BruceVC

You know I'm not big on conspiracies but if you direct a civilian aircraft through a zone where you've lost multiple planes including at high altitude and where you know rebels shoot at anything that flies above (it's not like they can tell) you're either very negligent... or you're manufacturing an incident. The fact that the Ukrainian rebels shot down the plane from such a high altitude is very rare, so there haven't been other examples Also the Russians do have the flight recorder, why when I pointed this out did why you say " I don't know what I'm talking about" This thread always brings out the worst justifications and excuses from people in there support for Russia or the Ukrainian rebels. You guys need to learn just to accept certain things and not look for some conspiracy theories. IMO the plane was shot down by the Ukrainian rebels thinking it was a transport plane helping the Ukrainians

You sir, are a true patriotic american. we don't want for bad stuff to happen to her. well, perhaps a severe case o' laryngitis so she can't sing would be an ill we would wish 'pon her. also, we would hope that somebody would teach her how to use a bow. her form is complete wrong. how tough is it to get her to keep her elbow up, pull back to mouth or chin, and hold longbows at a 45 degree angle? am joking o' course. wanting realism in combat is kinda silly. ... am kinda serious 'bout the laryngitis though. HA! Good Fun! Hi Gromnir "waves" Welcome back, where have you been?

Yeah at times it does seem illogical

That's a good post and an interesting Romance idea

Don't joke I'm sure that's exactly what will happen if the Russians get to it first

I am gobsmacked. Ok, let me see if I can sum up this discussion we're having. 1) I spend the better part of 12 pages condemning the very concept of video game romances. 2) You then ask me to describe a romance that I would like to see in a video game. 3) I repeat my assertions that I dislike the very concept of video game romances. 4) You insist that I do it anyway 5) So I describe a scenario of a "romance" who's sole purpose is to be a deliberate mockery of video game romances 6) In a fit of (admitted) rudeness, you conclude that. . . . .I must be one of those guys who does not like video game romances. Damn, I hate it when I get "gotcha'ed". LOL Fair enough, good points I have to say your post is one of the funniest posts I have read in a while, I do see the contradictions and pointlessness in what I was asking ...

Rofl! I don't care, Bruce. That would kinda defeat the purpose, wouldn't it. Part of its appeal would be that it's something fresh and totally unlike anything ever done before in a video game. But if you're in desperate need of a mental image... imagine Sandal meets Broodmother, with Planescape torment-like dialogue choice screens for its delivery system. That's what I thought, your idea of a good Romance arc is something that doesn't exist and hasn't ever been implemented before. You may as well suggest your idea of a good Romance arc is no Romance because for all practical purposes that's what you are suggesting and this is suppose to be a thread where we discuss the merits of Romance Sorry if I sound rude but once again I'm just being honest

One that deliberately mocks the entire concept of video game romances... and does it via dry wit. Interestingly enough, Obsidian has the perfect writer on their staff for such an undertaking. Chris Avellone. Sorry that's not an answer that makes sense to me, maybe you can give me an example of a game where this has been implemented before? I prefer to dwell in the world of practical examples...not Never Neverland case studies

LOL There is no Dionarra romance arc in planescape torment. The game presents her to you as irreversibly DEAD. And last I checked, not even the committed promancers are into Necrophilia. Can you answer the question, what would be an acceptable Romance arc in a RPG?

I'm afraid I don't quite understand you. Could you define what you mean by "gimmick" in this context? I'll try. Ok, first off, The game does not let you romance Deionarra. She's dead before you begin it. But the game does let you talk to her ghost, and her dad, and read her journals, and find her ring, and experience her sensory stone. But none of that is for the purpose of "romancing her". It's for the purpose of rubbing your nose in the pure douchebaggery of one of your past incarnations. But it's not really necessary, because the game already does a good job reminding you, over and over and over and over, that you used to be a Douchebag. Deionarra is just there to add that extra 'I treated her like crap and I regret it now' element/dimension that many people think a personal story must have to be all edgy and emotionally deep. Wow that's very cynical considering how popular the Deionarra Romance arc is amongst people who aren't even committed Promancers, it seems like you would only be happy if there was no implementation or interpretation of any Romance in a RPG? So lets approach this a different way, what would be your definition of an acceptable Romance arc in a RPG?

It has raised "only" $48 million, and offers alien languages as stretch goal in $50 million. But still quite impressive. Yeah I know but no need to nitpick The point is more around the incredible amount of money that has been raised

I'm interested, if that lady is a ho how do you refer to the boss?

