BruceVC

I've never brought up multi-tentacled aliens Bruce. The non-humans including aliens I have brought up have been humanoid. You know arms, legs, torso, head, etc. No tentacles. So your realism of romantic expectations are to have beautiful sexy females that you're attracted to. Anything you deem unattractive you'll avoid, because you know, 'realism'. LOL. Oh god. that's hilarious. I'm just wondering what you do consider 'unattractive'. Is it more than just what she looks like? eg. Do you see a female that's stunning but in a wheel chair 'unattractive' and therefore avoid the notion of going out with her? Lets not confuse RL with Romance in a game, we are talking about a fantasy RPG here. So your question around someone in a wheelchair is inappropriate and irrelevant to the discussion I am not saying you need beautiful females or good looking males, I am saying you have to identify with a person to Romance them. And part of the identification is an appeal on the aesthetic level. And your photos of aliens and orcs and then asking if these are suitable Romance candidates is not going to be acceptable because most people don't identify with them? Its not complicated

Attraction can be something else other than sexy physical characteristics. The NPC may not be physically attractive to you at first, but over time you develop an attraction for them. This often happens in real life. Who would have though? And No, I'm neither surprised nor disappointed that developers are pandering to players fantasies. But nice to try make out that I was when I wasn't. I'm merely stating the obvious that developers do create unrealistic NPCs with anthropomorphising and sexualising those non-human NPCs to appeal to gamers to romance them. That's the unrealistic part that you think is realistic and based on realism. You are absolutely correct that attraction can grow in time but that applies to attraction amongst humans. But when we are having a hypothetical discussion around whether the main character would develop Romance with a multi-tentacle alien I find it hard to believe under any circumstances The concept of Beauty and the Beast is a sweet story but its idealistic and not relevant to modern Romance implementations. So once again I am dwelling in the world of realism with my Romance expectations and I find your ideas fanciful at best?

Yes they do. Developers do anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs for romance options. Otherwise players and promancers like Bruce wouldn't romance them if they were ugly. They have to be attractive for players to romance them, hence anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human npcs. You're right in that The existence of humanoid characters, does not shatter realism if developers don't anthropomorphise and sexualise those NPCs. What shatters realism is always having those attractive non-human npcs because the developers are pandering to the players. And I'm not painting everything red. If you bothered to read my posts, I said have a cross section of those races from butt ugly to attractive. It's the same with humans. You should also have attractive and non-attractive humans. Same with non-humans. Having entire non-human race in games anthropomorphised and sexualised seems far from reality as you can get. They say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" But we also need to be realistic, a Romance experience is also about the fact that for most promancers you have to identify with the person you are Romancing. Part of identifying is being "attracted" to your potential Romance partner. So those photos you posted of the orc's are the same as the photo's of the aliens, they are just not attractive. And I would be surprised that any promancer would consider them a prospective Romance partner? That's what you seem to be missing, you keep being surprised or disappointed that the Dev's are pandering to players around NPC aesthetics. My point is its not pandering as part of the foundation of Romance is attraction, so in fact the Devs are doing the prudent thing around game design in this respect. We shouldn't be criticising them but acknowledging this as it makes perfect sense?

Yes. Also of course you can get lost. I was totally lost so I went with level 11 to hunters Edge and had a hart time there. After Silvreglen I did not know where to go so I went exploring XD But I think you guys are misunderstanding Monte, he doesn't mean lost in the literal and negative sense. IMO he is making a metaphorical point around getting "lost" and its more about exploring and seeing exciting things outside the main quest, its a positive experience

Oh so romance is all about looks eh? Ugly aliens do not deserve love? THIS JUST PROVES THE SHALLOWNESS OF THE PROMANCERS. I may not be totally serious there.

I think it depends on what your definition of immersion is, for me MMO do offer an immersive experience. And I'm not intentionally being argumentative, I truly believe that

False. What you claim is a fallacy. No on is forcing Israel to bomb houses. To claim tis' the ONLY outcome and that someone else is responsible for you pulling the trigger is nothing more than guilt projection. "You made me do it" is the worst argument when it's clear that you didn't really have to do it. Are you honestly claiming that bombing the area the rocket came from the the ONLY reasonable response one can take? Really? By using THAT logic Isreal FORCED those people to shoot the rockets. Wanna go further down the guilt chain? Also, palestinans are not Hamas. I agree with you in the sense the bombings are not the right strategy. They should have sent in ground troops, more difficult for them but ultimately the right way to minimize casualties

