Merin

I've been skimming / skipping lots of very long posts (tad hypocritical of me, I admit freely) - which one are you referring to?

The "film-game" thread wasn't a debate. The fact that a thread is allowed to exist that was just you wanting to have a public "private" discussion with me is quite strange - that should be a PM thing. And it began to be wall of text answering wall of text about something that, seriously, I can't imagine too many people will stay up at night wondering about "Geez, is the movie industry better at not just doing big AAA blockbusters than the game industry, the same, or worse?!?" I still don't know what your point of making a thread for it was. ... "High tower." Isn't that a mixed metaphor? Don't you mean I'm on a high horse, or an ivory tower? .... I'd agree that you haven't begun to debate. Common ground. .... "Boy." Am I supposed to be black or young? I'm not sure exactly how I'm meant to take this condescension. Help me so I can be properly flustered and outraged.

I have spoken on this before, but one more time - the "romance" relevant part of that quote is this Again, all that says is that he believes there is so much more you can do with a companion relationships in these games than "just romance." It reads that there will be more to relationships with companions than romance. Or, even more exact, that he believes there is much more you can do. It only says "romance is an easy target" and "there are more options." You read more into that at your leisure, but it neither confirms nor denies romance in the game.

I'm not rink, but here goes. No. If they want to do A and don't want to do B, then they should do A. Your question is, as someone else pointed out, a false dichotomy... but I answered the spirit of what you are asking anyway. Next question.

I think we need a bit more reality here. Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again? They aren't. I think the comparison is being made because both are dialog focused additions to the game that not every player will access. There are players who don't want to have romance in the game, for whatever reason. There are players who never play low intelligence characters, either. So both of those are relatively similar examples of text-only parts of a game that are for a limited percentage of the audience... so from that comes the jump that one could lead to the elimination of the other, if it comes down to limited writing resources. That's the range of the debate, at least as I see it.

I don't really want to argue that romances won't take much time or be done with small effort - never been my point. But those links are quite full of a lot of things. If you wouldn't mind, can you provide some questions or points, enumerated, to be talked about? Like three - can you give three points, like a sentence or two each, for starting points, and then I'll engage? It'll be less messy and easier to read.

Which point do you want me to address? This one? Or this fine point? How about this one? Duh! I mean do you play epic music on the background in order to feel you de-constructed my character or our arguments? I fail to see what any of those have to do with the thread, but okay, I'll answer those points. Hitting your head so many times will probably cause brain damage, you might want to stop. While I don't believe in any god, I doubt one would want to curse someone who you just disagree with. I don't think he was trolling, I think you are. No. I don't play music when answer your posts. Or anyone's. Unless I happen to have music already playing in the background. It's not a thing for me. I don't know what music listening to has to do with my post trying to calm you with reassurances that what you fear isn't going to happen with Obsidian's PE. ---- Did my answering your "points" solve anything? Were they even really points to be answered? Good straw man. My whole argument "for romances" is that there are "jerks on the internet." Well played logical fallacy - should get a few fellow mean-spirited "men" to guffaw heartedly and add their purposeful images and intelligent insults to the mix. Bolstering how right you are each and every step of the way with that kind of "point making." Ad hominems. The fallback of so many "good debaters " Somehow trying to insult me by calling me a "white knight" is supposed to, what, shame me into conceding? Enrage me into arguing the point that I'm not a white knight? Make other's who like targeting me for whatever personal fulfillment they get out of mocking me have another chuckle? The name-calling adds, well, what, exactly, to anything but your attempts at "manning up." Is being a man insulting others and puffing your chest as if you are a tough guy? I'm not sure I'm learning the right lessons from you. And another straw men. I've never argued for romance minigames. But, hey, what do facts matter for a good dig, right? Duane Gish returns!

I'm sorry, jarpie, but if you want to consider this my concession, so be it. I really don't have the desire to continue a lengthy argument about this. You can't make a one-for-once comparison of the game industry to the movie industries. You can make a general comparison, but that's about all I believe is possible. Picking out individual films or such to try and prove a point is just cherry picking. For either of us. I think EA doing 116 games and a big company like Paramount doing 16 films just shows how much of a difference there is in scale. What you don't consider as games, as apt because they are different platforms... no, I can't generate the desire to really argue this. You post a lot, too much to read, on a topic of debate that is so ancillary and uninteresting (to me) outside of a very generalized point that can be made.... If others want to debate this, more power to them. I bow out.

