actually made me cry. It's not often that I actually feel in a game like a character truly loves my PC, and Torment is one of the very few that accomplished that.

    I wonder if the relationship would still have been felt so romantic if Anna would have also looked like a rotting corpse like the nameless did?

    Sure, appearance is not everything, but a romance with a zombie?! Disgusting! I hope I don't have to see something like that in P:E.

     

    Agreed. That said, I enjoyed The Nightmare Before Christmas.

     

    The-Nightmare-Before-Christmas-nightmare-before-christmas-3012404-1280-960.jpg

     

    This is Halloween, Halloween, Halloween..

  4. This one might be a little goofy, but here goes:

     

    I love the nonlethal approach.

     

    I explicitly try to kill as few things as I possibly can whenever I have a realistic nonlethal option for dispatching enemies in games, and I feel the highest vindication whenever the game, world or characters reacts to those actions.

     

    These options are common across many shooter/FPS hybrids--Deus Ex, Dishonored, Alpha Protocol, etc. But after recently finishing Dishonored it occurred to me that I'd never seen this option in any Infinity Engine RPGs or really any pure Western RPGs that I could think of at the time, and I began to wonder why not?

     

    Most tabletop RPGs, D&D included, have at least a short barely-referenced sidebar on how to deal nonlethal damage and knock somebody out in a fight, why has this never been an option in the classic or modern pure western RPG? Sure it's a bit silly, since most of what you're cutting down are nameless orcs, thugs, kobolds, and other miscreant cannon fodder, but I've always believed the mark of a true hero is restraint: Just look at Batman.

    It would be nice to have a game where my diplomat knows some martial arts focused strictly on rendering opponents unconscious when things get hairy, I would prefer to walk away like a smug badass saying "I warned them" when negotiations fail. Usually, instead I just shake my head and sigh mournfully at the lives wasted this day, because the option to do anything but set them on fire isn't ever present.

    Granted, I eventually become desensitized and then when negotiations fail I just cackle like a maniac as I introduce them to a colleague of mine: Doctor Force Lightning, Ph.D. in Murder

     

    From a development standpoint, adding in options like these seem pretty trivial, depending on how deep you wanted the system to be. A good 90% of it would be minor subsystems in the game logic--a bool or two here, a different value there--I'm not asking for much, just a little confirmation that I left those dumb thugs on the street battered, bloody, but still breathing. It's not like anyone's going to carefully examine the character model and check to make sure they're using the flat-edge of the blade, so unique animations aren't really necessary I'd say.

     

    Don't suppose there's anyone out there who shares my sentiment?

     

    I share your sentiment. I always prefer going Batman on my enemies and not killing them for moral reasons blabla. however there are certain games with cases where I'm comfortable with killing..

     

    Dragon Age had many siege scenarios. You used ballistas, traps, group spells etc I don't think it would be within the protagonist's power to preserve lives when literally thousands of enemies are attacking your keep at the same time. I mean, even if you succeed, how are you gonna deal with them when they wake up? It'll be hard to arrest that many people, or capture them. Obviously it would be freggin' cool if you could Batman all of them, but... we don't often play RPGs as THE Batman. XD Also, to kill or not to kill depends on the enemies you face in a video game. If they're unredeemable evils, like Dragon Age's dark spawns, or LOTR's orcs, or DND's vampires who are always evil, then I might just want my warrior to pick up a great sword and take 'em out on a ballroom blitz. I like those enemies a lot in video games, because those are the times where I don't have to worry so much about the ethical dilemmas and just have some good ol' fashioned fun with violence. :) If the enemies are people, I alwas check out the dialouge options so that the fewest amount of people have to die, or go the extra mile so no one has to.

