Merin

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.

Oh thank heaven that Afghans aren't being shot in Chicago, that makes the City's gangs far less violent. That's a good attempt at a diversion, especially with selective quoting. You're statement, as stands, implies that more people are shot in a week in Chicago than people are being shot a week in Afghanistan. But the story you are trying to quote from is only about Americans, not people. There are a greater number (not percentage, just raw number) of citizens in Chicago shot in that given study than American soliders in Afghanistan. My point was living in Chicago doesn't mean you'll get shot. You have a .0084 percent chance of being shot. (sorry for my previous failure to convert decimals to percenatges - being correct - and the ratio remains the same) To give you a comparitive idea, the chances of you being struck by lightening in your lifetime is .033 percent. You are nearly 4 times as likely to be hit by lightening in your life than to be shot in Chicago. Your rebuttal was to make it seem more dangerous to live in Chicago than to live in Afghanistan - patently untrue. But even if the study you were referring to is what you MEANT (American soldiers, not people in Afghanistan in general), you still have a much higher percent chance of being shot as a soldier (.1426 percent - again, fixing decimal to percentage here) than as someone in Chicago (.0084 percent.) 16 times more likely to be shot and killed as a US soldier in Afghanistan. Your point was empirically wrong. --- What does this have to do with romance? About as much as bashing BSN.

And you really like snide comments. What I don't like are disengenuous arguments using faulty logic and a lack of facts. And I don't like straight up poisoning the well. Whether someone posts on the BSN forum doesn't invalidate any point they make. All the BSN bashing is a distraction and an attempt to be dismissive of anyone who does want romance in the game. There's a handful of bullies on this thread who seek to brow-beat and belittle anyone they disagree with into silence so they can get their way. It isn't going to work. Ignore is a wonderful tool.

Bioware's community is frightening and immature. Have you seen BSN in the last few years? Still there. Depends on what threads you read, whom you've friended, and what sub-forums you regularly visit. People constantly attacking BSN here remind me of all the small town people I grew up with and their reactions when my family moved to Chicago. "What, do you want to get shot?" Because, as we all know, the millions of people who live in Chicago all get shot... that's truly a defining feature of Chicago. Romance discussions are a small subset of BSN. People acting in the "gimme what I want OR ELSE" fashion are an even smaller part of that discussion. Damning thousands for the activity of a dozen seems pretty, I don't know what term I should use... uhm, opportunisitc?

Oh, I never added how excited I am that Edair looks nothing like, say, Hawke. With cartoony armor and anime weapons. Praise the gods of Eternity for that!

I'm familiar with some/most of the novels by David Gaider and Drew Karpyshyn and for the most part I've been pretty happy with both which is quite the thing for me to say because I am incapable of finishing a novel unless it captivates and I tend to be quite insanely picky. Although Drew REALLY screwed the pooch with the Revan novel....he should have retired from gaming before writing that novel instead of after. It would have saved his reputation. Still it's a matter of taste I suppose. As for the novel at hand here I have no doubt it'll be amazing and I am very glad to see that it is happening....also can't wait to read it.... Yeah, I unabashedly enjoyed all David Gaider's novels and all the Mass Effect novels from Drew Karpyshyn. I'm thrilled and cannot wait to see what Chris Avellone writes. Hating is so easy, and bashing stuff is so insipid.

Yes. Liking this wasn't enough... it deserved to be quoted.

I think Mary Sue is being really poorly misunderstood. Mary (or her twin Gary) Sue was originally just an author avatar, and a "perfect being" avatar at that. Now - well, again, this explains best how the term is now thrown around so often that it is meaningless. Chosen One != Mary Sue Kinda impossible with a role-playing game where you create your own character. I mean, you can be making a "player avatar" to represent YOU being in the world... but the character you make doesn't have to be a chosen one, and game rules usually prevent you from making a "perfect being" character so... ... you know, I already realize I'm going to lose this one. NM.

Great update. I'm excited about the novella!

Some people need to reacquaint themselves with what "chosen one" means in literature - here's a good source Even uses a quote from my favorite author: "It's one thing to think that you're the center of the universe — it's another thing entirely to have this confirmed by an ancient prophecy." - Douglas Adams

I always find it more compelling when it's a character who builds themselves up and finds the courage and strength of will to succeed. "Destined" characters are, in retrospect, boring. By definition, they WILL succeed. It is "destiny." I'd rather my character rises above his station, proves his worth by effort not by birthright or bloodline or prophecy.

Because they also work on other projects, and each person isn't working for the full 2 years on that development cycle, and other things I'm sure I can't even imagine. It's not that simple an equation. And I did say "barring unforseen circumstances." Things happen. Good business plans try to accommodate for the unknown.

This really sounds like a straw man to me. Who's asking for the game to be a "romance simulator" - as in, find a quote of someone saying that. Wanting romance in the game isn't asking for it to be a romance simulator. Get some quotes... who's asking for romance simulator? How many people? What percentage? Wanting romance in the game != wanting the game to be a romance simulator.

I want there ranges of choices to make. "Good and evil" is just one, very limited, range. So I said "Yes" but I mean I want more choices and range. I don't care if there's a morality meter or not. I don't love them, I don't hate them. So I'm indifferent, and chose I don't care. I am agnostic on stats and such being affected by such choices / meters as well. It doesn't bother me if it's there, it doesn't bother me if it isn't. So, again, I chose I don't care.