Merin

Other than at points misunderstanding what I was saying, I mostly agree with all of what you said. It's funny - among friends and on other forums, I'd be in your position arguing against others.

Ok. Merin, even if I accept your points about romances as the best ones on the matter, if you can't see that HereticSaint is just getting aggressive, uses ad hominems all the freaking time, generalizes etc., don't get angry if no one you debate with takes you seriously. He never debates or argues a point. He just attacks the presentation and never argues our points. That's ad hominem. First off - I think most of my "points about romances" are that I enjoy them in games and while I like them in games I can live without them.... I guess that can be the best ones, but okay. ---- Second - I don't think I've been defending HereticSaint. I guess this last post could be taken as doing such, but let me clarify... I was calling out Minttunator for what he was saying, not defending HereticSaint's points. Here, let me take JUST the first two on Minttunator's list as doing more would be ridiculously long-winded (this will be bad enough) - FIRST Exaggeration in the paraphrase, but not a straw man. There have been endless posts of "go out and have a real relationship", "you want to wank while watching pixels" You would have to show me the context - so it COULD be a straw man if directed at one person who never said as much, but... here you go on this happening ALOT (random sampling of the last five days in threads about romance) : http://forums.obsidi...ost__p__1254080 - "romance for some people is the possibility to sodomize every thing in the game. Seriously there is some waifu simulators to fulfill your loneliness, ... just some sorry excuse to get in a virtual character pants because you are too socially awkward ." http://forums.obsidi...ost__p__1250125 - "You are squee-laden obsessives with a creepy level of interest in relationships with virtual characters that defy rational behaviour. You despoil every environment you touch. You write bad fan-fiction. You need to stay on BSN." http://forums.obsidi...ost__p__1248225 - " the" I WUB MY WAIFU!" crowd decend upon every social media platform and demand more. For gods sake they spent more time making sure you could shack up with people then writing a coherent ending! You put in party banter and flirts, and they want harems. You put in a peck on the cheek and they want full blown orgy sex scenes."" http://forums.obsidi...ost__p__1247170 - "No to virtual masturbation, yes to quality writing. Biodrones go home." http://forums.obsidi...ost__p__1242506 - "Absolutely no. You freaks already have your mass-market virtual "relationship" simulators with Bioware games. Start playing japanese dating sims if you need more virtual relationships with nuance and drama and "tasteful" sex. Virtual **** puppets you can dress up and validate your lonely basement-dwelling existence - hell no." http://forums.obsidi...ost__p__1251692 - " boards are being flooded with an excessive amount of BioDrones who think this game is going to be some kind of 3D wet dream ... these dumbasses need to go back to their Dragon Ages" http://forums.obsidi...ost__p__1250715 - "This is not a dating simulator. ... But the last thing PE needs is to degenerate into an adolescent vehicle aiming to satisfy lonely people who want their player characters to awkwardly flirt for a few minutes and then totally do it. Forcing romances into the game to tick a bioware created expectation box would be a poor choice. ... I would strongly recommend any one of a thousand creepy Japanese dating "games"." That's not all that's out there. Just the last five days, what I could find with a ten minute search. Now find me an equal number of insults towards RPG Codex or anti-romance people. Not saying it doesn't happen - I'm saying it's ridiculously uneven. SECOND He isn't saying that rape is cool - THIS is a straw man. He's saying (accurately) that society is such that rape is a much more taboo subject than murder or cannibalism It clearly is. Can you murder people in Fallout 3? Yes. Can you eat people in Fallout: New Vegas? Yes. Can you rape people in ANY game? One that I know of by controversy, and that game is all but perma-banned everywhere. So, I think saying rape is considered more abhorrent than murder or cannibalism is pretty much a given, at least specifically in video games. To be clear - this is like saying shooting someone is considered worse than punching someone. Both are "wrong", no one is advocating either, but clearly one is a greater crime than the other. ---- That was much too long, but if I gave like two examples in the first point they'd be dismissed easily. This isn't a "pox on both their houses" issue. There isn't equal culpability. One side is drastically ruder to the other. Does it go both ways? Yes... and any analogy I try to come up with is insulting, so I'll just say that it isn't anywhere even. At the most basic level one side represents the other fairly accurately most of the time (anti-romance people don't want their game ruined by what they consider pointless and poorly done forced in game aspects) while the other side too often falls on libeling the former (bidrones want pixel sex and should get real life relationships.) Not everyone goes that route, but enough do... and they get the "likes" of many others. ---- kenup (everyone else), don't you wish I had just left it at the original two dozen word response?

