BruceVC

Please don't do that. Its more than a little rude to ascribe meaning to the statements of others without attempting to engage them to get a better sense of what they are trying to say. Anywho, I can't speak for others, but I love the fact there are no romances because the ones I have seen in games have been incredibly fake and they turn party discussions into a bad highlight reel of a high fantasy version of the Bachelor. God, that was the absolute WORST part of BG2. Having Aerie whine and cry about her damn wings, Jaheira go on and on about her dead hubbie and Viconia being the hurt outsider.. and having to suffer through all that poorly written mess just to find out it was Biowares poor attempt at bringing a Japanese dating sim to American shores when each of them tried to have a go at my character. That sucked me out of my game experience very very quickly. It turned all my joinable NPCs into datable NPCs. When I am running about, trying to save creation from apocalypse, should the primary means of developing kinship with my party members be a damn dating sim? Its stupid. Its just plain stupid. What shocked me even more was all the damn dating sim mods that came out for BG2. Some sick bastards even made incest mods so you could freaking romance your SISTER. There is no accounting for taste. Those people will probably be able to modify the game files and make their own twisted romances to their heart's delight but, thankfully, Obsidian won't be wasting development time on that adolescent rubbish. I appreciate your response, sorry if I was generalizing But I want to ask you a question, do you generally partake in Romance in games or do you ignore them and focus on other aspects of party interaction?

I find this sentiment interesting, because I personally have no interest in playing an "evil" character. Evil quest paths and the like will be game content that I never see if it is included. However, I recognize there are people out there that love "evil" stuff, and so I'd never say it shouldn't be included because I personally don't like it. I am kinda curious why people don't take a similar approach to in game romance. well, some o' this is having an obvious answer. raise your hand if you has ever encounter a game npc that simply annoyed you or tried your patience past endurance? everybody? maybe you didn't choose the, "slip a dagger between his ribs" option, but the fact it were there were enticing, and perhaps you even utilized such options on subsequent replays of the game. ironically, evil options makes choosing the bright and shiny path more palatable for Gromnir. that being said, some o' the inherent flaws with evil is indeed same as romance-- some. evil typically gets done as impulse driven and psychotic. this is done for gaming reasons. each evil act is, perhaps necessarily, insular. if you is gonna have the opportunity to good next time encounter, the evil you do in this one must be limited in scope. also, as developers wants you, the player, to embrace the illusion that you is making the choices and moving the action forward, it is difficult to create smart evil. what we mean is, smart evil is gonna have a plan, but how do developers give evil players a chance to plan? even if developers does work a clever evil plan into a game somehow, it is gonna be the developer's plan and that is possibly gonna annoy players. as such, one great flaw o' romance is same as evil-- it is insular. but to answer big question o' why we is seeing abandonment o' romance as a positive, that too should be obvious at this point. is many features in games we is unlikely to ever use. the aforementioned evil is one, though we has played evil in past. there is likely gonna be weapons and spells n' such we never use. chances are there is features in the game that even after a dozen replays we will have no interest in exploring, but we don't begrudge their inclusion. so why is romance different? because romance can't be good. we like romance in stories, and that is the problem. as an insular and tangential companion side quest, we can envision no way to improve such romances significantly. best writing in the world won't overcome what we see as insurmountable hurdles. results, regardless o' the best intentions o' the writers, will be juvenile and insulting. is not like druids or dual-wield flails or other such stuff we is unlikely to make use of in multiple replays, 'cause romances can't be considerable better than we sees now from bioware, and to us that guarantees their suckage. we may never play a druid, but we don't see the resources used to implement them as a waste. however, if we knew with absolute certainty that the time resources going into the inclusion would be better used so that cain or avellone could take up salsa dancing (perhaps together) on the company dime, then that would be wasteful, no? am not in favor o' including features that must necessarily be bad, 'cause those same resources could be used to improve the game in other ways. HA! Good Fun! I still don't buy what you are saying Gromnir. You are a highly intelligent and analytical person, I have seen you debate for days specific game features and make convincing arguments based on an impressive understanding of RPG from your exposure to gaming. Yet when you are asked to say 5 things that you like about PoE all you can think of for one of your reasons is that there "wont be Romance" ?? Out of all the real positive things you can say you mention something that isn't even relevant to the discussion. I really expected something more insightful than that from you Gromnir. IMO people that say " No Romance " in PoE for a Pro are saying it more to get a reaction than it being a valid reason that they think PoE is going to be a great game

I also liked Boo, he was cute Don't be embarrassed about saying you like Romance, there are many people who like Romance and enjoy there implementation in a RPG. It just seems to be politically incorrect on these forums to say that. But the promancer army is alive and well

I agree with most of what you are saying in this post , yet you still seem to be in denial about the impact that the sanctions had in preventing Russia from further interference in Ukraine? Is it that you don't think sanctions can effect a countries economy and cause them to rethink political strategy?

How was it ?

Gromnir this has been discussed already but its weird to say you think no Romance is a Pro. Romance is optional in an RPG, so if you are opposed to Romance you just wouldn't partake in it. Its like saying you see the implementation of Thievery as a Con, well guess what? Just don't play a Thief.

