Merin

With 305 people having voted (at the time I did the calculations,) here's where we stand in the non-scientific, practically meaningless for any purpose save taking the temperature of those on the Obsidian forums who cared to voted in this poll... 1. Feelings on romance in cRPGs? Enjoys romances most of the time (or more): 53.11% Doesn't enjoy romances most of the time (or more): 23.61% Mixed (sometimes enjoy, sometimes don't): 18.69% Indifferent / Don't care: 4.59% You can keep the Mixed separate, team them up with Indifferent, or divide them equally between Enjoy and Doesn't... I'd probably keep them out of the thing entirely as they are effectively Indifferent for figuring out whether people like or don't overall. Regardless - 53% is a clear majority. again, of those who take the poll... but that's what we got 2. Quality of romance in cRPGs? Romances have been more bad than good (or worse): 45.25% Romances have been more good than bad (or better): 32.46% Mixed (sometimes bad, sometimes good): 19.67% No opinion: 2.62% Not as clear a result. Mixed, again, probably best to consider it negates itself. More think they were mostly bad than think they were mostly good. I don't think this is that surprising, but one thing to possibility take from this is that it's not a clear majority who think romances are mostly done badly. 3. Desire for romance in Project Eternity? Prefer romances in PE (up to need them): 56.39% Leave it up to Obsidian (including no preference, which is practically the exact same thing): 22.62% Prefer romances aren't in PE (up to abhor them): 20.98% This is surprising. More people want romance in the game than say they usually enjoy them - meaning you have some benevolent people crossing over for more inclusion. A very clear majority, especially when you compare 56.39% vs. 22.62% - that's almost a 34 point spread. Saying you have no preference is essentially the same as leaving it up to Obsidian, I just included it in the poll for completions sake (for those who want to vote - don't care - clearly on all three polls.) Those not wanting romance in PE (not any game, period, but PE specifically) are the very clear minority. ... of those who voted in this poll. It's a very interesting result. I actually expected romance to be more on the losing end... but that's what very loud, very repetitious voices can do... they can make the minority seem more numerous than they are. Of course the poll is still open, you never know if there will be some wild surge of votes that changes things.

Untrue. You can choose the color in which you want to **** up the galaxy. Which is a slight cosmetic difference in narration. And its not like the trilogy has some wonderful choices and consequences that are marred in the last minute by a lackluster finale - it was always always a narrow rail road from day one. You're preaching to the choir. I was merely being derisive. Okay, take the Mass Effect conversation over to a different forum, thanks.

The friendship with Garrus, I'll agree, is one of the best written I've seen in a game ever. One of the most meaningful and moving scenes in the entire series was Shepard and Garrus in ME3, in the Citadel shooting and drinking beers.

I've never used reddit, and I really don't want to learn how to... don't tempt me! EDIT - Dang it...

Man, all the cool interviews and such seem to happen at reddit lately. Reddit must love Kickstarter as much as Linux users.

Thank you. I tried my best.

The bioware community isn't bizzare because biowarian romances aren't unskippable (at worst they are thrown at your face in a uncomfortable and cheesy manner that is only surpassed by the 'romance' itself) - but rather that the bioware community seems more concerned about this sort of thing than the game itself. A mere mention of bioware doing something (it can totally be closing itself) springs 10 threads about possible stereotypes for love interests. .... Okay, this I can't deny. But BSN also has fine people still bashing their heads against a wall advocating for silent PC, despite all of BioWare telling them "ain't going to happen", so... yeah. There's also one of the most popular and long going threads (I don't know what incarnation it's on) which is "What are you listening to right now?" Fun thread to post in.

I wasn't attacking you, SqueakyCat, just the argument given. "When you come to the forums and daily see threads requesting something outside the classic approach" You didn't say BioWare in THAT post, no - though a post prior you did say something (in reference to me) about report functions on BSN, so you'll have to forgive me for connecting BioWare bashing with you. But the general argument against thist, that you are speaking of, comes with much gnashing of teeth over "sex in tents" or "the BioWare method" which, again, are not the focus of the thread, the poll, or the vast, vast majority of the "indifferent to pro" romance people. I again apologize if you felt like I was singling you out, it was not my attention to upset you. That said - my point has plenty of basis. Every single snide jab at BioWare or rude comment about people's personal lives is the basis of my point. The point being, again - "It is a straw man because there's not a majority, or even vocal minority, advocating for "tent sex" or "fapping material." At worst I've seen mentions by people that "it wouldn't bother me if there was sex depicted", but that's almost always in the same post that will also state "It wouldn't bother me if romances weren't included at all" as well as "I only want them if they are of good quality." It's darn near universal that nobody really wants Obsidian to include them if they don't fit their vision of the game." I guess the next thread needs that additional poll question: "Should BioWare's model serve as inspiration for Project Eternity?" That would be targeted immediately as "biased" and wouldn't possibly help anything. It would probably make things deteriorate faster as everyone quoted just that part as proof of some kind of grand conspiracy to get PE to be a hentai dating sim or some such nonsense.

