Merin
-
Posts
618 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Merin
-
-
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.
-
3
-
-
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.
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 -
To sum up - romance should be part of the story of the game at some level, with characters you meet having their own relationships, perhaps some motivations of more important NPCs be tied up to romantic feelings, and maybe even some non-companion NPCs having the optional plot thread of a romance. But I don't want it to be a major part of the game, unless that is Obsidian's design goals, and I'd rather it not be romance with companions.
But, more importantly, here's my first practical post on this subject on these forums about whether there should be romance in PE -
I really like romance in cRPGs, just like I like combat, dialog choices, deep stories, making my own party, having companions, being able to craft my own spells and items... the list is long.I don't NEED any one particular item in that list. If one gets sacrificed (or many, usually) for the game's sake, I'm good with that if the game ends up better overall.
Romance isn't a must in an RPG for me, but so isn't combat or magic or loot or stats or... you get my point.
I'd like it, but if it doesn't fit the game's focus, don't shoe-horn it in.
-
Ultimas didn't have laser pistols after maybe first two or three parts. The point I was making is that one of The Most mature and serious RPGs ever made didn't have any romances, and I have been asking "Why should Project Eternity be one of the games to have romances." and only reply I've been getting is with the buzzwords "Becooz it makes dem deeper!", and I've been saying this since beginning: With very limited timetable and budget they can only do so much (or little) so they should keep the game as focused as possible.
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.
-
2
-
-
You conviniently ignored Ultima-games, tell me, has any game really tackled on subjects such as becoming paragon of virtue, moral absolutism, corruption of men, racist prejudice and peaceful co-existance since then?
Tell me also any another crpg which does not have big bad or main antagonist other than Ultima 4?
And what else Ultima-games doesnt have...oh yeah, romances with your companions.
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.
Why is it wrong for me to discredit his opinion?
Disagree, not discredit - especially not by poisoning the well.
Does he have any reason to like movies(and I'm not saying the movies are bad) more than books?"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
What I get from his argument is that he doesn't like reading and just likes CGI etc.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?
Does he have some well thought theory, or proof for romance minigames being good?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.
Does he make any valid arguments as to why 'such and such'?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!"
All he does in each thread is point out a poll, which only shows popularity, not reasons to support romance minigames.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 most of them just contradict themselves. They say don't want bioware romances, but when i say something about the people who wrote those romances, they get defensive and cry. How can I take them or their opinions seriously after that? How can I not discredit their opinion when they support bad writers, but discredit good ones? They don't even know what they ask for.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.
-
1
-
-
But I think attacking the fans of Tolkien is a step over the line.
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.
Wait, didn't even LotR have a few romances in it?
Samwise and Frodo at least...
I kid, I kid...
I thought it, too... I just wasn't going to say it.
-
I'm well disposed to him and I still find getting through LOTR a bit of a chore (like Melville who I also like but not an easy writer to read due to the impenetrability of the prose).
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?
-
I'm implying that if you like the movies and not Tolkien's books, you may not understand what good writing is.
[THE LORD OF THE RINGS] is essentially a children's book - a children's book which has somehow got out of hand, since, instead of directing it at the juvenile market, the author has indulged himself in developing the fantasy for its own sake; and it ought to be said at this point, before emphasizing its inadequacies as literature, that Dr. Tolkien makes few claims for his fairy romance. In a statement prepared for his publishers, he has explained that he began it to amuse himself, as a philological game: the invention of languages is the foundation. The 'stories' were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse. I should have preferred to write in 'Elvish'. He has omitted, he says, in the printed book, a good deal of the philological part; but there is a great deal of linguistic matter... included or mythologically expressed in the book. It is to me, anyway, largely an essay in 'linguistic esthetic,' as I sometimes say to people who ask me 'what it is all about.'... It is not 'about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions, general, particular or topical, moral, religious or political. An overgrown fairy story, a philological curiosity - that is, then, what The Lord of The Rings really is. The pretentiousness is all on the part of Dr. Tolkien's infatuated admirers, and it is these pretensions that I would here assail....
Now, how is it that these long-winded volumes of what looks to this reviewer like balderdash have elicited such tributes as those above? The answer is, I believe, that certain people - especially, perhaps, in Britain - have a lifelong appetite for juvenile trash. They would not accept adult trash, but, confronted with the pre-teen-age article, they revert to the mental phase which delighted in Elsie Dinsmore and Little Lord Fauntleroy and which seems to have made of Billy Bunter, in England, almost a national figure. You can see it in the tone they fall into when they talk about Tolkien in print: they bubble, they squeal, they coo; they go on about Malory and Spenser - both of whom have a charm and a distinction that Tolkien has never touched.
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.
-
I'm not gonna comment on Tolkien, or the other books to movies transitions.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.
-
There always have been cRPGs which are story-based and with recruitable companions, such as Ultimas 4-7 and for example also Ambermoon and Amberstar had recruitable companions. Did you ever play Goldbox-games? They were also pretty storydriven so it's not just something what Fallout and IE-games brought.
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.
-
I'm not gonna comment on Tolkien, or the other books to movies transitions.
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.