That sounds really fun and is something I don't think I have experienced in ages, the idea of being "lost off the main story" and not really even caring that much

I was also talking about crpgs in general and the same principal applies to PoE. Another race in PoE would be alien to you. We can only guess at the biological nature of the races in Eora. Perhaps Josh can enlighten us with his world building and inform the community if a Human and Orlan have the capacity to mate. Perhaps the Orlans have a different physiology underneath their clothes and humans can't have sex with them. If you're playing a human and you have an Orlan in your party, that Orlan would probably be alien to you in terms of sexual intercourse, if it is even possible. And the Orlan probably wouldn't want a human trying to have sex with them. Romanceable NPCs are usually anthropomorphised and sexualised for the player even if the NPC isn't human. This is very common in crpgs. They always have 'human features' to try and make the player feel attracted to that NPC. That's not realism. If you were to try and make a game more 'realistic', you wouldn't always have the most attractive types of races in your party. That's just pandering to the player. You should have a cross section of those races from butt ugly to attractive. In D&D terms, the picture should reflect the Charisma of the NPC and their interactions in the game world, including the interactions between party members. I'd like to see NPCs reflect a cross section of their races and not the idealised and attractive. You would have a deep friendship with your companions, you would care for them and they would for you. But romancing wouldn't come up. But the friendship is there. Deep and meaningful. There's even TV shows and movies that have this theme with the human and some other race working together. Of course friendship should always exist amongst the party. But you and I have had this debate before where we agreed on what would be acceptable Romance options based on the physiology of a potential Romance partner and I explained the Romance interest is normally based on humanoid creature. So no centaurs, broodmothers, beholders or similar creatures as they aren't humanoid so the intimacy part of Romance would be illogical. But dwarfs, elves, orcs, drow, fairies these are acceptable Romance options Also the main reason I don't like those aliens is that they are ugly, that's the reality. I have nothing against aliens as we know from the ME games where there are loads of attractive aliens. So this is more a questions of aesthetics when it comes to humanoid aliens and can you Romance them

One of the problems with crpgs and romances, especially with romance with aliens is the anthropomorphism and sexualisation of those aliens. This is not realism at all. We have no idea what an alien would look like. Also, having sex with an alien would likely be just as repulsive for the alien as it is for you, unless you like sick and twisted sex. But then that wouldn't go down well for the promancers if those aliens weren't made to have human characteristics would it? If aliens like the ones below were in your party, would you feel attracted to them, romance them and have sex with them? Because these NPCs could be just as 'realistic' as any other type of NPC you come across in a game. Nope I don't find those aliens attractive at all, but what have aliens got to do with Romance in PoE?

"Survivors are unlikely"......the plane was shot down 10 km up by a missile Come on guys, this may be a forum dedicated to a fantasy game but lets try to sometimes discuss things that are at least feasible..at least in the Off Topic section?

Don't be silly Hassat, there are no survivors and these search parties are normal to get everything associated with these types of crashes.

Don't joke I'm sure that's exactly what will happen if the Russians get to it first You've implied far more than that. And you don't know what you're talking about. I never justified anything. A plane shouldn't have been where a Buk-M1 was lost by Ukrainian millitary weeks ago. It's a fact, not a justification. Someone in charge of this messed up, it's not just the rebels who predictably shoot at everything that flies over them. So lets focus on your accusation, what exactly "do I not know what I'm talking about " That's the plance was shot down by Ukrainian separatists or the Russians have the flight recorder? The implication that which you agreed with that Russia will take the black box and do something nefarious with it like hide it and what's on it. Not only you don't know this but it looks like Russia doesn't even want to keep it at least officially. So perhaps hasty conclusion even there. Fair enough, I did suggest that Russia may have ulterior motives in keeping the black box. But now I don't see why they would keep the black box as the shooting down of the plane was done by Ukrainian separatists. But lets see where the black box ultimately ends up and who analyses its contents. All interested parties should have access to it

I saw this on Steam on special and I'm thinking about buying it as well ?

I don't think anyone has ever said or suggested that every single party member will be romantically attracted to the main character. All I'm saying is that adversity can bring people closer and its not unrealistic to suggest this won't necessarily lead to a natural Romance Are you sure that there is no healing magic in the PoE world, if so then yes one would have to be cautious around inordinate sexual behaviour And it's also perfectly natural to not be attracted to somebody whom you are travelling with. Yes Nonek but if you are attracted to a NPC and vice versa and you are living with the reality that each day may be your last during some epic quest where the fate of the entire world possibly rests on your shoulders and you spend many nights around a campfire discussing your own mortality and the vicissitudes of life would you concede that Romance is going to develop...or at least be very likely?

