BruceVC

I doubt it, there were certain fundamental concerns about this KS that didn't seem relevant to what Obsidian did and will do People generally just have more faith in a company like Obsidian

Ravel and TNO's story is about love, yes. He charmed her into falling in love with him and she fell for him hard. Everything she has done, she did for him. She still loves him. Even as he lies to her, she loves him. Its horrible, abusive and unhealthy but its still a story about love. What people would do for love or how they would use love to get what they want. The same thing as with Deionarra really. I'm not saying the whole game is about love. Though maybe it is, what can change the nature of a man? Torment is a story about stories. Some of those stories are love stories. I agree with that, you can easily see how Planescape had an obvious undercurrent of Romance that was inextricably linked to the narrative

Well of course no sane person would support mandatory romances in an RPG. It would go against a core pillar of what makes an RPG in the first place: Choice. Never mind the fact that such a narrative would be condemned for being uncreative and cliché. Sure I understand how you may see it like that but yet you don't say that about many other mandatory features in RPG like classes and spells ? But anyway I am not so delusional to think mandatory Romance would be acceptable by some fans...it was just an idea if I was designing my own RPG

that is funny, thinking that GG people will somehow not think less of her. I'm sure only Leigh Alexander is more reviled than her for most GG people

I see it now but think it can go both ways, either as a sarcastic remark about how feminism does not demonize the list above, or as a statement that she does have some qualms with sex-negative feminism. That it's not hyphenated, I interpreted more to mean that statement is NOT a cornerstone of her presentation, but rather kind of a relevant statement based on the things that were truly discussed. I usually disagree when people say determining sarcasm on the internet is hard, but this is a case where I really don't find it so apparent. Its okay Longknife, you can say you were wrong. No one is going to think less of you I promise

I have mentioned before that if Romance was mandatory as part of the narrative in a RPG then there would be obviously less resistance to the concept and we would see a more realistic and mature interpretation of it in games, so I support the Japanese system of Romance But that idea was shot down horribly on these forums...very few people supported it Hmmmm... it's not so much that it's mandatory in J-RPGs, it's just that they choose your partner for you (or you can choose from a very small selection) and then carefully script all the interactions. So you can't hit on every single woman in the game world. You can only go for childhood friend A, mysterious girl B, or large-breasted classmate C. And you can't choose how the romance plays out, you can only watch the sub-plot unfold. And the sub-plots are often ridiculously stereotypical, but I think ridiculously stereotypical is better than unnatural and immersion breaking. Ah, okay. I see what you mean, I have never played a J-RPG before so I wasn't clear on what you meant. Thanks for explaining

Interesting you should say that. We've had quite a few thread discussions about PoE's Engagement mechanic. Yet not once has Bruce come to those threads to propose such a system for romances. I am disappoint, as they say. The main reason is I don't want to be seen to be hijacking threads to push a Romance agenda, we have more than enough threads to discuss Romance

The reason JRPGs are a lot better at romances are: they don't give the player much choice. The story is built in and you just go along with it. If you do it that way, then I think you can basically include an interesting romance story. Western RPGs try to give the player more choices and that's why they fail. I have mentioned before that if Romance was mandatory as part of the narrative in a RPG then there would be obviously less resistance to the concept and we would see a more realistic and mature interpretation of it in games, so I support the Japanese system of Romance But that idea was shot down horribly on these forums...very few people supported it