But here's the rub - who is asking for BioWare style romances? I'm sure some people who voted would like them. Full disclosure - I don't nearly have the problem with them that some people seem to, I've enjoyed them well enough. But, then, I enjoyed stealth and combat in Alpha Protocol and apparently that makes my judgment skills impaired... But I've only seen the word BioWare or BSN appear in these threads as cautionary tales, at best, or subjects of ridicule, at worst. This is a straw man. I didn't put the word BioWare in any poll questions. I didn't give the option for BioWare style romances to be selected - except for Question 4, which I've not seen one person say they wanted BioWare style romances in response to the question. It is a straw man because there's not a majority, or even vocal minority, advocating for "tent sex" or "fapping material." At worst I've seen mentions by people that "it wouldn't bother me if there was sex depicted", but that's almost always in the same post that will also state "It wouldn't bother me if romances weren't included at all" as well as "I only want them if they are of good quality." It's darn near universal that nobody really wants Obsidian to include them if they don't fit their vision of the game. So all the fear of BioWare or tent sex or whatever is almost baseless. Almost. I'm not denying some people will want that. But it's not the "barbarians at the gate " that many of the people are trying to make it out to. It's not even close to equivalent. There are far more people harassing others and, against the Forum Guidelines, mercilessly bashing BioWare or David Gaider or the boogeyman okay, that last one was sarcasm. Or a metaphor?

I love the world changing and showing signs of what my character did. Sometimes the subtle stuff, like Fallout radio or newspapers in Arcanum, are the best kinds of signs. I'd be strongly for this.

just a gentle reminder... If you feel like someone is harassing you or attacking you for simply stating your opinion on the topic, it is probably better to not engage them. If you feel it is particularly egregious, use the report feature. I know it's hard not to respond... but nothing good can come from it. Nothing is gained from commenting on each other's personal lives and levels of maturity. and now back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

I'm not personally a fan of random encounters, especially if they happen too frequently and make traveling a pain. It's not a deal-breaker for me if they are included, but I've rarely felt they've added anything to my game - save the specially scripted encounters that happen randomly. And there's a distinction - randomly generated, never-ending random encounters is my concern. Scripted, unique encounters that happen at random times - that's fine with me.

It was, sort of. Given at the end of a session or campaign even, and, yes, XP was for killing things and for gold. So you got triplely rewarded for killing something: one, you got XP for it - two, you got loot from it - three, you got more XP for the gold value of the loot it carried. Clearly, focus was on killing things. And you really liked killing things that had loot. But D&D was, at the time, morphing out of table top war gaming, so this makes absolute sense. It hadn't evolved yet into being more about storytelling yet. Not until later editions.