     

    Project Eternity is a spiritual successor to BG 1-2, IWD, PT and so forth, like Dragon Age Origins was, so I'm not sure if a pacifist run even fits the genre.. It could, and if they do make pacifist run a thing, where the game notices you for sparing as many lives as possible, important NPC and random hostiles, then my two cents are this: Build the game around it. The game Dishonored upset me a lot because there were like 20 different ways to kill enemies systematically, but only two very specific ways to take them out non-lethally. To dispatch enemies non-lethally you could either choke one enemy at the time from behind until they lost consciousness, or you could use sleep darts, which you could only carry ten of. I was upset that you had upgrades that upgraded your ammo count for everything else but sleep darts. Also, the protagonist, Corvo, always had a sword in his right hand that I NEVER used. It would have been cool if you could take out a baton and knock people out unconscious should you be caught, instead of hitting reload/save every three-four minute. If you were doing a non-lethal run in Dishonored, you should ideally always sneak, and never be caught because you would waste the little sleep-darts you had. You can't choke people in combat for obvious reasons. The game was simply more fun if you were killing because you had so many more options. You could sneak, or just barge in the front door with your sword, huge ammo pouch, grenades and traps. You had cool spells that allowed you to kill your enemies in various ways. You could use a FUS RO DAH-attack to kill people, knock them off high ledges, or deflect incoming grenades/rockets back at the enemies. You could send a wave of rats to devour people alive. You could deat-touch enemies and their corpse would disappear instantly so you didn't have to hide it. Killing was clearly a lot more fun. The developers did state that idea of being a pacisfist entered the production in a very late developement stage, thanks to fan feedback, and that is so painfully obvious. The non-lethal route seems to be a huge after-thought in terms of mechanics, and it's not very fun. So yeah, build the game around having fun pacifist options that doesn't kill spontanuity and improvisation.

     

    That said, Alpha Protocol did have awesome non-lethal methods of taking enemies down. They were fun and satisfying, and there was room for improvisation, but you didn't face an army with 'thousands of enemies', or chaotic evil vampires. :p So yah.. Tough calls, but I think Obsidian will make the best decision that is the most fun for everyone.

  5. I just completed KOTOR 2. I'm fine with non-voiced, short descriptions of texts. *This Mandalorian camp is empty and looks like it has been raided* I read faster than I listen, and I would be creeped out if there was a random man/woman I couldn't see who was narrating all the things I did.

     

    I like listening to the voice of my party members though and other NPCs. That just lifts the whole story when done correctly like Obsidian usually does.

  6. * Bromance

    * Homance

    * Low-mance

    * Nomance

    * Go Dance

     

    Give me lots of variability carried over several characters :) one character might be a grumpy "impossible to -mance" character, I'd be happy with 1 romanceable optional option for 1 or 2 characters.

     

    Love is complicated, it's not something that always something that "dimps" down from the sky (though at the same time it can very much be like that... see where I'm getting at with "complicated"?). The only input I've got is that it shouldn't be at the end of the "Banter Tree" and you always get the romance. In another thread I spoke about how Kaedan made his move on Shepard, which I just felt awkward about, I felt I was more treating him like a bro... did he really have to come on to Shepard because of that?

     

    Biowarian Romance:

    "I think I'm in love because you are talking with me!". It is way too simple and easy, and way too accessible. Avellone seems to have his head straight on what he wants to do *thumbs up*

     

    I think you actually nailed it. Romance is just a small part ouf of many other mances you can have with characters. For example, I wish Alistair would be a better bro and have more dialouge options. I liked talking to him, but he didn't seem too into me since I didn't have a vagina. :( Oh well, I was still a good bro and wing-manned him into a sure lay with a hot dark haired chick. I know it wasn't his fault that he was written that way. And again, I also agree about some of the latest Bioware-romances in general. Leiliana and Liara think you're flirting with them just because you did the most awesomest pick up line in history and said hi

     

    Hm.. Actually, Avellone doesn't what he WANTS to. He wants them gone entirely, but the fact that Chris dislikes romances encourages him to research and do romances better than many other writers. Alpha Protocol had some fun brief and long-term ones, and best of all, they felt organic to the setting and story of the game. They were well written. It wasn't enough to be generally nice to all of the girls. The women responded differently to your attitude. One girl liked Mr. Thorton to be professional, while one liked that he flirted with her, and another one liked that he wasn't interested in her, and so she had to chase him.

     

    But yeah, he does romances well never the less. :)

  7. Jasede said:

     

    You don't understand what I am trying to convey.