I don't think anyone has ever said or suggested that every single party member will be romantically attracted to the main character. All I'm saying is that adversity can bring people closer and its not unrealistic to suggest this won't necessarily lead to a natural Romance Are you sure that there is no healing magic in the PoE world, if so then yes one would have to be cautious around inordinate sexual behaviour

STD would always be a concern due to licentious behaviour but this is mitigated by the fact that magic can basically be used to heal any ailment....so no need to worry Nonek

So you're for the 'lets have sex now as this might be our last day living' type of cliché. lol. And that's all it is. A cliché. No thanks. Well this is one part of a Romance arc. Having sex with party members on an epic journey is not unreasonable considering the bonds that would be formed around points like the fact that party members are prepared to die for you, have faced death with you, you have an emotional connection with them and you are attracted to them. In fact I would argue that to suggest there wouldn't be a physical connection is unrealistic? And you know me Hiro. I'm all about realism, where possible, when it comes to a RPG

Wowzers dude that was quick, do you keep website links in your favourites folder for your browser for exactly this moment so that you can destroy someone's dreams and aspirations

finally, now it all makes sense. I can just ignore everything you post from this point on, thanks for clarifying that. Why would you ignore what he is saying? If you disagree with him then explain why....that's the purpose of debate and forums

I am the eternal optimist, what if Obsidian is actually going to include Romance in PoE and they just didn't want to spoil the excitement? Like the fact we know nothing about the story of PoE?

The three kidnapped teenagers have nothing to do with Hamas. Israel is primarily not targeting any rockets. You know, these ("Qassam" homebrew rockets) are small things which are as easy to set up as a mortar. If Israel say they their attacks on civilians have anything to do with rocket attacks, that means they are firing on houses near sources of rocket fire, when the Hamas members who fired the rockets have already ran away. Alternatively, which seems to be their current way of doing this, Israel will bomb houses they think someone who has fired rockets has entered. Hamas is typically not firing their rockets from inside houses if that is what you think If I say I will kill all your relatives if another, unrelated, South African fires a rocket from somewhere in your neighbourhood which lands outside my house, who is the murderer when I kill all your relatives? I would leave you to answer that question. Hamas is an extremist organization. I don't particularly care about their specific beliefs as I don't support them. They are a symptom of the terrible conditions in Gaza and the tragic Palestinian recent history. Nelson Mandela was a "despicable terrorist" before his release and the abolition of apartheid in South Africa (and yes, I'm sure there were lots of rotten eggs in the ANC). Israel was founded by terrorists who drove out the British by killing both soldiers and civilians. Ireland gained independence while terrorists were fighting for it. Hitler was a vegetarian. The Black Panthers fought against racism against blacks in the US. Whenever there is a fight, there is also going to be both nice guys and idiots who are fighting. Before this whole debacle, Hamas had an approval rating of about 20%. Their last spike of popularity was in connection to Israel's last violent streak in Gaza. Focussing on idiotic things Hamas have said is that saying blacks can't have equal rights because the Black Panthers are a violent group. You must ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS focus on the injustices, not who is fighting for what. Focusing on a statement about a country's "right to exist" is a red herring. North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship - I don't support it's right to exist. Israel is an ethnocracy built on the expulsion of "unwanted" natives - I don't support it's right to exist. BUT, this is only with regards to the states as concepts. I sympathize with the poor people who live in these nations and who are forced to endure the complete bull**** of these countries every day. Saying that you don't support a country's "right to exist" makes it sound like if you are going to procure a wizard's hat and just make the country and all it's inhabitants disappear. Obviously there are people in Hamas who would like to kick out of Palestine as many Jews as they can, but supporting or not supporting a country's right to exist is not fundamentally a problem. I am completely cool with anyone saying that they don't support the "right of Israel to exist as a colonial settler-state in it's current form". I am not at all cool with anyone who says they don't support the "right of Israel's citizens to exist". But those are fundamentally different things, and Hamas should be pressed only on the latter point. Forcing them to agree to Israel's right to exist, without specifying what they mean by that, is like forcing Gandhi to recognize the British Empire (note the latter word) to exist. Obviously he wouldn't, because he didn't support colonialism and imperialism. But that does not mean he would not recognize the right of any Englishman to exist. This is all really just mostly a silly fight over the exact meaning of a sentence. Personally, I would support a party who is prepared to 1) recognize equal rights of all people, regardless of ethnicity and religion 2) recognize that no people has an inherent right to any piece of land 3) recognize that in recent history, Israel has been brutally occupying and uprooting Palestinians and stealing their land, and this wound has to be healed. You have made some thought provoking points I guess the issue around the Israeli reaction to what Hamas is doing is collective punishment which doesn't help the situation, how does Israel select the buildings that they bomb? I was under the impression these were places where rockets were being fired from?