The cultural problem isn't that we reject romance, but that we have a difficult time accepting romantic wish fulfillment as a valid indulgence. It's a problem of immersion, of becoming sufficiently emotionally invested in a video game character to actually enjoy interacting with him/her romantically. Such immersion is vital to effective romantic roleplaying, but is incredibly hard to achieve when you refuse - eg for cultural reasons - to become emotionally involved with a video game in that way. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about 'Aerie is my eternal waifu I no longer care about 3D people' obsession, but rather a middle ground between it and the 'I play for teh lelz' crowd who's never going to be immersed to begin with. And I'm not asking for as much as you think - because the fact of the matter is, we DO get immersed in games, and we DO derive wish fulfillment from them. Otherwise, you won't see people becoming so emotionally invested in, say, Ellie in The Last of Us, and for that matter a World of Warcraft raid boss drop. Provided that you accept this premise - that emotional investment is critical to the success of a romance - then the rest of this logic is straight forward. The basis of an effective CRPG romance is a character that is endearing to you, and the basis of such a character is an aspect of wish fulfillment that appeals to you. Whether the developer subverts this aspect later - ie for thematic effects - there's no way to avoid it in the beginning, because in order for the player to even be drawn to that character in a romantic way, there has to be a raw attraction, and that attraction isn't cheap, especially not when you're trying to effect it through a computer screen with pixels. It's not enough to simply have a compelling character, because there's no excuse for forcing a romance track just to develop a compelling character. It's also not enough to just have a 'romantic story,' because the narrative fails when there is no investment - it feels empty and cheesy. It's further not enough to just have an attractive model, because that only inspires sexual attraction, which is cheap and fleeting when it's through the computer screen. There has to be a wish fulfillment aspect involved. In fact, there's nothing unique about romance - as people have already said hundreds of times - outside the actual existence of romantic feelings, and it's inspiring those feelings without any hope of sexual fulfillment that is the hardest task for the game designer. Romantic feelings? For a video game character? Madness, but in fact, people fall in love with fictional characters all the time - from books, comic books, films, etc., and in lieu of interaction they write a lot of bad fanfiction. But just from the fact that I cringed while writing this post tells me that there is a deep-seated resistance against this sort of behavior, and that to the degree that the 'mainstream' gaming culture shares in this resistance, video game romances won't flourish. Nah, I have no problem accepting Romance as a valid indulgence. I prefer to see it as a normal way of enhancing your interaction with party members. Its about realism and immersion. I have made my next point so many times but I'll happily make it again. Its completely reasonable and expected that if you are on this epic quest to save the world and everyday may be your last that you would develop a Romantic interest with someone in your party, especially if you are attracted to that person. Think about all the long nights spent around the campfire ruminating and reflecting on the ordeals of the day? In fact I always argue that by not having a Romance arc its unrealistic to how people interact emotionally

My friend you need to have faith....but I just want to let everyone know that this game won't have Romance. I don't want people to get upset later and its perfectly understandable considering the fact that you won't have a party with you

I'd love to hear what Wu meant by this. Yeah, context is always relevant when it comes to these types of comments

Iran represents a much more complicated situation than NK and definitely can't be treated the same way as NK Also there are and have been constant negotiations with NK. But consider the Shia relationship that Iran has with Iraq and its support of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, plus its influence in Syria. If the USA attacks Iran all these alliances will be directly impacted, for example Hezbollah may become more active, and this will affect the entire region So like it or not we should really consider negotiation with Iran as the only feasible option for sustained peace in the Middle East

Yeah I have been saying this for ages, the relationship between the USA and Israel is still good but its also at a historical low This of course will confuse the various conspiracy theorists on these forums who keep making statements like "the Jews control America " and " American foreign policy is aligned to what Israel wants"....this is patently not true Obama is absolutely following the correct course by going the route of negotiation as far as Iran is concerned. The reality of the USA going the military route is not only highly unlikely but will also further destabilize the region, it would be very irresponsible and counterproductive to really stopping Iran developing a nuclear weapon Netanyahu has overplayed his hand by aligning to Republicans, I don't know the last time any Democrats boycotted a speech by an Israeli Prime Minister but the last thing that Israel should be wanting is fractured support from the USA. They are use to unequivocal support. But even certain ex-Israeli generals were concerned by the way Netanyahu was approaching this speech, they see this as more divisive than helpful http://www.newsmax.com/World/GlobalTalk/israel-netanyahu-congress-generals/2015/03/02/id/627666/

People who are outspoken feminists getting rape and death threats definitely constitutes as an unwelcoming environment for feminists, in my opinion. Self-identified gamergaters in the appropriate *chan sites talking in great detail about bombarding them with those rape and death threats constitutes as GG being responsible for it. (Not in the collective responsibility sense - ie. every gamergater is personally responsible for the actions of those individuals -, but in the sense of "some people who are gamergaters do send those things".) Anyone on the internet with an opinion gets rape and death threats. Or, maybe that was just me. At the very least that's been my experience and has always been my impression of the internet. Nope, no one has ever threatened to rape or kill me on the Internet.... it must just be you guys

Volo its probably not a good idea to jump to conclusions until we see more evidence and the final report ?

Sure, he is popular in Russia buts because Putin controls the narrative within Russia and the media. So Russians see what he wants them to see, I find it amazing that your definition of a popular leader is someone who decides that censorship and propaganda are the way to control political support to ensure his popularity ratings

I'm not sure if this is another accusation of police brutality as the homeless man was trying to grab the officer's gun. I'll wait for the final report before commenting properly

Its just such a strange series of questions to ask people, you need context and more information on what he means by those 3 questions. Of course some " gamers" welcome women, Are violent video games stupid? Impossible to answer because the definition of "stupid " is subjective Are male gamers losers? Impossible to answer or quantify because there are some people who think anyone who plays games is a loser. I don't support generalizations about groups of people and once again the definition of a " loser " is subjective But my issue with that video still remains, he generailzes and blames gaming journalists and SJW for that episode of Law & Order. Its just unsubstantiated diatribe and helps contribute towards this culture of " look what gaming journalists and SJW have done "