     

    A romance that is well written is part of a theme, of a character's entire arc. The character can't be the same if he didn't have that romance option, else the romance is simply a shallow addition. You cannot add a romance to a character without altering the entire character. Avellone, much like me, looks for themes, for ideas, for arcs and stories. Romance isn't added because people ask for it or because it's something people ask for - it's only there if it makes sense for the theme, character

     

     

    I see your point now, and what you said works somewhat fine if we're talking about a game like Final Fantasy, where the story is mostly set in stone.

     

    However, let's say an NPC is written to be a love interest in an RPG with a lot of open choices. In this case, romance should be optional to enforce the theme of having many choices. Also, there is no guarantee that everyone will like that character. That's why all romances have been handled quite similar to each other in RPGs heavy with dialouge options.

     

    No one is forcing you to bring out the romantic side of the NPC. In most western RPGs so far, you're the one picking your favorite romancable NPC. Also, you usually have to choose lot of key dialouge options over a longer period of time. It's entirely up to you if you want to encourage it. I've never seen a game that punishes the player for declining the NPC's advances. And yes, you will miss out on some good writing by not exploring the romance options, but if you don't like that sort of thing there is no problem here. You're getting what you want by walking away. I'm sure someone here is just wasting time inventing a problem where there isn't one.

     

    For example; I didn't romance any of the girls from Mass Effect 1 because I didn't find them compelling. Ashley was too realistic, boring, and racist. Liara had the personality of a plank. I thought: "No way am I gonna be tied to these two for two more games. I'll pass." I ignored them, and I didn't consider it a loss. I got exactly what I wanted. Refusing their romance made me happier as I didn't like getting romantic attention from them. Quite similarly, I didn't romance Leiliana or Morrigan from Dragon Age Origins either. Even at the end, my Warden prefered dying rather than boinking Morrigan for some unholy ritual. Now, Morrigan and Leiliana were his friends. He liked them, but they were both very insane. However, in one run of DA:O though, my Warden 'romanced' the Queen. I didn't want my Warden to cheat on his future-wife and also I wanted my Warden to live this time, so I had my Warden wing-man Alistair into boinking Morrigan so they would both live. It was priceless seeing Alistair's reaction before shoving him into the bed-room with that crazy lady. :D

     

    In Mass Effect 2 though, my Shepard did end up filling some of the women with his tooth-paste of love. I liked the cheesy, more over-the-top characters, and I thought: "You know, I'm actually having fun around these characters. I definetly would like to see them again in the third game." At the same time though, I knew real life friends who didn't boink anyone in the second game. A female friend of mine didn't want her Shepard to cheat on Kaidan from ME1. She made a choice, and actually passed on encouraging the romantic interest from certain NPCs because it clashed with how she role played her Shepard. But for people that disliked Kaidan, it was great that there were more NPCs to choose between.

     

    So you see, by having the romances be optional, the more choices the player gets, which is what players of western RPGs want. Choices. There's something for everyone, and it increases marketing range and replayability. Now the quality of the NPCs will be top notch because Obsidian has great writers, and if Obsidian is smart, which they are, they will let players have the abillity to explore their favorite NPCs as much as possible.

  8. Yes. It's optional and attracts more customers than not having it.

    Where does this "it's optional" sentiment come from? A good romance isn't "optional" in the sense you imply. If a romance were to be well written it would resonate in everything the character says and does in some way or another, no matter if you go down the actual romance path or not. His rejection or acceptance, his attitude, his outlook, his plight- these are all things that would be affected by having the character be involved in a romance with the PC. That's why romances are so hard to write well.

     

    It's easy to write an optional romance. Writing one that is good is a completely different matter because everything about the character would have to tie in to the romance in some way as you cannot have this sort of path - even if it were just a path you can take or not take - without it being organically spawned from the nature and theme of the character in question.

     

    Where does this optional romance come from? From none other than CHRIS AVELLONE. (See link)

     

    (http://forums.obsidi...aracterization/)

     

    Paying attention the companions and exploring their personality is optional, and that's why there's a bloody adventurer's hall where you can make your own companions that won't have personalities, but have optimized stats for the 'hard core' people.