I think he's saying its slightly obvious how proud you seem of your own posts. Ring a Ding! Ah. It was more of an attempt at playful banter with you, like saying "there's no need to get so upset over someone's post that you do three headbang emoticons and shout an exclamation of frustration in all caps..." but, sure, I guess setting myself up for you to rip on me is more of what you wanted. I'm sure you are proud of yourself. Well done. Being a jerk to people must be what you mean about "manning up."

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Duh! I mean do you play epic music on the background in order to feel you de-constructed my character or our arguments? ... Yeah, sorry, reading comprehension is still failing me here. I sense some kind of dig, but I must be too slow to grasp it.

I don't understand what you are getting at here.

Okay, I just wanted to point out - all those times people tried to paint me as "angry" or "needing to calm down" - and there was nothing to base their assumptions that I was upset somehow other than my being verbose and arguing point by point - kenup here is clearly demonstrating being upset. kenup - if you are really that upset, go away from the thread for awhile. You aren't holding a line for Obsidian anymore than the most apoplectic of "must be all romanceable characters in all gender variations or I explode" is forcing Obsidian's hand. Take a breather. Realize that, to your benefit, Obsidian is NOT known for it's romances, nor do they claim to want to be known for them.... and, if romances are included, you'll still like get a game along the lines of PS:T and Baldur's Gate, okay? Seriously, no matter how many "promancers" there are, Obsidian is far more inclined to make the anti-romance crowd happy. Accept that reality, take some solace in it, go do something more fun than arguing on a forum thread... then, refreshed, come back and give it once more with both barrels!

Everytime I see "promancers" I keep thinking of some kind of championship wizardry league. "Little hedge wizard, you aren't in the big leagues. When you're in the Shadowdale Evokers, you get sponsorships, lucrative contracts, and everyone turns out to the jousting fields to watch you duel! If you want to go promancer, sign the contract!"

In a fantasy world where the gods are real (per fiat of the creators of said fantasy world, the writers!) AND the gods have an active hand in affairs (even to the minimalistic view of cleric spells, which is not how "magic" works in PE, right?) even if some have "died" or "stopped communicating".... then atheism becomes something a pseudo-science, a wrong-headed belief. Now, there's nothing saying in a fantasy world with gods that the people are going to worship, or like, the gods.... and that's where you can have some fun as a PC. Rejecting deities.

My simplest response would be: First, that the game industry, again, is at a different phase than the movie industry, and it is growing through it's phases in a different era. The film industry started roughly 1900, the video game one roughly 1970 (I'm not giving exact years the first moving picture was made, nor when the first electronic device for gaming entertainment was made, so roll with it instead of getting pedantic about 1860 or 1950). Each industry grow in vastly different cultures. Second, that the game industry has always and continues to make smaller games. The shelves are lined with them. Before consoles, birth of consoles, pre world-wide-web, pre-Steam, today. Companies like Activision and EA gobbling up smaller competitors is like the big six for the movie industry. They are not exact analogues, but they are similar enough to draw comparisons. So in conclusion, I will just state, again, that it is my firm opinion based on my analysis of the two models that there isn't a significant, noticeable difference between indie vs. tent pole, middle sized game vs. large sized game from big companies, from the film or the game industry... with the noticeable exception of video games not having high-brow awards nor be considered, by many, an art form. Without a video-game equivalent of the Oscars, or at least Golden Globes, to chase (let alone Cannes or Independent Spirit or such) of any weight, big publishers have no impetus to make smaller, different games with a lot of focus on uniqueness and quality over marketability. What video games have for awards is, at best, the People's Choice Awards, but actually is much closer to a mix of the MTV Movie Awards and Nickelodeon Kid's Choice. ---- A more lengthy and boring ramble --- You CAN pick out box office flops like Blade Runner, that later became cult classics and critical darlings, as an attempt at saying "look, high art" - but Ridley Scott is the same man who made Gladiator and Prometheus (Gladiator won at least one Oscar, too...) so I'd refrain a bit from quoting it as an example of anything. Your list is not good examples beyond Blade Runner. Videodrome was a Canadian film - not a Hollywood film. Blue Velvet was by a film company that lasted two years (formed in 83, but only released films from 86-88) before going bankrupt (even if it brought us Evil Dead II!) Terminator was done by an independent film company as well - Hemdale. Dead Zone was made by a television production company in partnership with another corporation and... you know what, the point is, the films you are talking about were done by small studios for the most part, not considered to be anything "big" at the time, and even the success of Terminator (moderate, as it were, if not considering the subject matter) just further illustrates it wasn't considered to be "good fair" - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LFs1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=lIUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1826,10181612&dq=the+terminator&hl=en Tons of games are released that aren't big budget games, and there are many genres of games out there. Just looking at the big budget ones and saying "bleh" is what people do to the movie industry as well. There are other options out there, yes even distributed by the big companies.... Here - a list of last years's EA Games - http://www.ea.com/past-year#9 - 116 of them. Looks to be a wide range of games in there, not all the same budget or genre. Here - a list of last year's Disney movies - http://www.disneymovieslist.com/year-disney-movies.asp?disyear=2011 - 15. Hrmmm. There is a little variety - but not as much range, or number. and, in case you don't like Disney, here's Paramount - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Paramount_Pictures_films#2010s - 16. One more than Disney, a little more variety... but nowhere near the number, nor range, that EA games have. And this isn't me defending EA. It's me saying that you can't do an EXACT comparison, or a close numerical comparison, but only a very, very broad generalized comparison. Big game publisher release way more games than big movie studios release movies. But there are many factors that go into that. .... long story short, I still say Hollywood is a better example of what the game industry is going through (as what the movie industry went through) but NOT a role-model for what the game industry should do. And that it's a very, very bad way to try and judge the game industry. Big companies making products for millions of consumers want big returns, especially if they are publicly traded companies.