I've been meaning to respond to this one for awhile, just hadn't take the time yet. My apologies if my responses have already been addressed in the thread overall and I just missed it. I'm not sure the concern is about being "broken" but, yes, any system can be poorly designed and/or implemented. The word, quest, might be problematic. Substitute encounter, goal, solution or any other synonym for "achieving something you set out to do." Putting aside whether or not the assertion that the stealth option in the given example IS superior... ... in a single player game does there need to be equality in effort per solution? Should the person who took the fighter and has to hack through a monster for minutes be rewarded more than the wizard who has a banishment spell that gets rid of the monster in a second? The effort is unequal, but the reward for defeating the monster remains the same. Or build - one player spends hours of game play getting their wizard's level and points spent to get their spell able to dispel a ward guarding a door and preventing it from being opened... and another has a thief who gets a thief-special item as a quest reward and that item lets him easily dispel wards locking doors. One player had to devote time and resources, the other got an item in the game simply for class choice. Is that a bug, or a feature? I'd argue for it being a feature. Maybe in a competitive game this would be an issue - but this isn't an MMO. Agreed. Arbitrary road blocks are extremely undesirable, especially if they are blatantly obvious. If the designers want you to not being able to stealth past certain situations, they need to design the stealth system from the get go to handle this. One possibility is needing cover, movement area outside of LOS of guards, and shadow - and if you want a door that isn't breachable by stealth then the door should be in a narrow area that is well lit. But most doors shouldn't be so placed, leaving stealth a viable option most of the time. Yes, exactly. And bringing it up in a thread like this is a good way to help prevent the problems. I think the issue is that "getting XP for doing what you want" will inevitably leave certain players feeling like there isn't enough of what they like to do to gain XP, but there's almost certainly going to be no lack of things to kill. Even if there's no random encounters, i.e. a specific set number of fights is all that is possible in the game, you can bet good money that the majority of what will be available to do in the game is fight stuff. Given that this is likely to be true, the stealthy players or the talkie players (or whatever) will feel significantly slighted. Honestly, how many games are out there where people try to build the charismatic or intelligent player only to find that Science is used like three times in the game or there's a total of three people you can talk to that your Speech skill gives you a bonus? Obsidian's better at this than most, but it still doesn't make it equal in their games. Far more stuff to kill New Vegas than there are computers to hack, after all. While the concept of a cRPG without XP or levels is intriguing, I don't think this is the project to experiment with that on. And for too many people (I'd include myself in this group) if their character doesn't change in some noticeable (GAME noticeable, not just head canon) ways, it doesn't feel like their character is growing and the game feels less like an RPG. --- Good thread. Hopefully it leads to more good discussions!

Increased difficulty levels is absolutely not my thing at all. At. All. That said, I'm all for it being included for those who want it. Thanks for the update!

What would make me pledge more? Me having more money to pledge with.

I think the vast majority of people posting in this (or any other thread of "do you want this or do you want that") want for Obsidian to make the game they want to make and do it well in the Obsidian way. But, as has been pointed out, they want our input. They want us to talk about what we want and don't want. They encourage it, ask for it, direct people to the forums here to do such. Does that mean they are waiting for our instructions on how to make their game? No. Does that mean they'll take polls and use that to focus-group what should and should NOT be in the game? No. But does it mean they'll take the temperature of the donators who take the time to voice what they want and then see what, in those ideas and wants, fits their vision of the game? Yes, probably. That is so not for them. That design has been around for about a couple years now, I believe, as it was an idea I had around the time either Alpha Protocol or New Vegas was released. Basically it's intended meaning is that what BioWare used to be praised for, choice in game and storytelling, Obsidian was doing much better and Obsidian should replace BioWare in prestige as one of the premiere cRPG developers. AND - it's tongue in cheek, mocking the whole "pink is the new black" trope. Shirt had zero, zippidity-doo-dah to do with romance. Nada. Of course, my explaining that will simply reaffirm to certain people that the shirt must absolutely be about promance and only came into existance in the last week or some such. Just like climate change is a hoax, evolution is "only a theory", and JFK was killed by a conspiracy between the mafia and the Russians.

After the first page or so I've not seen much discussion onf question 4 so I'll pose it again - And my answer - I'd, personally, prefer the romance to not be between the PC and the companions. If there is romance, it should be outside that dynamic. Some flirting, mutual attraction, whatever - if it is included, that's fine. But I'd rather see the romance in the background, at best, as part of the story you interact with, or between the PC and a few potential, non-companion, NPCs in the world. I think the vocal minority (as far as any of these polls and threads have shown, it's a minority voting no to romance at all) have as their most salient concern the waste of writing resources on companions, and this is a very real concern that I understand and sympathize with. If there is a writer assigned to a companion, any potential romance with said companion is more for the writer to have work on and weave into non-romance parts of the dialog at times as well. For those who want nothing to do with romance, or whom just might not want to romance a given character, that character will suddenly have less content and might feel a bit shallow compared to other companions. I don't think its a minority who hold that particular concern - I think most people posting in this thread want strong companions and no wasted writing. In any event, due to the small size of the game and the limit funds they have to work with, I am for romance being background, window dressing, part of the story around the character and their party... not integral, or even optional, for the PC and the companions. To sum up - romance should be part of the story of the game at some level, with characters you meet having their own relationships, perhaps some motivations of more important NPCs be tied up to romantic feelings, and maybe even some non-companion NPCs having the optional plot thread of a romance. But I don't want it to be a major part of the game, unless that is Obsidian's design goals, and I'd rather it not be romance with companions. --- Other thoughts on question 4? Do you want it with companions? Background? With your character or not? If you've already answered this, don't feel the need to reiterate. Just for those who might have missed it as they might have answered the poll questions and skipped my OP.