     

    Also, what were you saying about romance a short while ago after reading Chris Avellone's latest interview?

     

     

    "The best man who has ever lived on this beautiful planet Earth, clearly.

    Suck it down, promancers.

     

    Chris Avellone is going to make you his - (Can I write that? He'd write that, if he posted on forums. But if I get banned I can't heckle you guys anymore so I guess I'll play it safe.)" - Jasede

     

     

    Alright. That's fair enough. That's your opinion. But this is where you get weird. If you look at your latest post in this thread, you know, the one you just wrote, and which I'm directly replying to now.

     

    Now, suddenly, you're afraid the romance is not going to be good enough?

     

    Well pick a bloody stance and stick with it. Have some consistency and some self-respect. If you don't want a romance, be quiet and respectful of others. We don't care if you like something else. I'm not making use of the hard core button for instance, or the feature that might erase your saves. Some people will use it, and I'm cool with that. I think it's nice they have optional things they can enjoy about the game that won't affect me in the slightest. However, you have serious insecurities because you don't believe in the arguement you're making. You just want to "win" the discussion... CLEARLY... And you'll say anything that comes to mind, even if you contradict yoruself. But make no mistake; there is no discussion. I can never convince certain people that they're wrong in liking a feature that has a certain chance of destroying their own save game. But that's a small, harmless feature. Who really gives a flying fudge what others do if it isn't harming them but instead makes them happy? Only an insecure tiny troll with too much time on his hands could get the things he wants, but then try to deny others something that he has no personal stake in whatsoever. Get some self-respect. Understand who you are and what you really want, and focus on that, and I might consider discussing something with you again.

    • Like 1
  9. There is no real debate here. Some people like romance in their stories, and others don't. No amount of arguing or reasoning will change that.
    That's not what people argue about, it's whether romances have a place is PE or not that's up for debate. Would they add something to the game and could they be done in an adequate manner? Do they detract from the narrative or cheapen it in some way? Do they fit within the focus of the game? Such are the questions that are being asked, it's not as simple as liking or disliking romances in general.

     

    Yes. It's optional and attracts more customers than not having it. I for one, am not gonna play on the hardest difficulty. I'm more intrigued by exploring all the dialouge options, and find out what all the people of this world are all about. Does that mean I should raise my voice and flail angrily at people who happen to like difficult combat? No. Of course not. That would be stupid. However, I do understand there that certain people like something, and I can totally ignore it. Much like romance is can be entirely ignored. Some of the stretch goals I didn't care about at all, like the Adventurer Hall, but is it something I must use? No. But I'm glad it exists for people who enjoy making companions without dialouge options. All the more power to those. Do I think loot is interesting? Not really, but some people love exploring every nook and cranny and loves knowing where all of it is located. Again, cool that some like it. But it would be really weird if "romancers" saying to people who like combat: "Well, there's already going to be a combat system. Why should you have the option of turning up the difficulty, or improving further on the combat system?" (Many like both though, but whatever. Just an example)

     

    Point is: Characters are already being written for this game and many people just want to explore as much as possible about them. The more Obsidian reveals about the character, the better. What does this character do aside from saving the world? What makes him/her happy? What makes him/her sad? Is he/she a funny guy/girl, or is he/she mostly serious? Do I like this character or do I hate this character? Does this character like or hate my character? Well, if this character really hates mine, I want to see that expressed. If this character really likes my character, I also want to see that expressed. Is this character gullible, smart, or non-caring of what I do? What will this character do if presented with a choice that would be tough for him/her? Will he/she betray me if the choice is very tough? Is my character important to this other character? Is this character written in a thought out way, or is it a shallow dummy like all the Oblivion/Skyrim NPCs? Do I give a damn about this NPC, and if so, how closely will my character associate with this NPC?

     

    Romance is similarly just one out of many important narrative techniques to use. To neglect it entirely is just limiting oneself in terms of story-telling. Again, it won't appeal to everyone, but fortunately, if none of these questions were important to you reading this, then at least you got your combat strategies and loot to make you satisfied, or whatever else that drew you to this game. It's cool with me, brah. I'm not gonna bother you as long as we both get what we want. :) Actually, I'm not gonna bother other people in general about combat stuff anyway. It would be nice if other people were just as considerate but whatever.

