Merin

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!

Mostly I've seen digs at BioWare and digs at pro-romance people needing to "go out and meet a girl." And, yes, the eminently quantifiable "never been done well." Straw man. Many pro-romance people actually have enjoyed romance in many games. I listed a whole bunch I enjoyed. Selective quoting is selective. And here is the boil-down to "I mock BioWare fans." You don't like romances in game, you think they are cheesy, and you don't think they've ever been done well. Don't the previous two points all but demand the third point be true? What I'm seeing is mostly one side saying they'd like to see something, they feel said something fits in the game as much as most any other one thing... and the other side mocking and ridiculing them. Mostly. Based on strength of arguments, you've at best got opinion versus opinion. At worst, you have attempts at reasoning vs. personal attacks.

Not precisely. I am one who voted yes on all three, but that doesn't equate to me not wanting romance in the game. It means I don't want the game, overall, to suffer just for the sake of romance being included. By that I mean that if Obsidian's view for Project Eternity includes no romances, and they have character interactions and plot points and such planned out a certain way, I don't want them seeing some poll saying that enough people want romances added that Obsidian decides they have to rework everything they did force romance into the game. That's it. If they are still in the proto-planning phase (which, effectively, they are) and they are trying to decide "do we want to deal with politics? do we want to include siege warfare? do we want to have romance sub-plots?", then I vote for romance being included. Don't play with the numbers just to get it to mean what you want it to mean. By whom's opinion? I found the romance in Savage Frontier done very well, as did I the one in Krynn, and, yes, I am someone who enjoyed the majority of the romances in most of BioWare's games. They've never been done properly... by who's standard? What measurable criteria? That you and some other people on these forums didn't like them and don't want romances anyway? It's hard to accept the judgment on the quality of something by someone who is predisposed to hate said something already. 1 - It only cuts out content if the content was already THERE. Cutting out "potential" content is a ridiculous argument... that's not cutting out, that choosing to implement one thing instead of another. Get more precise which your language if you want to be taken seriously. Obsidian is in the process of deciding the details of the game they are making AND they are soliciting ideas from the forums. You can't paint this as including romance at this point is at the lack of inclusion of something else - ANY one thing added can be blamed for ANY other thing that isn't. It's not like Obsidian is sitting there with two choices before them - "Do we include romances OR do we include AWESOME STUFF EVERYONE WANTS INSTEAD?" 2 - It is horribly presumptuous of you to assume that you know what everyone (who voted opposite of what you want) knows or doesn't know. Some of them would be quite ecstatic to have fewer spells or weapons or some other game content in favor of romance.

Sounds like several good choices, and Obsidian continues to hit it out of the park with their Kickstarter. Once we get the "fun new tracker" going I'm hoping to see an increase in rate of pledges. Here's hoping inXile and Obsidian, since they are both using Unity and both using Chris Avellone, can share assets to make both games even better!

I know my logical fallacies quite well. The poster was asking for in game romance. You responded by mocking them for "sticking things in the holes of your party members." Straw man - you set up an argument that is easier to knock down, even though it wasn't what your opponent has said ad hominem - your attempts to win said argument were made by insulting your opponent instead of focusing on facts - you are in effect calling your opponent sex-crazed or perverted. You've been doing the ad hominems repeatedly. This could also be considered poisoning the well - you are trying to dismiss your opponents by making them seem incredulous or undesirable to support. --- Using logical fallacies proves the weakness of your argument. Your discomfort with romance in stories and games is your own issue. Stop assaulting others for enjoying it.

And of course, sticking things in the holes of your party members is even more important, right? Okay, this is getting ridiculous. Stop the ad hominems. He never said anything about sex. If he WAS asking for realistic, mature sex in the game - that still wouldn't be wrong, and you still should be mocking him for it - but he WASN'T. You are setting up a straw man (saying he's asking for sex with the companions) and attacking his character. Knock it off. Already reported.

I don't choose thievery options, personally, but I like the idea of multiple ways to solve problems. Love combat? Kill it and solve the quest. Prefer sneaky? Snag the quest item (or, as mentioned above, the quest reward and ignore the quest!) Rather be chatty? Convince the target to give you what you want, or talk the quest giver into just giving you the item without doing the quest. Options are good. A game should frequently push a player outside their comfort zone, but generally allow them to solve problems the way the want to.

The smugness of the anti-romance people is becoming stifling. Dial it back a bit, perhaps?

I'm for being able to talk your way out of almost everything, but would think there should be instances where you can try but there is no way to completely avoid conflict or gain a solid alliance. There are matters of degree - and you should always be able to lessen (or increase, if that is what you are looking for) hostility... but not necessarily always be able to end (or incite complete) hostility. Used to be I'd play every cRPG that would let me as the super-smart, super-charismatic guy who try to think and talk his way out of any fight. I still like doing that, but I ran into too many games where it allowed you to talk but not talk your way out and I had to adjust. So, yeah, let those who want diplomatic, pacifistic characters to go that route. At least to an Alpha Protocol level if not a Fallout level.