You of all people accusing others of passive aggressive behaviour and ad hominem attacks is frankly hilarious. Wow... just, all but that last one? It looks to me like maybe you don't understand what certain terms mean. You really mischaracterized A LOT.

If you don't like those things in games, there's nothing wrong in opposing it. I'm not sure where you see me saying it was wrong for anyone to oppose it. The post you were quoting was showing a rough division of "two opposing forces", which itself was a very over-simplistic look at the dynamics of a customer, or worse fan, base. How do they satisfy the extremes of their "base?" By not catering to either side overtly, doing what they were going to do anyway, and depend on the end product being good enough, and enough of what enough of their base will enjoy, that not directly engaging with the extreme sides won't matter. Unfortunately, like a politician. As much as I might dislike certain aspects of more "modern" games (I want turn-based (not real time with pause), six party member parties that the player creates, and I want graphics to be like the year 2000 never happened (cursed NWN and other games moving into "3D")) I accept that mediums change over time. Tastes and trends change. Game design doesn't happen in a vacuum... companies are trying to cater to their audience. Do they misread trends and tastes, see the wrong things in market research and polls? Often, sure, but they try - and when things don't sell, they change their tactics. The sad truth is that FPS and Madden will always outsell cRPGs. Always. And that, for about a decade, MMORPGs were the best selling PC games. You don't have to like this (I don't) but you kind of have to adjust. You can sit on your mountaintop and remain pure, crusty and upset at the world... or you can try and enjoy the best of what exists out there, encouraging the games closer to what you want. I'm sure THIS is what you all believe your are doing, and are trying to do. Or most of you. Benefit of the doubt? But a small subset is exactly who your are. What's the Codex's membership levels? Hundreds? Maybe a few thousand? Games have to sell (even for indie titles) tens to hundreds of thousands, if not millions. A few hundred die-hards who wish it was still 1980 (and, again, I'm here - I want that, too, for video game design philosophy) can't be a target audience. Be glad that Obsidian is full of people who at least want to bring back a bunch of lost design mechanics from the early 2000's. Not just MCA, but their KS pitch. From BG - exploration and companions. From IWD - tactical combat and dungeon delving. From PS:T - themes and story. Just, you know, I don't think for most who LOVE PS:T a removal of Vancian magic, the addition of cooldowns, or even adding more overt romance to the companions, would have significantly "lessened" their love for the game.

What could they possibly say? Obsidian has gotten some of it's staunchest support over the years from die-hard old schoolers (like RPG Codex people) who are, in general, hostile to many "modernizations" of RPGs. It would be bad form (and bad for their brand) to directly say anything that would upset these people - and romance is clearly a bad thing to bring up. I mean, I'm betting Sawyer is at least mildly regretful of being too upfront about not doing Vancian verbatim. And Obsidian has gotten a big boost of new forum goers thanks to PE. And, clearly, a swath of them are clamoring for romance with the companions (NOTE - again, for those making assumptions without checking, I'm not one of them) so to blatantly say "no, we aren't including that" would upset a great number of forum goers and cause either a defection or a potential storm of negativity. Rock. Hard place. Best play? Stay non-committal, do what you were planning on doing from the start, and let the chips fall where they may after people get to play the game. Will some people still be upset? Sure. But some people will always be upset - let them be upset for the GAME, not for the concepts behind a game not even really started in development yet.