    • Like 4
  10. It's Avallone's personal preference, though he still writes good romances, so I'm sure he'll do so again. That said; Alpha Protocol did have some awesome romances, even though two of them didn't have what you'd necesarily call a 'happy ending'. The romances/characters were still great, and it fit the story/genre. On second thought, I guess all the romance-options had a 'happy ending' if you angle that phrase correctly LOL though so not my point.

     

    Also, most people who don't like romances go: "Alright. *Easily ignore*" But some of them just have such an "us versus them" mentality, like an insecurity. They just can't leave others alone. There is no real debate here. Some people like romance in their stories, and others don't. No amount of arguing or reasoning will change that.

    • Like 2
  11. I'm not a fan of the modern Bioware-style romances.

     

    "Hey, you're cute."

    "Want to ****?"

    "Sure!"

    "*Cue porno music.*"

    "Awesome. We're a couple now!"

     

    It comes off as to me, more as fan service, than legitimate character development. I don't mind the concept of in-game romances, in theory but most of the time the Bioware-style is disappointing, especially with the "love = sex" portrayal. I'd personally want to see a well-written chaste/asexual romance in a game for once, rather than everything basically leading up to sex and that being the end of it. Likewise, I'd like to see a relationship that's purely sexual, with no emotional l attachment involved - and unlike a certain character in DA2, they never come around to the idea of monogamy.

     

    But more than that, I want to see other sorts of relationships. I felt that Imoen and <CHARNAME> had a lot of potential, developing their brother and sister relationship - and I want to see oaths of brotherhood, and just close friendships.

     

    I actually agree. I thought romances from before Mass Effect were good. In KOTOR you never saw an actual kiss. The screen just faded to black before it and it was actually enough. Jaden Empire did show a kiss, but faded out before sexing later on.

     

    It's not the sex scene itself that's important. I just like the idea that my virtual character gets along with the virtual world. That I'm playing someone who has a personality outside of saving/destroying the world. Romance just happens to be a part of a bigger story element. Questing is fun, but I just want the game to show interest in the player seeing as we, the players, show so much interest in the game to begin with. I like when games pause the campaign from being purely practical combat all the time to just have different emotional moments. Moments where you hate the villain and serves as motivation for wanting to fight. Moments where the game makes you THINK of the consequences of your actions. Random moments that doesn't have much to do with anything but just are funny or beautiful.

     

    To loosely quote a certain Mrbtongue from Youtube: "In Fallout: New Vegas, there is a moment where you meet a certain Chief Hamlet at Lake Gulf. I listened to every scrap of random dialouge this man had to offer, and afterwards, I listened to it again. He shared a story about making the best out of a bad situation. This was a story that had nothing to do with the rest of the game. A story that served no practical gameplay purpose. Hearing that story was my one of my favorite moments in gaming of all time."

    • Like 2
  12. Anti-Romance: "Romances are stupid"

    Pro-Romance: "I like romances as a character option."

    Anti-Romance: "OMG, you **** to pixels!"

     

    The only reason why the topic went that way recently is because pro-romance guy said that people who are against romances are lonely and insecure, so this point is invalid.

     

    I never said people who didn't like romance were lonely. I'm not sure where you got that from.

     

    I said people who don't like romances and can't ignore other people liking it have an insecurity. It's harmless preference that some people have that doesn't affect anyone else in any way. It's in fact, entirely up to you what you want to do in that game. So for some people with one trivial taste to tell other people that their taste in something trivial is less valid, then those first mentioned people just have a problem.

     

    For example: I don't like certain types of food, but if other people like them, then more power to them. I don't like certain types of music, but if it makes other people happy, then yeah, great for them. I don't like to dance, but other people seem to like it, and they should go nuts and have fun. Some people like racer games where your car doesn't get destroyed, and I don't like it, so.. yep. It's not for me. Instead I'm just gonna do the things that makes me happy with like-minded people. I'll happily leave other people alone to do things they like doing.