I must ask; who is David Gaider and why is he talking? Is he one of the writers for Dragon Age? From wikipeda -

The ponies... they burn....

This is hilarious: Well, I guess that saves Obsidian from having to dedicate 4 NPCs to being love interests. At BSN - .... and I suddenly feel a disturbance in the force.

You're right. I feel for all of the poor people who open the thread and see all of the comments against their will. I'm really not seeing what I'm assuming are the bad ones. I know the culprits, and they are on /ignore. It makes reading the thread REALLY easy.

Actually, no, the last one was closed this morning. They are doing their best to keep topics to one thread, merging multiples of the same thing, closing threads when they reach a certain post count. So this is now the only romance thread. Which I did mention, for the record. ---- In other news, I think if you look at the current results for question's 2 and 3, you see an interesting inversion. It'll be interesting to see if that remains true going forward.

Hopefully time enough has passed to try this again... and hopefully we can all stay on target and leave the personal attacks at home. Role-playing games are many different things to many different people. For some it's about stats and loot. Others see it about projecting themselves into a world and making decisions as they would. Still others want a great story, and feel that the interactivity that role-playing games generally provide allows for a deeper story. And for some, the RP matters little as it's the G that counts – they just want to play a game, win the game, and everything else is window dressing... or distraction. But there are also those who see the RP part to mean role-playing, as in creating a role for their character and guiding their character to act as they feel is according to their nature. For most who see the RP of RPG this way, they do not project themselves into the the characters... they divorce themselves from their character and try to play the character according to the personality and such they created. In general, two types of players tend to get along fairly well... the role-player who wants to create their character and have their character act accordingly, and the player who is looking for a great story to interact with. Both of those groups tend to be the ones who like romance in their game. Romance is so much part of the human condition, and every story is on some level about being human... so naturally romance is in almost every story. On top of this, rare is the actual fully realized character who has no desire for any sort of close companionship. The absolute loner is a rarity, and rarely portrayed well. In all but the most open of sandbox games they cannot interact well with the game world as they seek to avoid others. Romance in games is not for everyone. After all, what of those other types of players for RPGs? What does romance have to do with stats, loot or “winning”... and when romance tries to have anything to do with those things, this is when it usually gets really bad. Poorly written romances are as cringe worthy as poorly written villains or plot-hole ridden stories. ---- With this all in mind, I put forth a new poll for romances – since all the other threads are closed. I am doing my best to give enough options to represent a range of desires, and to word the options with as little personal bias as possible. I hope that this stimulates a reasonably useful poll and a positive, enlightening conversation where all sides have an equal say in a safe environment. I'd also like comments left - the forums limited it to three poll questions, and I had a fourth. I guess we'll go for short answer on it and I'll just pose it here - 4 - If Project Eternity does include romance, how do you want it implemented? some thoughts on the ways: just backstory and NPCs; player character with an NPC/NPCs; player character with companions; just amongst companions; flirting; platonic relationships... lots of ways it could be done, not just the PC on companions model (though, if that's what you want, go ahead and voice your desire for it) 4 is for whether you want romances or not, what you'd feel the best implementation would be. --- While I am just one more forum member with no power to enforce any rules, I can make a strong plea at the outset... Don't troll. Do not insult others for stating their opinion on romance in games, regardless of what that opinion is, nor for their opinion on games that held romances. Those opinions are clearly their business, and they have a right to it. What we don't have a right to is harassing them about said opinions. And if someone DOES try to insult you for your opinion – please ignore the insults. If you want to try and engage them, feel free, but the best way to keep the thread open and productive is to just not take the bait. ---- useful reading: http://www.giantbomb...romance/92-253/ http://bitmob.com/articles/love-game http://dirolab.com/2...ience-and-love/ http://zompist.wordp...in-video-games/

I'll replay with a new character, try new things, hope to find new and different stuff.