If you don't mind some third-person shooting action (and if you do, go biotic and you can avoid most of it), Mass Effect is a solid game that I loved. (IMO) Great story, some of the better characters that BioWare has created (some are dull, and of course taste varies), a great original universe, good voice acting and cinematic storytelling (if you like that sort of thing, and I don't mind it in games that I expect it from>) Dragon Age: Origins, IMO, was amazing. There are flaws in it, like any game, but the overall experience is amazing. Only in ToEE do you see another game where you get to pick one of multiple beginnings (and ToEE are alignment based, and short.) Character creation is somewhat limited in classes and class skills (especially at the very start) but if you aren't married to the variety in 3.5 D&D, it shouldn't be an issue. Great (again, IMO) story, if a bit trope-y, good voice acting, a few great characters (though I tend to feel most are flat in this game, that's my opinion on at least half of the characters BioWare has created), good tactical combat (when compared to the other kinds of cRPGs you could find in 2009, especially), and a hell of a lot of gameplay for a not open-world BioWare formulaic story (I clocked 128 hours my first play!) I love Obsidian... love Obsidian... and have been cheering on the company more and more as BioWare, post DA:O, continues to go down the road of single set protagonist, cinematic storytelling to the point of almost being a "choose your own ending movie", and action-y combat (awesome button for the !win) - but short of some great mechanics in SoZ, some very excellent scenarios in NWN2's OC (the Keep and the trial), one good setting (dead god's body) and one good theme (rise up against the gods, always a winner for me) in MotB ... for me, only Alpha Protocol beats DA:O and ME, and Fallout: New Vegas comes in just under those two because of crappy TES / FO3 gameplay (which I'm okay with, but is definitely NOT a plus in my book.) That's my tastes, though. Still, unless you break out in a rash because companions are romanceable, ME and DA:O are definitely worth playing for any RPG fan who doesn't NEED his or her games to look like they came out of the 90's. Heck, DA2 promise me I could save my family, and like everything from BIoWare DA2 forward, the story LIES TO YOU! Couldn't even save my family.... stupid DA2

Games haven't gotten there yet. The movie industry went through a "crash" and adjusting to the burgeoning indie film movie, creating "indie studios" and funding such films to try and control that market as well. Largely because they want Oscar bait, but that's beside the point. When the game industry creates an award show that doesn't pick best sellers but picks things that at least pretend to be avant garde and sell less but get huge critical acclaim, don't expect there to be too much impetus for the game industry to follow Hollywood in this just yet. See, that's where you're wrong. Film industry has always been making films with small or average budgets, even when they did the huge epics in the late 50s and early 60s. Sure couple studios took huge risks with some films which flopped gloriously almost bringing them down but even then they were doing the smaller films but publishers aren't doing that almost at all. The indie film movement basicly started to flower in the 80s and 90s with the rise of the vhs and couple film festivals such as Sundance but I'm not talking about indie films, I'm talking about studio films which are done with moderate budgets - which they have always done. You are missing much about the history of film. The film industry is over a hundred years old, the video game industry is just about forty or so. Hollywood went through the studio system and all those problems, and then the rise of the big six, and the decline of movie sales in the 80's and 90's that, because of the growing focus on blockbusters and mainstream markets, caused the explosion of the indie film movement. Which went from truly indie to truly corporate by the mid 2000's... with the newest wave of innovation and breaking from the control of the big studios happening due to the internet and growth of platforms like YouTube and Kickstarter. If you think the game industry is where complaints about formulas and sequels is bad, but the movie industry is a beacon of originality and diversity.... you must not spend a lot of time talking to groups about movies.

