Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


7 Neutral

About gurufabbes

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. I agree 100% with this, but I also disagree 100% with this response of therefore excluding them altogether. I'm not advocating taking a leaf from Inquisition's book and the politics of their developers. What I am saying is that throwing out romances from an Infinity inspired RPG is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
  2. I'm not making fun of it. I'm approaching it with the dead-seriousness it deserves. You are right about one thing: Your viewpoint is legion. There's too many of your ilk around. The RPG genre as a whole has had no choice over the years but to give you guys what you want. And the result is plain for all to see. Bioware, the company that once gave us stunning time-honored Classics with unmatched gameplay like Baldur's Gate, Baldurs Gate 2 and Knights of the Old Republic, is now reduced to releasing interactive soap operas like Mass effect and Dragon age - Games with terrible onedimensional combat and zero gameplay depth. Why? Because they can't afford to spend money and time on such things. Be cause they've decided it'd be better to allocate the majority of their budget of f8cking Romances and drama-filled relationships. You people aren't real RPG fans, so stop abusing that term for your own ends. I respect that you have this opinion, even though I disagree. I figured you had some beef with this viewpoint. I'm curious: What is a real RPG fan to you?
  3. There must be a level of humour here that I don't get, when reacting like a butthurt 17 year old who provokes arguments that he can't win, elicits laughter. I suppose this is the best I can do:
  4. Making fun one of my posts isn't a substitute for a rebuttal of my points. (The points I remind you, you started off by disputing) Sorry, Stun.
  5. So you're crucifying me for not initially mentioning it more explicitly? That would be taking nitpicking to its extreme. Either way, it's been laid out several times now in my previous comments. Quite labouring your moot point. That wasn't the subject of that sentence. Stop conflating. I'm just wondering what your argument still is. That the original, base BG1 didn't have romances. It didn't. Apparently the developers thought that was a missing feature and added it later in the enhanced edition. It was included in the sequel and has been included from then onward. I'm sorry if you don't like this fact. And that's not comparable to a fixed feature and mechanic in single player RPG of this type, like romance. So fans wanted it, I've come here to let people know that I would have wanted it, so that should at least have merited an optional feature... If you don't want it, don't use it, but opposing its inclusion as a choice is something I just don't understand. I'm still actually wondering what your point is? Apart from arguing for the sake of arguing. On your Don Quixote crusade against "promancers".
  6. Tsk tsk tsk... more aggressiveness. Of course this particular point is. Me mentioning a number of games in the related RPG franchise, and then someone concentrating on one is nitpicking, especially considering that its most up to date version includes a romance. Is this point really that crucial? I'm overjoyed to learn ten thousand people agree with me, which underlines my point why it would have been a good feature to include. Made by the same company... in the same universe. It seems obvious to me that one refer to Baldur's Gate as a series. I'm sorry, Obsidian, not Bioware, made KOTOR 2 and NWN2 and expansions... and they had romances still.. You use these terms like "promancer" (what kind of a stupid word is that?) and are associating what I think with apparently some established side on here. You know what? I just arrived on this forum and I'm sharing my opinion and what feature I would have liked to see in the game. You disagree. Fine. What I'm getting from you is that you're either trying to "disprove" my opinion, or say that it is groundless. Groundless because you're claiming they weren't there, when clearly they were. Unless you received some version of these games that I didn't. What makes a game a classic is an ensemble of things, of moments that made the game fun and memorable. I'm saying that the romances were apart of this. Yes, the original vanilla did not. The mythic sequel, which was its superior, did. As I said earlier, apparently this feature was so popular they put a romance into the enhanced edition, the most up to date version on the market today. I guess people do like having the choice at least.... Seemingly BG1 vanilla was "improved upon" with this addition. BG2, the most successful of all of them, did. It even had 3. It even continued them into its climactic expansion. It wasn't repeated into subsequent IE games because there were no subsequent IE games, the genre moved on to another engine... (Yes, there was Icewind Dale 2 which had custom parties rather than written NPCs). NWN, which arguably had them. expansions... NWN2... expansions, Dragon Age... romance remained apart of these. The claim that the "feature wasn't popular" is such an utterly ridiculous claim that it's in contradiction with the facts, the sequels, the trends in the modding community, the line of romances that go all the way to DA:Inquisition. Hell, they even went back to the original Baldur's Gate and put one in there. No, romances in RPGs are not like turning an RPG into an FPS. I argue they even complement each other perfectly.