I think it is way to easy to read into that quote what you want to read into it. He said "There's been a lot of focus with companion mechanics in terms of like "how do I romance this person?" I'd like to think that there are other types of relationships that you can have with a companion, whether it's friendship, rivalry, hatred, or revenge. Romances end up being an easy target, but I think there's a lot more you can do with companion relationships." Nowhere in that quote does he say "romances are bad" or "no romances in PE." He also doesn't say "romances are good" or "romances in PE." He is pointing out there's a lot of attnetion on companion mechanics for the purpose of "how to romance" them. Chris is saying there's more that can be done with companion relationship mechanics than just romance. Anything else you read from that is your own biases. It only empirically says that there are more possibilities than romance. In the context of the whole quote, he is trying to portray that Project Eternity will have more nuance than some other games, in regards to morality and relationships. That should make everyone happy - but not necessarily for whether romances are in the game or not. Reading comprehension.

So why do you then demand/want romances into this game? This is what I wrote earlier: As I have said before I wouldn't have problem with romances done like in previous Obsidian games or PS:T, I'd prefer game not to have romances at all but if Obsidian decides to put some in, I trust them to do them well and not the Bioware-style, but my problem is with the people who demands/wants romances in even if they wouldn't fit the story and/or characters. Adding romances in game just for the sake of it shouldn't be done, as with anything. I also wouldn't want romances in because it tends to bring that certain type of people into the forums and start demanding that all companions should be romanceable, and every possible gender-combination put in, and certain style of romances. I don't demand anything be in this game. Not once. I've never demanded. I'm not someone who even mused about pulling my pledge due to a feature being in or out of the game. I'm not that guy. As to why I'd want romance in the game, there is my post way at the beginning of this thread, which itself is a link to several threads ago, about what I'd like to see IF romance is included - which I'll leave only the summary part here for you - But, more importantly, here's my first practical post on this subject on these forums about whether there should be romance in PE - - http://forums.obsidi...ost__p__1198014

Casablanca had romance, and is considered one of the best films ever made. Every film should have romance! The Godfather is another film considered the best ever made. Every film should have gangsters! Battlefield Earth is considered one of the worst films ever made. No film should have aliens! It doesn't really work as a good argument to hold up one (game/book/movie) and say that everything afterward should follow it. It's one example, not definitive. .... and I liked the spaceship and lasers in Ultima. In any event, Ultima IV isn't a model for this game. Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment are the models for this game. Romance or no is not the focus of this game, nor is "virtues" nor "lack of a big bad." It's focus is - "the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate ... the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale ... the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment ... tactical real-time with pause system ... world map is dotted with unique locations and wilderness ripe for exploration and questing .... create your own character and collect companions along the way ... engage in dialogues that are deep, and offer many choices to determine the fate of you and your party … experience a story that explores mature themes and presents you with complex, difficult choices to shape how your story plays out." A major hang-up in these discussions is what is meant by mature themes? Any subject can be handled in a juvenile way. Mature themes, I believe, means they will treat subject matters with a more thoughtful, realistic and logical approach. Romance CAN be a mature theme.... and that can happen without using another meaning of the word "mature" which tends to indicate "intended only for adult eyes - viewer discretion is advised." I would argue that romance being dealt with in a mature manner is one of Obsidian's strong suits - Mask of the Betrayer a pointed example of this. --- That aside, I'll mildly remind you (or tell you in case you missed it) that I'm not someone who's been saying that "romances make games deeper." Others have made that argument, I've not personally addressed it one way or the other - pretty sure I've not even quoted someone saying it before now.

I don't know how convenient it was... but here goes some of my cRPG nerd cred. Ultima's weren't my games. I've barely touched most Ultimas, and have only played a bit of IV and VI. I accept that Ultima IV was a paragon (pun intended) of cRPGs for the day. The Utlima's just never grabbed me - laser pistols and Lord British notwithstanding. Also, I'd never played Might & Magic until like a year ago. Another big hole in my library of cRPG experience. But you know what cRPG's from back then had romance? Gold Box SSI games. In the background, like the Dragonlance games... or with the PC and companion, in Treasures of the Savage Frontier.