I am going to both belittle and ignore that video For the simple the fact that the video is guilty of doing exactly what he accuses others of doing. He basically accuses journalists and SJW of being responsible for that inaccurate episode of Law & Order....WTF. You talk about false stereotypes What have gaming journalists and people who believe in SJ issues got to do with the production of Law & Order? The producers of that show look at real issues of abuse in society that exist and create episodes on those issues. If anything you should contact NBC and **** Wolf if you have some issue with Law & Order But somehow gaming journalists and SJW become the target of vitriol, did he even mention **** Wolf once ? A terrible video that is misplaced in highlighting the issue around who is responsible for the spurious characterization of gamer's in that episode

I am glad someone else noticed this, I thought the Codex article also did an excellent job at giving us more information and confidence in investing in this KS

You see this just highlights the illogical nature of some of the criticism about Romance, why is it weird? Its a game, isn't everything about steps you need to complete ? Why single out Romance ?

That's a terrible analogy (not to mention a geometric falsehood). A line can stretch infinitely. A triangle can't. In the context of these debates that spring up on this forum, there's never 3 sides. There's only 2 sides. People like you just publically sit on the fence in between and sometimes take thinly veiled pot shots at one of the sides. Oh how I take great pleasure in pushing fence sitters off the fence. Thats a big harsh. I have found Lephys to be more concerned with the principle of reasonable debate and logic. People who don't understand this won't get his posting etiquette Stun, and any others, I want to ask you a relevant question. You have answered this before but this is probably a good time to refresh your response...think about the question before you answer What is your issue anyway with optional Romance arcs in RPG? I know you are passionate and vociferous in what you don't like about Romance but what is your primary reason for not wanting them ? Because the developers only have so much time available, and writing romances that don't feel shallow or tacked-on takes isn't really something you can put together in a day. And as others have pointed out, many people at Obsidian are indifferent or outright contemptuous of the notion of romances in RPGs, so why should they waste time putting in something they don't really want to? Secondly, romance arcs tends hide a great deal of a character's backstory and personality from people who don't want their character to pursue a relationship with that person. In Baldur's Gate, for instance, a player who doesn't pursue a romance with Viconia will learn next to nothing about her. Third, romances tend to attract a certain type of individual...we all know the type...the people who got mad because so-and-so character wasn't romantically available to their character...the people who make posts bringing their knowledge of biochemistry to bear on the question of what Tali's sweat tastes like...the people who post pictures in the "Alistair Gush Thread" of their purple-haired Mary Sue Cousland with Alistair...you get the idea. You know, THESE people: Thanks for responding, even though you and I may not always agree on Romance I do find your posts interesting, reasonable, non-confrontational and not antagonistic So your reasons are pretty standard, its what most people claim to be the reasons they are opposed to Romance. And I do believe you but did you have to think about them for a while ?Or did these spring to mind straight away. You see my experience and observation is the main reason people are opposed to Romance is reason 3...lets be honest the other reasons aren't that significant in the big picture..especially with Romance being optional Which raises another consideration and please hear me out. How real and insidious is reason 3? So on a website like this you have large numbers of people who use to be ardent and committed fans of Bioware. Over the last few years Bioware is not the same development company for some people and great admiration for Bioware has been replaced by anger, judgment and dismissiveness...and because Romance is a valid part of Bioware games now Romance automatically gets a bad rap but people won't say the actual reason because it could be something that resonates on a subconscious level so they say " we don't want weird people like people from BSN coming here " But that really shouldn't be a valid reason if we are being honest, promancers like myself confine our Romance discussions to a few select threads. Why would it bother you if a small group want to discuss something like the sweat of a character, I wouldn't do it but it doesn't bother me that others do it Finally the worst reason for not liking Romance IMO is when people say things like " you promancers need to get RL girlfriends " or " you promancers are weird " ....once again these points are utterly irrelevant to why I'm sure the majority of people like Romance Anyway I just wanted to raise other reasons why you guys may not like Romance but not be aware of it

Apparently he had information that unequivocally revealed Russian interference in Ukraine But what worries me even more is that Putin probably had nothing to do with it but it shows us just how out of control certain groups in Russia are as far as following there own agenda is concerned

Yeah I saw this, its appalling but really just confirms the nature of the political climate in Russia. At least Putin condemned it

No its not about Romance but we are discussing Romance as its relevant to the topic for some reason I have forgotten