Merin

I thought this was a done-deal already, as in 1 PC and recruit NPCS. There's a chance for creating your whole party? *faints* For the record, I've not played Storm of Zehir yet, but am greatly anticipating it. I just have a REAL problem with the NWN game system, and especially 3E D&D ruleset. Getting through NWN 1 OC and NWN 2 OC was like pulling teeth, even though there was much in 2 that I loved. SoZ probably did poorly considering it was "3rd / 6th" in a series that was all about recruiting NPCS to work with you... it broke from the mold of a series. All you have to do is look at DA2 from DA:O to see that, for many customers, this is not desirable.

Replayability, by a large margin. I created a whole topic about this - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60222-missing-stuff-is-great-replayability-and-choice-driven-content/page__view__findpost__p__1191142 For wishes, I chose: Larger world and more content, more companions, more races and classes, more replayability, and more and better artwork, though not necessarily in that order. And I think all of those combine to make more replayability, personally.

The same reason I keep objecting elsewhere when people use the word "Obsidian" to mean "buggy beyond all playability." Because it's a slur against the company. Saying "badly written, pandering romances, like BioWare" is the same as saying, "unplayable buggy crapware, like Obsidian." If you think the later is not a dig or bash on Obsidian, well, we really have different definitions of the term. And, for the record, saying someone lives in a bubble isn't insulting that person. If you are surrounded by people who agree with you on something, you are in a bubble of agreement on that thing. It means you don't have dissenting voices around you. It's not a personal flaw, it's the situation of your environment.

I can't stand playing evil or even murky most of the time. That said, without the dichotomy, choosing the "good" option kind of loses it's oomph. So while I'm rarely, if ever, going to touch it - I'm all for a well written evil path.

Right. But I think the point was the hard, repeated mantras of "romances drain resources that are better spent elsewhere" and "romances aren't done right." You could just as easily say that resources would be better spent on making male human fighters the only available option for PC's as, with ample metrics showing this to be true, like 75% of players choose to play male human fighters in RPGs. Why waste the resources on the 25% when you can make the experience for the 75% so much better? Or rogues in particular? There are plenty of people out there who think sneaking and stealing mechanics are rarely done well, and with bashing locks or knock spells, what really is the point of a rogue? Couldn't you just limit to mage and fighter and let them handle the odd stuff that rogues would do? There's also a good contingent of players who don't like the option to play "evil" being allowed. When is this implemented well? Rarely, many would say. Any kind of tracking of alignment and many would argue that the game loses a lot for these karma systems. Why not just do away with evil acts, since the majority of players (again) play good guys? --- To be clear, I'm not advocating the above. But they are as valid arguments as the anti-romance ones. There is the underlying root for much of the anti-romance, however. And it's the sentiment that those who want romance in the game are looking for virtual sex simulators, and are people who cannot get a date IRL. Or just that there's something icky and wrong with "role-playing" romance, especially in a video game. If you took that away, the argument about "wasted resources" and "poorly implemented" would suddenly fall down to a level of being equal to any other gaming aspect that people like or don't like.

Straw man. Find me the person who says all three of the above. You have some people who want romance in the game who would agree with you that BioWare does it badly. But you don't have anyone saying that romances don't cost resources to write, period, let alone to write well. You'd have to define "significant" and what it's being drained from? We can make silly statements like "would you rather have romances or would you rather have first person shooting mechanics?" or "would you rather have romances or would you rather have realistic physics for parkour?" You have to give an either or, this or that, for "draining resources" to mean anything. For example, I would much rather have writing time spent on romances than on discussions on religion. I would also much rather have writing resources spent on romances than on thieving and sneaking mechanics. To say, blanketly, "drain resources" is to put into people's mind that whatever their favorite parts of the game are could be cut for romances. But that's just fear-mongering. And you fall into what I'm about to address again below - the assumption that everyone thinks that BioWare's romances are universally (or even mostly) bad. So everyone that's opposite you is in a bubble ? Heh, hits keep coming. Straw man. I never said that those who disagree with me live in a bubble. I said, as bolded above, that those who think "everyone agrees that romance in games is always done badly" are in a bubble... a bubble of talking too frequently with those who agree with them that romances are always done badly. That's not a judgment on their opinion as opposed to mine. That's an objective judgment on every post that states "romances are always done badly" as if there is a general consensus, let alone universal one. By empirical evidence in this thread alone you have many people who list games they felt the romances were good in. Misrepresenting what I say doesn't make you clever. It makes you look confused, as if you don't understand what I'm saying. Or, barring that, it makes you look petty.

A thread exists that discusses this - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60149-1-pc-plus-companions-or-create-multiple-characters-plus-companions/?do=findComment&comment=1189259

I prefer less walking time. Less wandering. Open world games, especially open world maps, lose me quickly. I made it through Fallout 3 and New Vegas, but barely at times. Most other TES-style game I've not finished. So I'm a fan of like Fallout 1 and 2 (even the random encounters while "traveling by map" as long as they don't happen too often) or Dragon Age: Origins or the Icewind Dale games. not a fan of travel-travel-travel like TES and Fallout 3 on. Though the fast travel on those made it slightly more bearable. Then again, I'm not a cRPG player who lists "exploration" as a big plus. It never makes my list of what I want out of a game.