Wow. Okay, one more attempt at engagement - more for everyone else than for kenup here, as he is clearly set in his view of things (me in particular) and no amount of me telling him that he doesn't know me is going to matter. But I would like to correct a few points, for posterity as it were. Disagree, not discredit - especially not by poisoning the well. "I love Peter Jackon's style in making film. He took a dreadfully boring, trite, and egotistical travelogue (from an etymologist who was just upset that people wouldn't accept his perfect language he had constructed so he made a fantasy world where the most perfect race spoke his most perfect language) and made it into an enjoyable, beautiful, moving film."- http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61768-unofficial-pe-relationshipromance-thread-pt2/page__st__80?do=findComment&comment=1253865 See above answer. Also - you are reading into what I said what you want to see. It is kind of hard to have a History Major and an English Minor and hate reading. Also - "I much prefer Neil Gaiman or Douglas Adams, or if I'm itching for something more "classic", I'll go with John Milton, Beowulf, Homer or Gilgamesh." - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61768-unofficial-pe-relationshipromance-thread-pt2/page__st__80?do=findComment&comment=1253865 I can add everything from Cook to Christie, Doyle to Dostoevsky, Salvatore to Smith - I could give you a picture of one of my twelve bookcases, let you see the list of over a hundred titles in my Kindle, or give you my AP Lit scores and English SAT and ACT scores if you wanted... ... but none of that matters when you are trying to get a good dig in, does it? I don't want, nor have advocated for, romance minigames. I've specifically spoken out against them being included in Project Eternity. ... do facts matter to you at all? After the "evolution" non sequitor, I'd have thought maybe. Do you read what I actually post, or just skim to find something juicy to bash like "He doesn't like Tolkien? He clearly hates reading! Eureka, my dear Poirot!" Over 500 posts just pointing to a poll - wow, I am repetitive. dammit, now I'm getting snarky If you bothered to read what I quote when I post the link to that thread where I did most of my arguing and am trying to not rehash the same points I made there - you'd see I'm not for romance minigames in Project Eternity. Will you bother to admit you are wrong, even once? Or just move the goal posts - shift your argument to continue to morph it so you can always say "that's not what I meant" or "the larger point I'm making is" until it's drawn so broadly no one could say you were wrong? Bigger man, or hot air? Can you admit you are setting up straw men and misrepresenting me? And the answer to my last question above is likely no for what this last part shows. Kenup is arguing not against me, but an amalgam of vastly differently people who all hold vastly different views, have different likes, life experiences, etc... but he conflates them together because we all don't say "BIoWare bad! Romance bad!" He's gone from defending his attacks on my opinion of Tolkien, to justifying his attacks on my opinion of Tolkien by attributing to me a defense of something I've never defended, and ends with railing against a whole mish-mash group of people as his justification for judging "our" opinion on Tolkien. .... And with that, I'm done trying to debate Duane Gish here.

Thing is, if you read the whole review, he's talking about some of Tolkien's more influential literary admirers when he talks about the "fans" and pointing out problems with their pro-LOTR comments and how he believes that they're unjustly praising Tolkien by overlooking things that they themselves would criticize in other works. Ah, that wasn't clear in the parts you quoted. By all means - literary critics can be critical of each other. Still a bit on the harsh side, but more understandable. Samwise and Frodo at least... I kid, I kid... I thought it, too... I just wasn't going to say it.

Milton and (whomever wrote Beowulf) are hard to get through, too, thought that's more due to language changing over time / translation. ... Wait, didn't even LotR have a few romances in it?

From literary critic Edmund Wilson's review printed in The Nation in 1956. Point is, not everyone thinks Tolkien is "good writing". Just like not everyone thinks video game romance is good writing (to try vainly to approach the topic of the thread). Damn, I had not read that before. He's harsher on it that I am. At least he points out that Tolkien, himself, knew it wasn't literature but playing with a world for his languages he invented as a hobby. But I think attacking the fans of Tolkien is a step over the line. ... And I love Howard Phillips's work.