Games haven't gotten there yet. The movie industry went through a "crash" and adjusting to the burgeoning indie film movie, creating "indie studios" and funding such films to try and control that market as well. Largely because they want Oscar bait, but that's beside the point. When the game industry creates an award show that doesn't pick best sellers but picks things that at least pretend to be avant garde and sell less but get huge critical acclaim, sure, but for now don't expect there to be too much impetus for the game industry to follow Hollywood in this just yet.

And even if people said anything like that, why do you or HS care? If you do something that others don't like, man up and take the insult like a champ. Why does he bring those up instead of finding real arguments to support his side of the debate? And if you don't do those things, again, why care? They are not that serious insults anyway. Prove that you are above such things, if you feel they are low, don't cry about them. Because such things destroy civil discussion? Because they break the forum guidelines? Because it is impossible to have a sane and rational debate when one side resorts to logical fallacies? But, seriously, pax? Can we let the thread return to romance in PE and not who's doing what? I'm at least as guilty as anyone in the thread of derailing it this way... but I'm stopping for today (at least today - hopefully longer.) and I'm just going to get back on topic this way - I don't need romance in Project Eternity. I think it'd be nice if it is part of the story and characters in the game, and I pretty much expect it to be somewhere in the background if nothing else... but I don't need it. And for what I WANT from PE, I'm far more "demanding" (read - desiring, advocating for, but not "my way or the highway") of being able to make my own party. If I got my biggest desire - making my whole own party from the start, and having few (if any) recruitable companions - I couldn't possibly have "romance mini-games with party companions", could I? So I must not want romance mini-games so badly... oh, wait, that's right... I don't want romance mini-games, nor do I think PE should have companions be romanceable. With the caveat of - if Obsidian's story for the P.E. and plans for the companions already include this, so be it. I'll probably enjoy it. But I'm not advocating for them to consider doing such if they are predisposed AGAINST it. ... can we continue the conversation from there?

The same reason movie studios do it? Because they are looking at the bottom line, and the bottom line for them is big budget movies make bigger box office? Same with games? I don't agree with the reasoning, but that's what it is.

Just one example from the VERY POST YOU QUOTED: Fairly accurate representation? Because if you sincerely believe that then there's nothing further to debate here. Just a bit above you in the thread here - don't know if you bothered to look at the quotes - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61768-unofficial-pe-relationshipromance-thread-pt2/page__st__300?do=findComment&comment=1255537 Now, my taking all of ten minutes to find over a half dozen examples from the last five days alone doesn't constitute "a wall" necessarily, which is why I called it an "exaggeration"... and no one exactly said "LOLOLOLOLOL BIOWARE LOLOLOLOL YOU FAP TO CARTOONS" hence me calling it a "paraphrase" - but, yes, I'd call what he said there a fairly accurate representation of people saying, oh, "to little disturbing fan-art in this thread to pass as BSN romance thread ... folks around here need to stop just dreaming about a zombie harem and need to start drawing, or at least photo-shopping it" or "This is clearly a BSN thread with BSN moderating standards". No one is constantly bringing up BioWare as a pejorative nor are they casting aspersions on people's perverted romantic tastes. You're right.

Hello, Merin. How odd. Moderators, I'd like to "report" myself as clearly I must have made two accounts. evdk says so, must be true!

Just to give some context, these are my favorite cRPGs - 1. Wasteland 2. Icewind Dale 3. Pools of Darkness 4 .Freedom Force 5. VTM: Bloodlines and near that list are Knights of Legend, Alternate Reality: The Dungeon, Alpha Protocol and (yes) Dragon Age: Origins. If the inclusion of that last game somehow disqualifies my "cred" with the previous, so be it.