Spot on. No side is perhaps ever 100% innocent in any conflict, by defining "innocence" not as a discrete variable but over a continuous spectrum. But by portraying of the conflict between Gazan terrorists and Israel as a conflict between two equals, who are roughly equally culpable, you risk becoming a "useful idiot", like the teacher who puts both the bully and the victim in detention "because it's never one person's fault that two people are quarrelling". One party consists of 1,6 million people (a small angry subgroup of which fire home-made rockets), most of which has been ethnically cleansed from their homeland by the other party, recent immigrants who are sponsored each year with 3 billion dollars worth of weapons by the USA, which they use to protect themselves while they continually steal land from the other party. I think we both agree that the bombing of Dresden was perhaps barbaric and unnecessary, but it would still be absolutely ridiculous to hold Britain equally culpable for WW2 as Germany. So it's entirely possible that one part commits an atrocity, but still has the moral high ground over another party. The fact that both parts do bad stuff does not translate to that they are equally culpable. The difference of what Hamas (which does not represent all Palestinians...) has been doing to Israel and what Israel has been doing to all Palestinians for over 50 years now is one of several orders of magnitude. It's the same tendency of someone commenting that "You shouldn't say that the Jews were completely defenceless during WW2... They did organize the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, you know". Yes, technically correct, but completely misleading. Nobody has been saying that Palestinians are innocent angels who have never hurt a fly. I'm just saying that, say, if China designated your homeland to be the homeland of Muslim Uyghurs (or Pakistanis, or whatever...), and if these later arrived to evict you and everyone you know from England to declare their "Muslim nation" there in place of what was there before, all with the tacit approval of the current world powers, then you would think you'd have the right to resist that with violence, I'm 100% sure. And I know of several right-wing members of this forum who are saying they support Israel, who I'm sure would never stand being ethnically cleansed to make place for the "chosen people" to live on their "promised land" (whatever land or people that might be) without a fight. In current events, as you probably all know by now, the conflict has taken another shocking and unexpected turn of events: the first Israeli has now been killed by a Hamas mortar, an IDF soldier close to the Gazan border. Meanwhile, 246 Palestinians have been killed, most of them civilians, in Israeli efforts to demolish houses and infrastructure. 246-1. That's a good post and raises some irrefutable considerations But let me ask you two different questions, firstly anyone who is trying to be reasonable in this debate needs to recognise that there is massive difference in loss of Palestinian and Israeli causalities. 4 ( counting the 3 Israeli teenagers ) vs 250 so your immediate response may be "wow that just highlights the heavy handiness of the Israelis and there complete disregard for human life " But Hamas fires there rockets knowingly from densely populated areas where there citizens live. I am of the opinion that Hamas knows that there will heavy casualties and part of there strategy is to use the loss of lives as propaganda and to generate support and sympathy. But who is really to blame for the loss of lives? Israel which we know will retaliate or Hamas for creating a situation where the only outcome will be loss of civilian lives as that is where the rockers get fired from? Also Hamas still has not recognised that Israel has a right to exist, so how do you negotiate with such intransigence ?

You have raised a good point and one that I have often raised in the justification for Romance in a RPG and I want to add to your point. It is not only completely reasonable but expected that when people face death or dangerous circumstances many people do turn to sexual intimacy as a coping mechanism So in your typical RPG adventure where you have this party of people trying to save the world or facing some diabolical and powerful demigod where everyday could be there last why wouldn't Romance naturally develop? Especially if people are attracted to each other? This to me is one of the obvious reason to include Romance from a realism perspective.

You've implied far more than that. And you don't know what you're talking about. I never justified anything. A plane shouldn't have been where a Buk-M1 was lost by Ukrainian millitary weeks ago. It's a fact, not a justification. Someone in charge of this messed up, it's not just the rebels who predictably shoot at everything that flies over them. So lets focus on your accusation, what exactly "do I not know what I'm talking about " That's the plance was shot down by Ukrainian separatists or the Russians have the flight recorder?