Merin

I pick #2. And am glad to see that it is the most popular. The BioWare "camp" has bothered me since Jade Empire. While I think DA2 is an improvement on DA:O as far as that one aspect is concerned (and just about only that aspect, other than the R key), it's not ideal. Ideal is only having your chosen companions with you and you have to go find them again if you want others to rejoin you. At some point in the game, when you get the "player house", most NPC companions should be able to be sent there to wait - but maybe not all, as the story dictates.

Let me restate my vote for no Vancian, please. Something new would be great, but I'd rather the Warhammer Fantasy Battles magic system than memorizing every morning.

Not that silly. I still weep when I think about two blocks west, one block south of the Adventurer's Guild in Skara Brae, and the piles and piles of adventurer corpses lain there.

Not to belabor this, but here's a link to what I posted there about what I'd want from DA3 - http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/371/index/14137712/18#14153607 And in it you'll notice not a mention of romances. From me, at least. I take it as a forgone conclusion that they'll be in the game, but I don't have any demands for them. What I listed there are what I'd like BioWare to address to get back to what I want. That list could work well for Project Eternity, too, except that in many ways PE is already giving me more than I could hope for from DA3. Not everyone on BSN is romance-addicted. There's a pretty big backlash there about the Tali threads and such. And, well, most of us old-schoolers have been driven away, some of us are still hanging on due to inertia.

I wasn't making a statement disqualifying romance people - I was just curious to see if the Bioware regulars were the regular pro-romance people. Tu quoque. Difference being obvious - BioWare is the developer known for including romance in their games as a staple, so fans of romance games would go there. RPGCodex is... known for being anti-BioWare or anti-romance, so of course... wait, no... I thought RPGCodex was just a forum for RPG fans? Maybe even old school RPG fans? I guess it kinda even fails as a tu quoque. You are right, of course. It's all backhanded. I don't clearly say what I mean - I insinuate. Thanks for clarifying for me. I sometimes get confused as to my intent.

Sadly, though, I consider myself older school than Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, and those Infinity Engine games (with the wonderful exception of IWD) introduced mechanics I don't like or don't believe are core but are considered such now. Like dialog trees, one PC with a party of recruitable companions, or a slew of other things that are now considered core to so many players. You can't quantify this definitively. Because if you "purist where we came from", we should have six party members that we create ourselves and no dialog options. My core comes from a lot more games. There are five Infinity Engine games, two of which have what I've long considered "core" but missing. There are fourteen Gold box games alone. But this IS a digression. Games change, even genres. "Core" or "came before" are poor arguments for what "needs" or "should" be included. You could. I don't think a number proves anything either way. Should we ask who's from the City of Heroes forums, too? Creation Matrix? WoW forums? Pokemon? I think plenty of people visit plenty of forums. I wasn't making a statement disqualifying anti-romance people - I was just curious to see if RPGCodex regulars were the regular anti-romance people. Some of it, yeah. I know a lot of people over there who've been arguing against BioWare developers and their direction they've been taking for several games now. And their Moderators are far better at shutting down trolls, flamers, etc, then here. Though I forgive Obsidian - a little over a week ago there wasn't traffic enough to warrant the amount of moderation needed now.

What would that have to do with anything? Just curious. Doesn't really have anything to do with anything. I'm just wondering.

Who? Depends on what you define as "romance" But possibly qualifying "who's" are Veronica, Sarah, Joanna, Cass and Arcade.

Not to start a flame war, but I'm curious - how many anti-romance people are also visitors / posters on RPGCodex?

I don't want BG1's style. The constant traveling is a big reason I never finished that game.

I'd agree with you here - it is basically what I said earlier - but apparently - - so I better not agree with you. I don't want to be that much wrong.

There are roughly ten million customers who think Diablo is an RPG. Let's not get into that discussion. Or anymore about Chobot. Or Cruise. For those who don't want romances, are there other features people are asking for you don't want that you'd rather have romances than?

Is this like Might & Magic / Bard's Tale / Mars Saga/Mines of Titan? While interesting, and I'm not against it per se, it does feel a bit like a factory churning out adventurers... and it usually existed in games where, especially at lower levels, mortality was pretty bad.

Yepyep. And for role-playing replayability... a ton of recruitable NPCs gives you more options, sure... but few companions (or forced companions) and suddenly things get overly repetitive. I like NPC companions. I like my own party more.

I think one, maybe two, people have said romances are core to cRPGs. That statement, IMO, is as wrong-headed as claiming that story is core to cRPGs. Without getting into an argument about "what makes an RPG", I don't think you'l find consensus on what is core. It has been lost in all the back and forth at this point, but I'll reiterate what my stance on romances in cRPGs is - So, yeah, I don't even know if I'd fit as a "promancer" (whatever that title means.)