     

    Now, if certain people liked torturing animals or hurt other people, then yeah.. that's something I would have concerns about, but I'm not going to waste my time about something unimportant like: "omg?! y u liek this music band and not this one?" I don't care. It has zero affect on me what other people like. If PE had not been an RPG, or Obsidian hadn't made RPGs, I would not be here. Easy as that.

  13. In my conclusion I made a side-point though. Not to you, but just to the people who outright rejected the premise of a romance all together. I think THEY have a problem if they can't ignore the fact that some people like 'romances'.

     

    Care to elaborate? Because I view my 'problem' (not needing bogus emotional and / or sexual validation and / or gratification via a virtual digital relationship) as being a pretty healthy one TBH.

     

    Congrats, you also just insulted Obsidian/Bioware writers who enjoy writing these things for a living for hundreds of thousands of people. :/ All because you couldn't just be quiet and ignore something that's clearly not for you. I mean, if you can't deal with people being different from you, then.. yeah, that's a problem. Especially considering who's forum we're currently in.

     

    That's about all the elaboration I'm willing to do with someone who doesn't even want to like this 'bogus' stuff.

    • Like 1
  14. I actually think you mis-read my first post in the quotation there, or maybe I wasn't clear enough. Sorry about that on my end though. I liked what YOU had written specifically, and I was improving on your idea by suggesting a middle-ground that I personally would be happy with.

     

    In my conclusion I made a side-point though. Not to you, but just to the people who outright rejected the premise of a romance all together. I think THEY have a problem if they can't ignore the fact that some people like 'romances'. Especially when it's optional like in all Obsidian/Bioware games. I actually agree with a lot of your posts in general :p Again, I think this is just a misunderstanding, because I don't think my final statement in the first post had anything to do with you.

     

    EDIT: I don't blindly hate Bioware. I acknowledge when I'm happy with a product. I'm not happy with most of their recent stuff, but my Warden was awesome. :) lol

  15. If romances were included in the game it would be better if they were the evolution of Fallout and Vampire system than Bioware system that Obsidian also used in the past. In the first model you become romantically involved with an NPC it makes you do some semi-quest and you get various profits from the relationship. You sleep with Bishop's daughter and can rob him, you make the girl a ghoul and she search items for you. The whole thing is really ambiguous as it's not clear if PC is really interested in an NPC or just using him/her. In Bioware/Obsidian model you almost always romance with party members who bug you from time to time and if you chose the right answer they like you more which leads to some sort of finale (sometimes including blue alien asses). The first way is more natural, makes more sense and is more integrated in the game that's why I think it's better.

     

    Um, dude. Girls in real life often *bug* you if they have a crush on you. I'm constantly annoyed and aroused in real life :p I'm kidding a bit, but yeah.. Sometimes girls just say weird things to you just to have something to talk about. It's fine. I happen to like girls anyway and it's not a big deal. I happen to have my unsuave moments too where I'm not the brighest bulb in the haystack. :p

     

    But seriously, romances done the way you first mentioned makes a lot of sense. Obsidian/Bioware focus MAINLY on the characters who are around you the most because those characters are written to have the most personality. They like their own characters, and they want us to like them too, but if we don't, it's okay. However, I think there should be a middle road to your arguement. I would like to see romances/casual fling/using people outside the party be just as strongly written. The more thought into this subject the better.

     

    And for people who don't want this in their game, here's an advice for you: Don't flirt with anyone and just be quiet about your own insecurities. Some people just want to see their character happy. Others just like thriving on drama and hurt feelings. Lord of the Rings had the Aragorn/Arawen romance. Sam had that girl at home. Romance is just icing on the cake to sweeten the deal of saving/destroying the kingdom of PE.

     

    Yes, I am sadistic creep and have insecurities (lol wut) because I prefer one implementation of romance in video games to another. Brilliant logic there kiddo.

     

    Oh wait, Dragon Age 2 avatar explains everything. Sorry I bothered to reply.