  7. I see what you're saying. The way I see it, having the romance potential within the game first of all shows the level of depth of potential character interaction. The romances in BG2 were all optional, could at any time have been broken off by a few off colour comments to your companions. If you wanted though, and played your cards right, the possibility was there. What is more, it also classicly would show which territory and themes the game dared to enter into. Sexuality, love, loss... aren't these deeper subjects that motivate and cause tremors in the world and story? To me it draws a line as to how invested my character should be in the world and with party members. A good fantasy RPG is to me like a well written fantasy novel that you are protagonist in. My point earlier was still, and I stand by it, that opinions of romances vary. Let them at least try, provide different options. Some will like it, others won't. The feature is not worth removing and ignoring just for those that do not, and could easily skip it. I don't see why BG is crucial to a point which involves the entire series. While you nitpick, I'm emphasizing the general point I'm trying to make. 2 of them had player built parties which were silent. Numbers don't matter. The feature was popular, so much it was added to BG's predecessor making it 2 out of the 3 games that had more in depth, written NPCs.
  8. Wow... there are a lot of angry pricks on this forum, that's for sure. Particularly those that think passive aggression and silly insults are a substitute for a constructive discussion. Whatever. I've given my point why I think romances should be included. If you disagree, you disagree.
  9. @Gromnir: Are you among the developers? Why are you using the 1st person plural? (Are you royalty?) As for the romances, I agree with you what you've said, insofar as that as being optional, why should they be a problem? I disagree that any romance short of a masterpiece should be absent... It's relative, particularly if you are of the opinion that all of the Bioware romances were rushed and immature. I don't share that view. It's a point where I respect any effort rather than no effort at all by pretending it isn't apart of a good fantasy setting.
  10. Why is precedent important though? And which games would you say had good romances? Personally I never found romances in games anything special: too short, too shallow, too easy to accomplish... pretty meaningless all in all. If I had to make a pick, I'd say Mass Effect had some pretty good romances. Especially in ME2 where you could continue your romance with your absent lover from ME1. I'm serious, because of the absence of your fiancée, that actually was the best romance ever done in a pc game for me... BG2. Dragon Age. KOTOR 1. (Mass Effect,as you pointed out) (No doubt there will be incoming posts that will rip try to rip these to shreds) You are correct that precedent in and of itself does not mean much, but it does show what people liked, and heavily implies that people who loved the BG series would expect similar features from a spiritual successor. And as is obvious, I do expect this. The contribution to story and immersion is colossal.
  11. <sigh> Here we go again.... broadening the definition of romance so that any friendly/affectionate NPC interaction = Romance. You people have remarkably low thresholds. But there's good news about that. If this is your definition of romances then you can totally ignore what the devs have said about PoE. It WILL have "romances". in fact we saw "romance" dialogue in the game's prologue. Check it out: ^that's "romance", isn't it? I don't mean to be rude, quite the opposite, but you are grabbing at straws here: I've said that there is a precedent for romance within this genre, especially in the best examples. What you seem to be doing is looking for the lack of, or weak examples of what I'm describing, in the weakest of the series. NWN had one, it wasn't very good, it isn't what I'm raising as an example, but it did have one with a few party members. It was present. The expansions had them too except for the first, and many people agree they were well done. NWN2: Yes, had one. Same for its expansions. KOTOR, KOTOR 2 had them Not an answer to you but: BG1 vanilla admittedly did not have them, the current enhanced edition does (Could it be that it was added because there was demand for such a feature?) BG2 did and so the Throne of Ball (on purpose this time) expansion. So as far as I am concerned the case for a precedent and that the best of the titles included them (I think most would agree that BG2 prevailed over the first, NWN's successive expansions were better than the base game, NWN2 was better than the NWN ditto for the expansions...) is rock solid. The point also remains that some of your are arguing against an optional feature.
  12. .... From the rest of my post, I was referring to BG as a series, including the BG2 and Throne of Ball. Neverthless Neera the Wild Mage is in BG EE as well. Romances are staples of the best and most memorable RPGs of the genre. .... Never gets old. I wasn't planning on giving a second reply, but this is getting better andbetter. Forgive me, I Didn't realize when you said you are a veteran of BG, BGII, etc., you meant you were a "veteran" of Enchanced Editions. Or that by listing individual titles, you really meant the opposite - the whole series. Happy trolling someone else.
  13. Yes it did. Sharwyn for instance. In my opinion that was the worst romance ever in a game. Still it was better than nothing. It also had a brothel. I digress. Romance options have been in the best of the genre and have their place in my opinion, alongside a clear precedent. It should at least have remained an option. For those that feel uncomfortable, I'm sure they could spare a bit of their apparent wit to turn it off by letting the NPC know how they feel... then die alone in due course if that's their prerogative.
  • Create New...