I'm just concerned that adding such big changes is goignt o use up too much resource and move the project in a different direction. So far i have heard "i dont want isometric" "i want first person" "i want create whole party" "i don't want romances" "i want centaurs" "i don't want dwarves" "i want aliens" "i like dibalo so i want zombies" 2make it like wasteland" "3d portraits" "steampunk" "no elves" blah blah. I was excited aboutt he game obsidina was selling to me, not some hashed up mess that people want put in because it was in a game they liked 3 weeks ago. Except for the following - 1 - they are in very, very early stages of developing the game; ultimately they will make the game they want to the best way they can, but there's not much set in stone yet... they have said this, multiple developers, multiple times 2 - they are not only watching the forums, and saying they are, they are directing people to the forums and soliciting opinions; case in point, I had thought the 1 PC + NPC companions was set in stone, but one of the developers comes in and says "if you want this, make noise" - so we who want this are doing what the developer asked 3 - I've played lots of Wasteland, thank you... you want a game with companions you recruit, you have TONS of options for this in RPGs - what options do those of us who want to create our party have? Wasteland 2 is coming out, there's that indie game you mentioned... and then SoZ, I guess... leaving us having to go back like a decade or more for options, and trust me, I've played IWD to death... meanwhile, even avoiding BioWare you can find plenty of RPGs where you make 1 PC and recruit followers - Bethesda, for example, or Drakensang. Overall, two things are key - 1 - Obsidian will make the game they are going to make; they are not going to make a game they don't want to.... we are donators, pledging to their vision, not publishers or investors with any control over what they do... don't worry about this 2 - Obsidian is asking for what contributors want. They want us to speak up. The developers in interviews and on the KS updates have said, time and again, they don't want to make something that we don't want to play. Put aside your fears and just let your voice be heard on your preferences. And don't fear that any amount of clamoring will get full voice, FP POV, real time hack/slash combat, etc. They said spirit of Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale. Two of those games you could create your party, two of those games you could recruit your party... all three you could solo if you wanted. Expect that balance in design, at worst.

Yeah it was a dumb point to make. I agree. But only as it's nothing to do with the topic at hand - romances in games. I shouldn't have digressed with the Chobot point, either. It's largely irrelevant. But, overall, I will agree that even following creators whom you like and have not let you down before has it's pitfalls. I watched Red State. And Inception. And Avatar. And played Dragon Age 2.

You bought PS:T because of MCA? Good god, you are good at spotting talent. Yeah, but I didn't like it. Couldn't finish it. Tried three times over like seven years. So I guess the point of buying something because one person is involved with it is not valid at all - it failed once. *other than me not liking PS:T, this is sarcasm* Well, there's this post in the very same page your post comes from that clarifies that romance means exactly that - romance with companions. Many people have also praised the virtues of immersion that romances can have for the story, so I'm fairly certain that when most people ask for romances, romances between the player character and a companion is exactly what they mean. *ahem* " I don't think every person who says they want ROMANCE in the game actually want romance with companions or mini-games to win romances" You can find some who want that, yes. My point was that they aren't everyone. They aren't me, for example. Given my choice, I don't even want NPC companions. *shrug* I don't even know who Deionarra is, so moot point is moot to me. But there are plenty of games where you don't have a party and you have romance in the game. Plenty. Even with choices. Ever play Alpha Protocol?

Well, a lot of people also told me that Planescape: Torment was the greatest RPG ever. What was I to know? Wait, what game are we talking about?

I voted - but there are other threads on this subject - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60531-should-there-be-player-generatable-companions/ http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60149-1-pc-plus-companions-or-create-multiple-characters-plus-companions/?do=findComment&comment=1189259 - and I sense a merging happening.

I understand not wanting something. And advocating for other things in it's place. What might be more effective than continuing to argue in a thread that is about something you don't want... either create a thread about or argue in a thread about stuff you are in favor of. If there's one thing I dislike most about pop culture and how media interacts with it, it is that people so easily band together over what they don't like. It ventures nothing of yourself to say you don't like something. It's much braver, IMO, to support something you like. If you dislike something, you only have to deal with the few defensive responses from those who really like that thing. But if you like something, you invite all the invectives directed at you of those who don't like what you like. Anywho... there's a lot of "resources pulled away for romance that I'd rather have in other things." A lot of that. Because, I argue, the anti-romance people aren't united by what they WANT in the game... just in criticizing romance. What's more important to you... other features you prefer, or the non-inclusion of romance? Answer carefully. Do you put as much effort into supporting any one feature as you do denouncing this one? Is it really about the resources you'd rather have spent on something more important to you... or that you don't want any resources spent on this at all? I'm not saying which it is for you... I'm honestly asking. I'm over in threads supporting being able to create your whole own party quite strongly. That's my pet desire. And, you know, if I got that then "sex with companions" would only be possible as head canon. Just pointing that out. Again, I DO understand the "romances have never been done well" argument. I don't agree, but I accept that it is opinion. And I understand you having a hard time with comprehending why people want romances in their game - I, personally, cannot comprehend why people like playing evil characters.

Or I answered sarcasm with sarcasm.

Can any of you anti-romance people make posts that aren't just digs at things? Of eveyrthing I wrote, you ignored any salient points and grabbed something to make fun of. It's like discussing quantum physics with grade schoolers. "So, if you consider whether the waveform has collasped..." "When's recess?" "Listen, just one second please, when quanta can only can in discrete..." "You're old. And boring."