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/07/16/star-citizen-raises-48-million-future-stretch-goal-promises-alien-languages/ This is impressive, Star Citizen has raised $50 million and offers alien languages. Wowzers

Both. Conceptually, there's not a whole lot of difference between a friendship in an RPG and a romance in an RPG, except that the latter requires the usual expressions of affection, like "I love you too!", or an ESRB-policed sex scene, or the uncanny valley of 2 avatars kissing and hugging. And none of these add anything to a video game that a mature adult gamer would equate with "depth". Thus romances in video games are little more than a gimmick... a gimmick that can cause damage to the game's integrity. But the real problem is that they're a rather expensive gimmick and development studios adjust their budgets accordingly when choosing to put them into a game. I'd rather that money and time go elsewhere... into fundamental game features, not gimmicks. This type of view is why we never seem to find any kind of middle ground, if you can't at least try to understand that Romance is not some sort of "gimmick" for promancers then we will never agree on anything Its this dismissive nature that just because in your opinion there haven't been meaningful Romance implementations in the past that must mean there can't be any meaningful Romance in the future I find counterproductive to reasonable debate Also this biased view that somehow optional Romance impacts the integrity of the game....wow you talk about hyperbole. Can you give examples where the general consensus of a gaming community or where gaming journalists have made statements like "this game was ruined because of Romance"? I get you don't approve of Romance but your post is laughable with its relevancy, sorry Stun nothing personal. Just being honest

@ Hiro and Stun Lephys makes a lot of good points, maybe you should read carefully what he says without disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. Just a thought

Interesting post, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly Are you saying in DA2 that the flirtatious comments from party members towards Hawke basically only accentuated the Romance relationship at the expense of other emotions and experiences you may have had towards a particular NPC? No, what I'm saying is that the player's ability to control their PC was challenged by the game having the NPC flirt with the player - sometimes even past being turned down. The NPCs didn't give the player an ability to navigate the relationship before being hit on, thus a negative reception. Okay I see what you are saying, I didn't have this issue or think the flirting was inordinate because I obviously embrace that type of interaction. But I can see how that would be annoying

Interesting post, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly Are you saying in DA2 that the flirtatious comments from party members towards Hawke basically only accentuated the Romance relationship at the expense of other emotions and experiences you may have had towards a particular NPC?

That's unusual but appreciated input, I'll keep that in mind

Well I think romance can add a unique connection to a story or character; I think a well written other relationship can do the same. A lot of it, from a storytelling perspective, is that its going to depend a lot on the player's definition of character and the definition of the NPC. To me the important thing for any relationship is they're well thought out, well implemented and ideally such that they do not sublimate the NPC to work. That's a good post and on most levels I agree with it. But where we differ is I still say that Romance creates a unique connection to your party members that other types of relationships don't. But this is only in the RP sense and how you imagine your characters journey, trials and tribulations. This is not something you can easily define in the literal sense In other words its important that the option exists to Romance even if the dialogue options around friendship and Romance are very similar. This may sound confusing and I can explain it in more detail if necessary

After finishing Legends of Grimrock I am going to take a quick break from fantasy gaming and start on Far Cry 2 tomorrow night. I loved Far Cry 3 and heard number 2 is also very good

What if I bought you the game as a present because I want you to experience the excitement like the rest of us, would you accept it?

I agree, Chechens have a history of brutality even amongst the ranks of Islamic fundamentalists

I'm going to buy this game, its a good price on GOG

Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really? So...wouldn't that mean you're being cheated of the obviously superior PC-NPC relationship if you can't romance every companion at the same time (as exclusivity would require that you miss superior romance relationships)? In a RPG this shouldn't make a major difference as the dialogue options are more or less similar if you Romance or don't Romance. But if you choose to not Romance someone or you attempt to Romance someone and fail you may be cheated out of certain quests or developments, like the Lolth attack on Viconia in BG2 that I believe was Romance initiated But end of the day the Romance option is more of RP development that shouldn't penalize a person who chooses not to participate O..kay? So a romance is "always...deeper and ... more meaningful" but it "shouldn't make a major difference" and "shouldn't penalize a person who chooses not to participate"? Isn't that contradictory? Its either deeper and more meaningful - and thus superior, or its just a different, equally viable alternative relationship, surely? In other words, you didn't answer the question posed to you. You dodged it. We weren't discussing marriage and kids. And citing marriage as "proof" that romances are always deeper, or even potentially deeper is really silly, since most romances don't result in marriage anyway, and even the ones that do aren't necessarily deeper than a good friendship. The point remains. All Relationships run the entire spectrum of depth. We've all had friends we value more than some of the people we've dated. And vise versa. Therefore, your claim that Romance is always deeper is false. I have been thinking about what you guys are saying and I am going to change what I originally said. Romance doesn't always mean the relationship is deeper or more meaningful. Thanks for helping me understand that, I was wrong But of course in the context of an RPG I still maintain that Romance adds to a more immersive and memorable RP experience with your party members

Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really? So...wouldn't that mean you're being cheated of the obviously superior PC-NPC relationship if you can't romance every companion at the same time (as exclusivity would require that you miss superior romance relationships)? In a RPG this shouldn't make a major difference as the dialogue options are more or less similar if you Romance or don't Romance. But if you choose to not Romance someone or you attempt to Romance someone and fail you may be cheated out of certain quests or developments, like the Lolth attack on Viconia in BG2 that I believe was Romance initiated But end of the day the Romance option is more of RP development that shouldn't penalize a person who chooses not to participate