BruceVC

Also Bruce, I don't know why you left out one of the most important parts of Namutree's post: "To put it bluntly; adding sexuality to a npc is an easy way to manipulate a player's emotions and create a connection to the game world." So you're okay with developers manipulating a players emotions with sexualised NPCs? I am because I see this as a positive way to add realism and make the RPG experience more immersive. The levels of party interaction are important and do add to the overall believability of the whole RPG experience

Hiro did take an interest in my post and has mentioned it more than once. Hiro now wants Lephy's opinion on the matter, but feels that he is dodging the question by over-analyzing the way Hiro phrased it. Really? Because it seems like despite a relevant answer Hiro is still asking " why developers sexualize NPC's" I don't see the point in asking someone a questions when you know the answer yourself unless you have some ulterior motive to extend the debate in a way that is not applicable?

The end result will be the same, the IDF will end the ground invasion when the rocket attacks have ended. They are committed to this approach now and the tunnels will also be closed

Hiro why is no one interested in the post that Namutree stated for the reason that developers sexualize NPC's ? Don't worry about Anita and her explanations, I am a feminist but I don't always agree with her. She is almost militant in her campaign for equality and sometimes I think she does the cause of gender equality more harm than good Namutree stated "The reason why developers anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human npcs is to try and create the illusion that the npcs are real. People have sexual aspects to them, so when they sexualise npcs; they can seem more human. That makes role-playing more convincing for some people. There are also strong emotions that can easily be brought out through sexuality. Those feelings can make a player feel connected to a world " This is a positive explanation and makes sense, why don't you focus on this?

If the threat from the rockets was that great the IDF would have invaded en masse, like they did when Hezbollah had their rocket offensive. The IDF know air strikes and artillery won't solve the problem which is exactly what makes the strikes punitive rather than decisive. 300+ people have died, if not for nothing then for very little gained in both Hamas capacity and Israli security. I don't understand why they would set out to be punitive in that environment. For the benifit of the voters ? To be seen to be doing something ? ... wait a sec. the fact that the idf didn't go in and carpet-bomb the place and is instead putting their own civilians and soldiers at risk to be more surgical is proof that their actions is "punitive rather than decisive"? did that make sense? hamas was able to dictate where this fight would take place. hamas wanted the fight to take place in one o' the most densely populated places on earth. hamas, an organization with the expressed purpose o' destroying israel through force o' arms, was put in power by the people o' gaza. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13331522 who the hell democratically elects a terrorist organization into power? the pictures o' wailing palestinian women as they stand over the bodies o' their broken children is cause for grief, but there is a great deal o' responsibility to go around when we reference civilian casualties. blame idf, but you also better blame hamas and the not-so-innocent civilians who voted hamas into power if you is gonna be honest. HA! Good Fun! I would say you both make valid points around the Israeli strategy and what motivates them The initial Israeli reaction to the rocket attacks was both punitive and strategic. The idea is that Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel because of the consequences to the Palestinians in Gaza, but because the Israelis are using targeted strikes there is no risk to them around casualties. Its a win win for them, they stop the rocket attacks without ground troops But of course its clear that Hamas has very little regard for the lives of the Palestinians and actually want an IDF ground invasion so they can score political capital. This may sound bizarre as most people will ask "" how can Hamas think this is some kind of victory " But just the fact that they have killed 2 dozen or so Israelis and kidnapped one they will spin this as a victory on certain levels. Also another important difference between the two sides is that the Israelis do care about the sanctity of a single Jewish life, Hamas is quite prepared to have dozens of Palestinians killed if it brings attention to there cause. Its like that kidnapped Israeli soldier who was finally returned to Israel and dozens of Hamas militants were released as a prisoner swop So end of the day I will argue that its extremely difficult to wage conventional war against a group like Hamas because they feel the political agenda is more important than the welfare of there citizens

Not sure why you seem surprised by this or somehow you think this diminishes Russia's role in the overall conflict? The separatists were responsible for the plane being shot down but Russia is directly responsible for the civil war being prolonged as they are aiding the separatists in various ways

But the article clearly states that some players are beyond redemption and will be permanently banned by Riot, so I suppose it depends on the actions of some players

Are you sure? I thought it was always a game. It certainly has its rules and you don't always win. Very true, in fact isn't the great game of love the greatest game of all?

No I didn't realize that, its probably better then because they should be more resilient to a permanent banning. They have loads of time to find other games

I'm not one that believes in tribunal system, if you don't know by now that you aren't suppose to make racist or homophobic comments online I doubt some kind of player based court is really going to change that behaviour. Banning is the right strategy, this type of punitive step will get the message across

That makes sense, I am surprised it took them so long to act against players who make offensive comments.

I have just watched the second episode of The Strain and this show is excellent, so many unknown and exciting developments. I predict this series is going to do very well

No I find that hard to believe, you would really only give a game like PoE one hour?

I don't mean to state the obvious but Serbian volunteers actually fighting for the separatists is not a positive endorsement of Serbia . Sarex what is going on?

