Bos_hybrid

So what is the problem with people voicing their opinion against romances? That in truth is what I find most fascinating in these topics. And this has to do with the Chobot romance how? Chobot was placed to get a whole bunch of men & women drooling over the fact that Shep can bone CGI Chobot. Nothing more. There is no need for that in storytelling or RPGs.

Obviously I would not want a replica of a said character however there are some who have elements that I would like to see in this character: Bishop: Didn't worship the PC, was for himself and his benefit. Was not repentant about who he was, saw the world his way. Ridiculed other companions and caused tension. Ammon Jerro: Was older and played a sort of guide/mentor/informer role, was brutal and ruthless, but believed in his goals and ways. Criticized naivety, conflicted with other companions. Was a useful npc to have in the party. One of Many: Many souls in one form, sadistic, cruel and evil. Couldn't be reasoned with, creeped out other companions and NPC's. Was loyal to the PC but only if you held it's views.

I'm on the side of choice within the story. Give the world interesting lore, with interesting characters and an over arching plot with branching paths and let the player tell his story. The best quote I can use, are from Warren Specter:

I'll put it this way, I don't want to see a hero/anti-hero pathway. Which is essentially the exact same playthrough, except the anti-hero makes smartass comments and extorts people for more money. I want to see a villain playthrough, MOTB did this well. The difference in character between one that held back on soul eating and one that gorged, was something I enjoyed immensely.

I went with 3, could of went 2, but I don't see the need to have key characters fully voiced. I'll echo the sentiment that BG2/PS:T did it fine. However I waiting with a shotgun for the voiced PC request.

I still laugh at this, 'only are opinion counts' thing you guys have when it comes to romances. I'm also disappointed at the apparent view that writing is a throw away resource, it's not. Something done right takes time and creativity. Straw man. Find me the person who says all three of the above. You have some people who want romance in the game who would agree with you that BioWare does it badly. But you don't have anyone saying that romances don't cost resources to write, period, let alone to write well. Plenty have people have, go back and look at the discussion in previous threads, including this one. Many don't believe it takes time and resources. I like to point out it does, and that PE has limited resources. You'd have to define "significant" and what it's being drained from? We can make silly statements like "would you rather have romances or would you rather have first person shooting mechanics?" or "would you rather have romances or would you rather have realistic physics for parkour?" You have to give an either or, this or that, for "draining resources" to mean anything. Well obviously it's mainly the writing teams resource burden, but it will flow over into design and QA. What will get cut, I don't know, nothing maybe, or maybe a faction, or a branching pathway. I tend to err on the side of caution, and not want to see anything cut for romances. But you has a writer must admit that good writing takes time, energy and creativity, it's not a 'we'll bang ok' and done process. God no, thieving and sneaking mechanics in please. Definitely not at the expense of 'romance'. See different opinion, both are valid. Dev choice in what to prioritize. But no one can predict what gets cut. No one here has a time machine. So a 'drain resources' is more appropriate than to say 'they are going to drop dual classing' and/or a crafting system, plus a branching pathway, to implement romances. Those would be lies, stating a drain on resources allows people to make up their own mind and decide what might get cut, and whether or not romances are worth that price. People are not idiots that can be feared into not wanting romances. So you disagree? You would like to see a Isabella romance in PE or a Chobot enconter? And how many would be satisfactory? 1,2,4,8? I don't hate bioware games(well apart for DA2), I tend to think their romances can be tacky and fanservice (Garrus/Tali). But they are a major part of what fans expect of bioware games, and their games have huge resources, so I have no problem with them being in. PE on the other hand has limited resources, so my opinion of them being in is vastly different. If it's announced as a stretch goal by Obs, I'll accept that it's been budgeted and it's inclusion isn't at the expense of something I would of prefered seeing. Remember, just because you don't agree with a view, doesn't make it trolling, aggressive or any less valid.

I had decided to give up posting in romance threads but I just wanted to ask some things from the promancers. So people want romances, but they want them done right(ie not bio style). They also believe they don't cost much in the way of resources so it won't be a burden on development. I say the only way they might be done right, is if a significant amount of time and creativity are put into them by the Obsidian writing team. So when people ask for romances done right, they are asking for a significant amount of resources to be drained from story features. Of this there is no doubt. The only way in which romances don't drain significant resources(but still drains them) is if done the way bio does them. So when someone suggest they want romances and they won't drain significant resources, this is what they really mean. So in my mind there are three choices. 1. Romances that are tried to be done right, that drain significant resources. 2. Bio style romances, that are throw away. Still drain resources away from other areas, but no to the degree of option 1. 3. No romances. So are people fine with option two, given they don't believe romances should take significant resources away from other areas. (Given that's what the poll says, the one I didn't vote on)

This, it seems like mages won't have armor restrictions. Hopefully the same goes for rogues. With rogues the armor restrictions make sense, to a degree. You don't go sneaking through the shadows in full plate. That's not saying you shouldn't be allowed to try, but it's unlikely to end well. Does a rogue always sneak? I'm just against restriction in general. I'm not saying no penalties, just that we should be able to way up the pros and cons.