     

    Yeah, it's an insecurity that you can't easily ignore the elements that aren't meant for you and is also entirely optional. And you have a problem that other people having a different preference than you. This is an insecurity.

     

    Also, how old are you ?

     

    And also, my pic is from Dragon Age Origins, so kiss it ^^ Didn't much care for DA2, thank you very much

  16. Do you know what makes great quests and decisions less great? Predictability. Peeking at the guide and doing a second playtrough and all the mistery is gone.

     

    What I propose is to have consequences be somewhat random (when appropriate of course).

     

    Let me give an example:

     

     

    REDCLIFFE from DA:O

     

    You got 3 choices of which one (getting help from mages) is superior because there is no danger in it. You KNOW nothing bad will happen when you leave. Something that is a risk, a chance, ceases to be.

     

    But what if you didn't know? What if - no matter how many guides you read, how many times you play - you can never be certain that everything will be OK once you get back?

     

     

    Basicly, when approprite - usually when events are outside of player character control - have the outcome randomized to a point.

     

    Now, if you had a great victory at Redcliffe and prepared everyone, chance of something bad happening is 33%

    If you had a good victory, chances are 50%

    If you did bad, chances are 77%

     

    If the bad consequence happens, even the extent can be randomized.

    If all knigts survived - high chances of Teagen being alive, but some knights died protecting him (for example)

     

     

     

    This makes unpredictable things unpredictable. Taking a risk is always a risk - you can increase your chances, you can take some precautions to reduce the fallout - but you will never KNOW. You will enver be sure.

     

     

    ***

     

    Now the question is - what is stopping the player from reloading?

     

    That depends on whow it's done. When is the roll determined? Once rolled, does it become static?

     

    So let's say the roll is made the second you head out towards the Circle Tower.

     

    Let's also say it's not static. You'll have to re-do the Broken Circle quest (unless you did that already) and travel there and back for a CHANCE to change the outcome.

     

    Let's say it is static. Roll sez Teagan dies. Too bad. No re-loading will help you now, Teagan dies.

     

    Unless maybe, you load an even older save and change some of the other variables (like how well the Redcliffe milita is equipped). In this case, a roll would be static UNLESS some variables change. In which case it would be rolled again an then become static again.

    Which would make it both fair and at the same time incredibly frustrating to save-scum.

     

    F*** that. Just have a timer on the quest instead. If it's a random I'm just modding the game to do what I want then.

  17. If romances were included in the game it would be better if they were the evolution of Fallout and Vampire system than Bioware system that Obsidian also used in the past. In the first model you become romantically involved with an NPC it makes you do some semi-quest and you get various profits from the relationship. You sleep with Bishop's daughter and can rob him, you make the girl a ghoul and she search items for you. The whole thing is really ambiguous as it's not clear if PC is really interested in an NPC or just using him/her. In Bioware/Obsidian model you almost always romance with party members who bug you from time to time and if you chose the right answer they like you more which leads to some sort of finale (sometimes including blue alien asses). The first way is more natural, makes more sense and is more integrated in the game that's why I think it's better.

     

    Um, dude. Girls in real life often *bug* you if they have a crush on you. I'm constantly annoyed and aroused in real life :p I'm kidding a bit, but yeah.. Sometimes girls just say weird things to you just to have something to talk about. It's fine. I happen to like girls anyway and it's not a big deal. I happen to have my unsuave moments too where I'm not the brighest bulb in the haystack. :p

     

    But seriously, romances done the way you first mentioned makes a lot of sense. Obsidian/Bioware focus MAINLY on the characters who are around you the most because those characters are written to have the most personality. They like their own characters, and they want us to like them too, but if we don't, it's okay. However, I think there should be a middle road to your arguement. I would like to see romances/casual fling/using people outside the party be just as strongly written. The more thought into this subject the better.

     

    And for people who don't want this in their game, here's an advice for you: Don't flirt with anyone and just be quiet about your own insecurities. Some people just want to see their character happy. Others just like thriving on drama and hurt feelings. Lord of the Rings had the Aragorn/Arawen romance. Sam had that girl at home. Romance is just icing on the cake to sweeten the deal of saving/destroying the kingdom of PE.