Because everyone must love Tolkien or Moore? I hope you aren't implying that a dislike of Tolkien is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion. I'm implying that if you like the movies and not Tolkien's books, you may not understand what good writing is. And yes it is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion. You don't see a biologist worth their weight not approving of the Evolution Theory, do you? I don't comment on the other books/movies because I don't care about them, the conversation wasn't about them. With you people everyone should deserve the same respect, no matter how wrong their arguments in a debate, or their lack of knowledge and/or experience on the matter. Except from the anti-romance-minigames team, we are Ebil! "You people." That's a good start. Comparing taste in fiction to scientific theory is kind of like comparing favorite colors to determining how many apples are in a basket. One is subjective, the other is objective. One is personal opinion, the other is empirical fact. That aside... I love Peter Jackon's style in making film. He took a dreadfully boring, trite, and egotistical travelogue (from an etymologist who was just upset that people wouldn't accept his perfect language he had constructed so he made a fantasy world where the most perfect race spoke his most perfect language) and made it into an enjoyable, beautiful, moving film. The only way I got through reading Tolkien was by taking it on the train in Chicago, and having that or talking to homeless people as my trip to work every day. Tolkien wasn't a good writer, as far as I'm concerned. His books are nigh-unreadable. --- Opinion on Tolkien aside, you can't just gauge someone's ability to judge good literature or reading comprehension because they dislike one fantasy series of books. I much prefer Neil Gaiman or Douglas Adams, or if I'm itching for something more "classic", I'll go with John Milton, Beowulf, Homer or Gilgamesh.

I love the Gold Box engine and most of SSI's cRPG's! Wizard's Crown is a favorite of mine. I usually list either Pool of Radiance or Pools of Darkness (to represent the entire series) as one of my favorite cRPG's, if not games, of all time. They had a plot in the background, and some of the later entries (specifically thinking of the Savage Frontiers duo) made strides to incorporating story into the gameplay... but the Gold Box games were tactical turn-based combat first, second and third... with the background story adding color to the combats you were having. I'm not knocking them... without that story I'd probably not have replayed the games so many times. A less story-focused game, like Phantasie or Bard's Tale, it is harder to motivate me through the endless random encounters. So SSI does shine a bit brighter than others at it's time. But you can't compare integrated story of Baldur's Gate or PS:T to what counted as "story" back in the Gold Box era. I mean, it took Wasteland to finally REALLY show what story in a cRPG could be.

Because everyone must love Tolkien or Moore? I hope you aren't implying that a dislike of Tolkien is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion.

Okay, I can agree with most of that. With at least the minor caveat that most games allow you to easily skip dialog and cut scenes to get right back to fighting. I don't think a "skip combat" button would be bad in certain games (wouldn't many here want a "skip romance" button?) but it would have to be a feature that takes into consideration many factors, and for some games it would be more hassle than it's worth. Let me give you a good example of this, however - Medieval Total War. A combo turn-based and real-time strategy game series. Those games you can choose to just play the big strategy and not the battle tactics. Every time a combat happens you can let the computer resolve it by the click of a button. Another example, part way at least. Dawn of War: Dark Crusade and Dawn of War: Soulstorm. They are RTS's. When enemies attack your territories you control you can have the computer auto-resolve the battle. Now those aren't cRPG's, yes, but the concept can be the same. In reaching a broader audience (and a different section than what overlaps the FPS crowd) role-playing games have attracted players who are more interested in story and dialog than in fighting. You have to acknowledge it, even if you won't "accept" it (though you should accept it.) And with that crowd come people who want the interactive story and the creation of their character but NOT the endless waves of combat encounters. It's a valid viewpoint. A bit different than traditional, perhaps... but game genres evolve over time. cRPG's used to be text-based, build your entire party, dungeon crawls. There didn't used to be recruitable companions, and story didn't use to be a focus. Choice depended on what classes, spells and weapons you chose and that was it. And combat was turn-based. There was resistance to the inclusion of pre-made characters. There was resistance to story-focus, dialog options, and choices in the game for different results. You got real time (with pause option) combat. But most people here love IE games. And almost all those changes are key to IE games. But there are still people who'd prefer turn-based. Dungeon crawling. Making your own party. Less story and more combat and dungeon crawling. And now there are cRPG players who want LESS combat and MORE story. Different strokes.