No one is bashing Bioware. They're main feature in their games is romances. While Obsidian's strengths are usually towards characters, dialogue and story. Bioware lately is all about the romance and action combat. It's not bashing when it's true or it's your opinion about their games. It's about being anti both since Bioware is always pro-romance. Just in the first 6 pages of this thread, the clear ones (not the ones that just mention BioWare as including romance.) There are the dog whistles - Rather, how did BioWare end up here? which, if you didn't understand it being code, is clarified later - Perhaps, but I think you and everybody else know precisely what the sentiment means. to blatant - Maybe not everyone who mentions BioWare as doing romance is bashing, but it's becoming a slur. You cannot hide behind something being "opinion" - as "opinions" can be used to bash, easily. Rarely are facts used to bash. I'm not the biggest fan of BioWare due to their last couple games. This isn't about defending them. It's about not getting the thread shut down. I think it is worth while for the people who like romance to discuss with the people who don't. It's good for the ones who think everyone agrees that romance in games is always done badly get to break outside of their bubble and talk to those who disagree with them.

Everyone realizes that there are two very specific points in the Forum Rules that state they do not allow bashing of other developers and publishers, right? You all do know the rules you are breaking with each bash on BioWare? And the hand-tipping - this is less about being anti-romance for some of you and more about being anti-BioWare. Can this forum PLEASE not be about politics / sports, us vs. them mentallity? You can not like BioWare. Cool. This isn't BioWare. Let. It. Go.

It's a tedium vs. enjoyment factor for me. Anything that makes the game a chore to play can be dropped, as far as I'm concerned. Having to move my character to each pile of loot, then click on each item in a list to take... that's tedium, not immersion. Hitting a button that tells my character to go to the nearest pile of loot, and hitting that button again to take all the loot there? That's the same to me as hitting one button to set run to on, or one button to stay crouched, instead of having to hold a button to crouch or run. Or setting up a queue of actions for a character in the party (or even an AI scheme) as opposed to always having to pause and micro-manage. Or any other of a million different mechanics that take something repetitious and boring to repeat and letting you set it as "do this now" fire-and-forget.

Gah, this is impossible without knowing parameters and what companions are already in store... Meh, I'll try and come up with something worth posting and edit this later.

Nice grab, PureSophistry! Congrats! And thanks for sharing!

Yep, and it's pretty darn gratifying!

The mere concept scares the Jesus out of me. Er, it would, had there been any in me... okay, this is just getting weird now.

Upset? Nah. Mildly disappointed maybe...since it would feel like pandering. As for benefit of the doubt I haven't seriously for a second imagined they'd take a BioWarian approach to such a thing just because people appear to be clamoring for it. Let's us agree, then, that the "BioWare approach" - if we can just shape that to mean a negative, poorly contrived, and pandering effort at fan-service which seems to be at least part of the current BioWare design philosophy - is not to be desired. In that, I feel, we are on the same page. That is certainly taken out of context, as that update was from the previous day.

Yes. Obsidian has said repeatedly they are watching the forums and paying attention to what the community wants. But degree of usefulness is probably more to the point. They are a data point that can help them decide what they ultimately want to do. One data point. Not a frivalous one, but certainly not an overriding one either. I think, overall, the polls will have little affect. Some, but mostly on the edges and tipping scales on game decisions that Obsidian was already on the fence about internally.

Haven't they said on a few occasions that the gods will be the Greek pantheon type? One example of this I found here - "Rather than illuminate the presumed higher purpose of this cycle, the gods have obfuscated the truth, at times spreading cosmological lies, pitting believers and empowered chosen agents against each other, and tacitly approving the prejudices of their followers to maintain power." - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/312639 Personally, if there must be "for certain" gods in the game, I like this kind. The meddling and impure ones.

Nope, even the sense of a mild jab at me there is absolutely fine by me - not that I should be the final authority of what is or is not acceptable. Let's just move on and work on disagreeing with one another on romance in cRPGs. I, for one, won't be crying if Obsidian decides that their inclusion goes against their vision. Will you be upset if they say their vision includes romance? I'd guess yes, but maybe you'd give them the benefit of the doubt?

I'm 2, but just barely. I almost went 3. Voice to highlight and add emphasis, not for everything. BG2, kinda, does it mostly right. I don't want cinematic dialogs... so right here it cuts out the need for a lot of voice. And I'd rather there only be cut scenes for set events that no player choices could possibly change... or, at worst, major events even if there are a couple different possibilities. In short - I don't want voiced dialog to affect how many choices the player can make, nor do I want the cost of voice acting to limit the scope of the game. EDIT - As someone posted above me, I also read a hell of a lot faster than the spoken dialog plays out - so I find myself torn between listening to the actor or moving at my own pace with the dialog, and it's a disjunction I'd rather not deal with. I always have sub-titles on anyway, so there you go.

Just as an aside, you must be joking if images and caps are hostile, heh. Better outright hostility if it actually was, than being passive aggressive, though. Not images, trolling images. "U mad bro" images are meant to incite, mock, and dismiss a person. Posting in all caps, not using all caps for a word but an entire sentence, is generally seen as yelling. Yelling at someone is generally considered a hostile act. So, no, I'm not joking. I'd rather this was a civil discourse on the pro's and con's of including romance in a cRPG. What is gained, what is lost - and that even includes opinions of those who like or don't like it. That's all fine. Attacking the person, not the argument, is what I object to. I don't consider this a joke at all. I consider it sad, and I feel sorry for the people who must resort to such tactics.

I consider the majority of your posts in this thread as hostile. Not every single one - you HAVE posted some that were reasoned and civil, so I don't think it would be fair to say all of your posts are hostile. But trolling images, personal insults and all caps snark are, by definition, hostile.

Meh, alright... Merin, Grey Storyteller of the Obsidian Order

Merin joins the Obsidian Order. There was no fanfare, just one "woot" from someone in the back of the room.

Tab highlight, with toggle to disable for those who like sliding a mouse cursor slowly across the screen over and over again. Yay, tab highlight. And, while you are at it, an auto-loot key, too!