I am very happy with the results of the 2 games, the USA and Germany both get through

Fair enough, the reality is no one can say with certainty how important Romance is or isn't around Bioware games because we just don't have the statistics. I could say there is a vociferous group of Promancers on BSN that do the Romance cause proud but I can't how much they represent in the overall fanbase But I can say that by not having Romance certain people won't bother playing an RPG and will stick to Bioware games that include Romance

Take care I'm very envious, its going to be a trip of a lifetime. I look forward to the photos

Can you provide some links to support that because I don't believe it. Romance is one of main reasons that a large segment of Bioware fans support there games. But I can't say its the only reason because many people would still buy there games if Romance was excluded. I guess you would have to do a poll where you have 4 factors and you ask people to rate them in order of significance around what is the most important consideration when they buy an RPG? Romance would obviously be one of the four

Yeah they such cuddly and endearing critters

I agree, I felt bad in AC3....I killed loads of wolves and sometimes it didn't feel right

Let's just agree to disagree about the "BG2 is written for teenagers" issue. I would rather he retracted that comment, its actually a little condescending for people like me who thought BG2 was the best RPG I have ever played. It implies that people who loved BG2 have a juvenile understanding and perspective of enjoyment Sorry Sensuki, you probably didn't mean it like that but that's how I am interpreting what you are really saying

Okay good post, I was in love with Viconia so I gladly accepted her advances and she eventually bore my child. I never even considered what saying "no" may mean

Is that really true? I remember in DA2 I told Anders I just wanted to be friends and I don't remember any issues, he may have sulked ...but he was still in my party and played an active role in combat. I don't think he asked again, so in 50 hours of gameplay I didn't consider a 3 minute dialogue with him as intrusive or a game flaw....what am I missing? For the most part it's not true at all. However in DA:O it's very easy to trigger a romance with Leliana after doing her companion quest with fairly innocuous dialogue choices. /end off topic Fair enough I didn't have Leliana in my party so I wasn't aware of that, but as you mentioned that's more of an isolated Romance development ?

Sorry to hear

Is that really true? I remember in DA2 I told Anders I just wanted to be friends and I don't remember any issues, he may have sulked ...but he was still in my party and played an active role in combat. I don't think he asked again, so in 50 hours of gameplay I didn't consider a 3 minute dialogue with him as intrusive or a game flaw....what am I missing?

See the various romance threads. It is a pro for a lot of people including myself to not have them in the game. And it was more to do with some quests not triggering in BG2 and not so much DA:O. Just because you choose not to romance doesn't mean a non-romance quest for that NPC shouldn't start. It's quite odd when you have games with NPC side quests that have nothing to do with romances, you choose not to romance and then their backstory is now closed. And they simply shut up and stay silent. Can't you just be friends with the NPC instead of romancing them? And helping a friend out with their side quest? Anyway, I don't want to see this turn into another romance topic. Some people like romances, others don't. Nothing odd about it. Sorry Hiro but I agree with Mannock on this, I find it odd that you listed "no romances forced on you" as a pro. And I also question the view that Romance is forced on you in any RPG and that if you don't partake then you are penalized somehow by not gaining "a good chunk of XP". In BG2 I Romanced Viconia and apart from interesting dialogue the only side quest was a battle with followers of Lolth when I defended her. That doesn't constitute something major that I would have missed out on. I may have forgotten what other side quests were associated with Romancing Viconia?

Gromnir what about a situation where someone uses a skill but doesn't expect a use, would you consider that a cause of possible frustration?

I don't particularly dislike anyone but that doesn't mean we don't engage in debates and arguements

Same as me, but what I find is I am use to quick problem solving. So I tend to be lazy with the puzzle solving process, but if I apply myself then I generally come right I remember in Darksiders in the beginning I mostly used walkthroughs to solve the puzzles

Wow, I just win with you hey Hiro. You didn't need to set the record straight as I explained I was wrong and I realized you were serious about the discussion of homophobia in Uganda.

Thankfully the menacing dog was not interested in our cargo, Wowzers...that must have been nerve-wracking Imagine if they had found all that crystal you were keeping for the evitable road trip partying that comes later

Ah okay. So you basically jump to conclusions. And if you're not sure, you immediately think I'm trolling? Nice little judgemental admission you made there. And homophobia in Uganda? WTF? Where did that come from? I mean, wow. just wow. And where have I been dismissive of homophobia in Uganda? I never have. But nice trying to suggest I was. Looking at the Uganda thread, I was calling you out on you downplaying corrective rape in South Africa. You said it wasn't common. I responded and linked an article which suggests it does seem to be common and after a page or two of going back and forth, you finally admitted and said, "Corrective rape happens in South Africa, the article is correct". I know you're nationalistic about South Africa and always want to jump on the bandwagon on how progressive South Africa is but when someone posts something that's terrible in your country, you shouldn't be all 'oh that's not common' and downplay it. That's just an insult to all those women who are effected by it. And it wasn't me that brought up corrective rape in the thread. I was responding to your downplaying of the issue to another poster. So when I asked questions in this thread like wouldn't it be better to ask women on how women are portrayed in games, you immediately think I'm trolling? Which is why it took so many posts with your dodging and weaving and avoiding the question for you to finally answer the question. Perhaps it's best to not immediately think people are trolling and just answer questions when they are very simple questions. Only one person (Orogun01) answered the question about Obsidian taking pointers from Bioware and going down the route that Bioware has done and I can certainly understand Orogun01's concerns for Obsidian not to do Bioware style rpgs. But then it's just easy for some to troll my posts like AGX-17 has done, eh. My friend you are very defensive. I said "I thought " you were being dismissive about the rise of homophobia in Uganda. That means I was wrong But no I didn't think you were trolling in this thread which was why I responded. But the reality is people outside of me do think you troll sometimes which is why they don't always respond in the way you expect. This is the perception that exists for some and answers your questions where you asked "why can't people answer a simple question " Don't shoot the messenger for giving you a possible explanation to your question