I hate Tolkien's books. HATE. And I love the movies... despite the books. I also disliked Watchmen, the graphic novel, but loved Watchmen, the movie. Same with V for Vendetta. Though, to give Alan Moore some credit, I actually really enjoyed LoEG, the graphic novels, and the movie was pretty bad. I also think there's too much combat in most games. I think L.A. Noire would have been a better game without the gun fights and car chases. I've played Blade Runner quite a few times without ever drawing my gun outside of the shooting range and the one scene you are forced to fight in. It's odd to advocate no combat in a sword & sorcery kind of game, true... and what's the point of classes if not for combat (they are almost exclusively designed to give "personality" or "flavor" to how your character acts in combat and nothing else, in D&D-esque RPGs at the very least.) But it's not odd to like video games with no combat in it. Your statement and argument are too broad. Someone writing dialog and characters for a game doesn't have to like combat, regardless of what's in the game. Just like I can write religious characters in a story, or play a paladin or cleric in a video game or table top game, and STILL be an atheist in real life. Her job isn't designing combat encounters or combat mechanics. She doesn't have to like combat. This problem with her is far more about the people complaining than it is about her.

We've got to do something for the next two years. I for one enjoy having my posts deleted. Well, not really. It probably wouldn't happen if you attacked the problem and not the people. For example - I absolutely, one-hundred percent agree that having tons of threads demanding all companions be romanceable in all sexualities is something that is not productive for any forum and having that here would be bad, and it is one of, if not the, biggest problem at BSN. You can easily address that issue without name-calling people, or blanket-asserting that everyone from BSN or everyone who likes romance in a game wants that. And, you know, picture-spam assaults on people - probably also not likely to stay posted. --- If it matters to you, and it may well not, I usually enjoy reading what you write.

Death in games and fantasy settings that have gods and resurrection spells is about as final as death of comic book super-heroes for the big two. As for crimes - others have mentioned it, but I'll add my voice to it: soul abuse. Tainting, damaging, capturing or destroying another's soul is probably one of the biggest crimes in PE's world.

People can be fans of more than one thing. Do you guys really enjoying mocking people so much?

I am not a fan of MMO's, so let's get that red herring out of the way. Here's a box. Toss your red herrings in it. All done? Good. Okay. I like the idea of party members enhancing each other's attacks. You COULD say that flanking, buff spells, etc., are this... and you'd be right... but I mean, and I think the OP means, game mechanics for classes working together to create effects that either alone couldn't. A priest is able to cast a holy rain spells, for example, and a bunch of enemies are soaked in divinely charged water. A wizard follows up with a bolt from the blue spell, and a lightning bolt streaks from the sky and strikes one of the soaked enemies - and it reacts with the divine water for a blinding flash of holy energy exploding amongst the doused monsters. A fighter enters his "come at me" attack routine, pulling a large enemy into fighting him and not letting the enemy's attention stray away. The rogue then slips behind the enemy and is able to land a "crippling disarm" attack, one that is only possible on enemies "held" by the fighter's routine. That kind of thing.

Fellow Obsidian forumite, it isn't just romance discussions that bring in the weird people demanding their tastes be satisfied and go on their own Quixotic crusades. Two words - Vancian, cooldowns Oh, I never claimed I wasn't weird. I just don't do pie charts. That wasn't directed at you, per se, but just in general. People who get bee's in their bonnet come in all stripes... and I need to stop mixing my metaphors...

Fellow Obsidian forumite, it isn't just romance discussions that bring in the weird people demanding their tastes be satisfied and go on their own Quixotic crusades. Two words - Vancian, cooldowns

Personally, I think BioWare, even at it's worse, has good writing still. And it's the formulaic nature of the romances in later games I disapprove of, not necessarily the content. I also happen to think Tali was a great character and a good romance. Merill.... Merrill was an incredibly uneven character, however. She wasn't written consistently. I couldn't tell if she was charmingly naive or just dumber than dirt - and at different times in the game you could make a solid case for either view.