    • Like 1
  18. The hell you guys...?

     

    A bluff is saying you're a High King from the foreign continent of Nerverheardia and the nearby guards should bow to you before letting you pass. A bluff is indirect, and not physically threatening. A successful bluff will just result to a bunch of orcs welcoming a halfling into their village and believe that the halfling is a cursed orc, or a distant cousin Grush'norc the Blacksmith. :p

     

    An intimidation isn't a bluff. Intimidation is believing that your enemy will physically harm you/your loved ones and you really should reconsider making this person displeased. An intimidation doesn't lie in just the words alone. Intimidation lies in the stare of your eyes, the strong biceps on your body, your height, the weapon you carry, or in the tone you use. When Duke Nukem said "I'll rip your head off and **** down your neck," it doesn't really matter if he's telling the truth or not, but I believed that Duke Nukem would do an over-kill on that alien he threatened. I know Duke Nukem would from experience. He has killed every alien up to that point. His chances of walking out of that fight alive and well was very high. That's a successful intimidation. Believing that your enemy will physically harm you without having to. Incidentally, Duke Nukem did rip off his head and **** down his neck after the fight. That was awesome, but he didn't have to. :p

  19. [growling] Get out of here before I cut your ears off.

    [chuckling] Get out of here before I cut your ears off.

    This is okay, but it has nothing to do with the OP. These tags aren't hand-holding, or stats related. Obviously it has to be indicated if a response is sarcastic (or any other emotion), since there's neither facial expressions nor tone of voice available in the game. I love the idea that, if the NPC you're talking to doesn't understand sarcasm, he will take your chuckled comment seriously and charge you. I just really don't want the result of my dialogue to be entirely predictable, they should also depend on the personality of the person I am talking to. If I'm nice to them, it shouldn't mean I will necessarily get exactly what I want. If I joke with the wrong person, I want to be misunderstood and attacked. No. Hand. Holding. Ever. No right or wrong options. They've said this will be the case, so I trust they will manage to pull it off.

     

    I love that the game will have dialogue tied to stats, just don't tell me what stat each option is for (so that I start calculating which option I have the best chance of pulling off a successful roll for), just give me my available dialogue options and let me figure out, based on role playing or my own morals, what I really want to say. I don't want my intelligence insulted, nor do I want to lean towards particular choices just because I have a certain stat level. I'm happy for ambiguous dialogue options to point out how they will be delivered, in cases where the dialogue option can't be written clearly enough to indicate this.

     

    Too bad. You're playing a number's game.

     

    The dialouge in the game is written by MULTIPLE people. Each of them do quests/dialouge options differently and have a different perception of checks/difficulty rating. Needing clarification from the dialouge option is not a sign of weakness, or means you're stupid, because you can never understand a person completely, much less everyone else. The best the game can do is tell the player what his/her character is thinking as obvious as possible. Having clarity and avoiding confusion is really important in terms of story-telling. The most well told stories are things most people understand.

     

    Again. It can be turned on and off, so I'm not really sure what the problem here is anyway, but obviously, for a game to be successful as possible is having as many people as possible understanding what's going on. I'm not really sure what more there is to be discussed. :/

    • Like 1
  20. I voted no because this topic is absurd.

     

    Yes, betrayal is cool, but now that it's discussed, I don't want it in the game because the more it's discussed the more we'll prepare for it :p It's kind of a weird question to begin with. If yes, then you know that it's coming, so what's the point in asking? And if not, then you'll be disappointed. You're setting yourself up to be screwed by this question.

     

    Betreyal is a cool suprise-element to use in a story if it is merited and is used correctly. However, discussing it without having played the game is just plain weird unless you're the developer. Haven't we seen enough from mandatory betrayals in games like Uncharted, Resident Evil and so forth? Betrayal is only cool if you don't see it coming, OR, if it's Eric Cartman betrayal where you know he's going to backstab you, but you let him come along anyway to move the story along :p

     

    But to ask people right now if we want to see betrayal in this very game? Well, no. Not if I know it's coming. Then it's rendered pointless and I want to see something else now.

×
×
  • Create New...