Ro.....oh wait I'm not allowed to say that For me I want to play PoE first and then comment on what a good Mod could enhance

And Purina makes dog food that some dogs absolutely love to eat. What's your point? Bioware Promancers don't really count. They'll eagerly gobble up anything from Bioware that even *hints* at NPC e-affection. Call me naïve, but I am operating under the assumption, since we're on the Obsidian forums, that the thread goers here have more... refined tastes in RPGs. <sigh> Do I need to write this in crayon? I. am. not. saying. that RPG Romances can't be done properly because they haven't been done properly in the past. My argument is that RPG Romances cannot be done properly because it is fundamentally impossible to properly implement RPG romances in video games. There are too many inherent limitations in the medium to allow for it. There are too many budget sacrifices that must be made. The fan base is too diverse. etc. Disagree with this if you want. I am fully aware of my own bias and that not everything I'm saying can be attributed to mathematical fact. But don't friggin put words in my mouth Okay I must apologize. I did think you were saying " Romance cannot be done properly in a RPG and evidence of this is Romance implementations in the past " Strange, I'm not sure why I was seeing that, my bad You are actually saying " Romance cannot be done properly in a RPG as it is not possible to implement them properly" And of course I also disagree with this because of the subjective definition of "properly" All I'll say, which you won't agree with", is that of course Romance can be done properly if you think of past examples like BG2, DA or Planescape? Now take those implementations of Romance and just enhance them based on several suggestions in this thread...and what do you get? Romance options that resonate with most but the most unromantic and emotionally impassive fans of RPG. Its a win win

If I wanted to say that, Bruce, I would have. I didn't though, because it doesn't represent my stance. My stance is that there are *reasons* why no one has ever succeeded in properly implementing romances in video games. And those reasons are fundamental, given the medium. They cannot be fixed. And many of those reasons have already been discussed on this thread. But, I will quickly repeat them now for clarification. 1) Because it is impossible to give the player any agency in a video game romance without turning the process into a standardized, predictable mini-game. (hey look! If choose this dialogue option, I will gain approval points with this person and I'm on my to Romance victory! etc.) Romance shouldn't be a 'game'. 2) Because if you don't give the player Agency, then what you have is a forced situation. And forcing the player into a romance is, by definition, an RPG flaw. 3) Because RPG Romances require either sex, or kissing, or hugging, or pronouncements of love. Problem: In a video game, these things make people cringe. I believe the psychological term is "Uncanny Valley". 4) Because if you don't include sex, or kissing, or hugging, or pronouncements of love, then you don't have a Romance. You have a Friendship. And that's not what Promancers are seeking. 5) Because some gamers are straight. Some are gay. Some are lesbian. Some are bisexual. Some are transsexual. Some are male. Some are female. You must represent them all. If you fail to represent them all, the ones who aren't represented will assume you have taken a social stance against their sexual orientation -Or- that you half-assed the implementation of Romances in the game. Which is another way of saying "your romance implementation is flawed". 6) Because successfully doing #5 necessitates significant developer resources be spent. Invariably, this means budgeting must be significantly lessened elsewhere, like on Character leveling dynamics, or combat system depth, or area design, or actual gameplay content outside of these romances. Ie. Stuff that's far more important in an RPG than friggin romances Its funny because when you read this list a person may think " yeah, its obvious that Romance can never be done in a RPG" ....except for the fact that Bioware does Romance in a way that is more than acceptable for its legions of promancer fans So once again your point is just based on your own view and is not the reality of people who enjoy Romance

So you are being serious? Just want to make sure before your post gets blown out of the water. Please blow away, I am being serious

You're using hyperbole again? The last time I called you out on a quote you did a 180 and turned around and said it was hyperbole. I take it this is just hyperbole as well or are you being serious? Not at all young grasshopper, you are misunderstanding the definition of hyperbole. Hyperbole is exaggeration, so if anything Stun is guilty of hyperbole when he said "There are only a few features that simply cannot be done flawlessly in a fantasy RPG. Romance is one of them" You cannot say that Romance cannot ever be done properly because in your personal view it hasn't been done properly in the past. Once again this is not based any science or facts and is entirely subjective My point was Stun should rather say " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past" as this is a more reasonable and logical view based on his own personal experience. But my comments have nothing to do with hyperbole

No. There are only a few features that simply cannot be done well in a fantasy RPG. Romance is one of them. Unfortunately its this type of intransigence that is unhelpful to this discussion. You cannot say Romance cannot ever be done well in a RPG because of your own view of past implementations of Romance. Its biased and subjective Rather say something like " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past" You can see the difference? I just want to say that this comment seems like something Lephys would write. I don't mean that to be a compliment or an insult. I'm just saying. I am also pretty confident of Stun's response to this. It'll probably go like this: "Name me one example of a romance in a fantasy rpg that wasn't seriously flawed; you can't. If it could be done well; it would already have been. Even if it could be done well; Obsidian wouldn't be the group to figure it out." Am I right Stun? Is that close to your opinion? Yeah you probably right, lets see his response

I enjoyed the Two Worlds RPG, I liked there take on creating your own spells and potions. I thought the spell creation was something unique. I didn't like there laziness in some of there monsters, for example Ostriches and Baboons that automatically attacked you in the African theme continent which was the first one that you appeared on

No. There are only a few features that simply cannot be done well in a fantasy RPG. Romance is one of them. Unfortunately its this type of intransigence that is unhelpful to this discussion. You cannot say Romance cannot ever be done well in a RPG because of your own view of past implementations of Romance. Its biased and subjective Rather say something like " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past" You can see the difference?

I'm waiting till its been officially announced that the separatists did indeed shoot down the plane before I come back on this thread to discuss this further I find it truly frustrating that despite the evidence and the history of how the separatists have conducted themselves in the past there are still people in this discussion who won't admit that the separatists are responsible Also no offence to anyone but none of us are experts in black boxes. But if the Western international community wants the black boxes there must be a valid reason outside what we have guessed or dismissed. This reason is obviously to add to the consensus that the separatists did indeed shoot down the plane

Well that question has been answered, see the comment above from Namutree

This is a good and accurate post highlighting why Romance enhances the RPG experience. Romance adds to the believability of the interaction with party members and makes them appear more human I am surprised no one commented how insightful your comment was, good one