I think it would depend on the game, and the team developing the game. It would cause a stir, but if done right I could see an Ultima or Wing Commander getting the funding. Do you think gamers would trust EA to assemble a good team to make an Ultima or Wing Commander worthy of the name? They're making an Ultima right now, and their public statements on the gameplay are cringe-worthy. That's why I said done right. The minute gamers got a whiff of pay to play, consolitis/dumbing down/streamlining , it would be dead before trying. Also the minute they didn't deliver on their promises, that would be it for them and kickstarter.

I think it would depend on the game, and the team developing the game. It would cause a stir, but if done right I could see an Ultima or Wing Commander getting the funding.

I wouldn't be beta testing. But I don't think that should stop Obs from using people, if they feel a need to. However I wouldn't want it given to everyone that backed over $5, it increase a troll blurting out specifics of the story.

I prefer buy, not really a fan of constantly re-rolling to get to a character I want to make. I admit rolling is a novelty at first. After you've done it 50 times just to get reasonable intelligence roll, not so much.

It all depends on the engine they are using. And it's not an easy thing to implement. Still it does help keep interest in the game.

This, it seems like mages won't have armor restrictions. Hopefully the same goes for rogues.

I didn't get the impression warriors would be able to cast spells form the update. Seems to me like pointing to buffs for warriors(increase strength, haste etc). Of course I could be wrong but that is how I interpreted it.

3 'good companions', 3 'evil companions' and 2' neutral companions'. This gives each approach 5 companions or 6 man party. The only problem here I see is if the class of companion you want 'alignment' is different. But then isn't that a consequence based on your choices? I get the desire for an all mage party/ all fighter party, that is why I think having the option to create party members should be a stretch goal.

Wasn't expecting them to not use Onyx, tend to think it would of been easier to work with the in house engine.

Your sexual orientation/life style should have no baring on the game. Mentor: " Hold the sword this way" PC: "I'm straight" Mentor:"................." Tavern Keep: "10 gold for the night" PC: "I'm gay" Tavern Keep: ................... Quest giver: " Please save my wife from the pack of wolves" PC: "I'm a Lesbian" Quest giver: ............... "That's a on saving my wife then?" End Boss: "I'm going to rule the world" PC:" I'm Transgendered" End Boss "......................... Me too" *PC and end boss runaway together and live happily ever after. I don't see the point in having to clarify who you are to this degree in PE. Besides do you have to roleplay yourself? Or whats wrong with using your imagination? Have are imaginations become so dead we need the devs to write out for us every single thing? Or is this all just about a political statement?

No, Bieber.

If my eyes aren't bleeding by the end of PE, I'll be disappointed. However, if I fall asleep during combat, I'll be pissed. It's up to the devs to play juggle the design aspects and get it right.

Something I would like to see. (Now this is an example, not what the story should be.)The final chapter/quest: The 'good pathway' has the player storming the antagonists lair/fortress, in order to stop his plans/arrest him/ etc. The 'evil pathway' still has the lair/fortress but this time it's the PC lair and a group opposed to the PC are storming it. Still the same setting, just the roles have been reversed and the players in them changed. Basically the antagonists and quest goals change depending on choices. Realistically something to much to do on such a small budget as PE, but still something I would like to see.

I don't see the need for it. Once the story is over, it's over. Wouldn't it make more sense to start the game again and do things differently?(Assuming you can)

C2B, Funcroc's apprentice?

To be honest I don't know, CDP never really interested me until the announcement of the Cyberpunk RPG. I always assumed the needed publisher for financing, weren't they taken to court by the TW2 publisher? Well for starters didn't the Drakensang devs go bankrupt? Piranha and Bethesda and Reality Pump(Two Worlds2) are a different sort of RPG devs, their goals are open world sandbox rpg. Which is quite different from the story driven rpgs of, Bio, Obs and CDP. Which are both different to the arpgs, from Blizzard. Should of used story driven in the first place, my bad for being unclear. Larian I'm ashamed to admit, I did forget.