-
The 'problem' I have with her comment is that it is indicative of the problem in general with Bioware games: the parts of the game seem to be unconnected with each other. RPGs really need to have each part of the game influence each other, the dialogue needs to influence the combat and both need to be influenced by the same stats for instance. Bioware games have increasingly segregated the dialogue and combat to the point that you can be using blood magic in front of an entire city and no one seems to mention it in conversation. The writers should be working with the designers and those implementing the combat mechanics to make sure everything works and makes sense in the world they are building, for instance TNO's ability to switch classes was written into Planescape's story as his using his 'forgetfulness' and even justified questlines and the like. If you are able to skip combat to get straight to the dialogue or vice versa with no impact then something is wrong with the RPG you're supposed to be making.
That's my opinion anyway, take from it what you will.
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.
-
1
-
-
@Pshaw I already wrote my thoughts about Hepler. If you can't see wrong with someone hating combat in video games, while working on those kinds of games, nothing I say will change that. Same if you can't see the wrong in not liking Tolkien's books but loving the movies and understand what a fangirl or fanboy is.
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.
-
People can be fans of more than one thing.
Do you guys really enjoying mocking people so much?
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.
-
3
-
-
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?
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
Romances bring in weird people, just wait for the pie charts and graphs proving dev's bias against whatever.
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...
-
Romances bring in weird people, just wait for the pie charts and graphs proving dev's bias against whatever.
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.
-
Poll I did awhile back -
Link to specific post where I'm quoting from -
and quote, for my contribution to the thread -
4 - If Project Eternity does include romance, how do you want it implemented?some thoughts on the ways: just backstory and NPCs; player character with an NPC/NPCs; player character with companions; just amongst companions; flirting; platonic relationships... lots of ways it could be done, not just the PC on companions model (though, if that's what you want, go ahead and voice your desire for it)
And my answer -
I'd, personally, prefer the romance to not be between the PC and the companions. If there is romance, it should be outside that dynamic. Some flirting, mutual attraction, whatever - if it is included, that's fine. But I'd rather see the romance in the background, at best, as part of the story you interact with, or between the PC and a few potential, non-companion, NPCs in the world.
I think the vocal minority (as far as any of these polls and threads have shown, it's a minority voting no to romance at all) have as their most salient concern the waste of writing resources on companions, and this is a very real concern that I understand and sympathize with. If there is a writer assigned to a companion, any potential romance with said companion is more for the writer to have work on and weave into non-romance parts of the dialog at times as well. For those who want nothing to do with romance, or whom just might not want to romance a given character, that character will suddenly have less content and might feel a bit shallow compared to other companions.
I don't think its a minority who hold that particular concern - I think most people posting in this thread want strong companions and no wasted writing.
In any event, due to the small size of the game and the limit funds they have to work with, I am for romance being background, window dressing, part of the story around the character and their party... not integral, or even optional, for the PC and the companions.
To sum up - romance should be part of the story of the game at some level, with characters you meet having their own relationships, perhaps some motivations of more important NPCs be tied up to romantic feelings, and maybe even some non-companion NPCs having the optional plot thread of a romance. But I don't want it to be a major part of the game, unless that is Obsidian's design goals, and I'd rather it not be romance with companions.
-
Seriously, we need to start gathering links to well liked posts, and ask for them to be put in the OP. Hopefully this way we won't have to repeat ourselves so much.
Since all the points have been made across the entire spectrum already, a topic ban with pointers to all existing locked threads would be best. IMO.
As a sticky post.But there are new people joining the forums everyday, and it should be limited just to those who posted in the past. New people should be allowed to express their views as well.
I have tried to just take to pointing at my posts in previous threads - and only engaging on new points.
I do agree someone repeatedly saying the same thing, over and over again, does get tiring for everyone. But just because it's been said before doesn't mean new people shouldn't be allowed to say it, too.
-
Honestly, this wouldn't be a problem if the mods actually did their job and moderated the forums. Apparently they are either lazy or they don't do crap sometimes.
I don't think it's laziness.
I think it may be them not being clearly instructed on what they are supposed to do, in some cases.
In other cases, it may be moderators not wanting to be heavy-handed and trying a more laissez-faire approach.
In certain cases it sure seems like some moderators look the other way when they agree with the gist of what certain posters are saying, even if said posters are breaking rules.
A good deal of it is almost certainly due to a large influx of people due to the Kickstarter meeting the probably small group of mods the site had prior.
Regardless of reason, this is the most lax forum (or was when I first started paying attention when PE KS began) that I've been on. Usually forums are TOO strict in my experience.
I don't think moderators are to blame and this isn't to call them out or anything... but a lot of activity had been going unaddressed for awhile there. As I've got people on /ignore (something I practically have never done before here) it's possible I've blocked out the main trouble makers from my vision.
-
Except that Obsidian asks for donators to give their opinions. They are soliciting wants, likes and dislikes. They repeatedly say how happy they are with being able to communicate directly with us and being able to base decisions on the backers and not on the publishers.
So, when you advocate "let Obsidian make the game they want" as a way to make someone NOT talk about a given feature...
you are advocating AGAINST what Obsidian explicitly wants.
Q.E.D.
But I'm afraid you demonstrated nothing. How does Obsidian asking for opinions make an opinion invalid? "let Obsidian make the game they want" is a perfect response to Obsidian asking about opinions. It means "I trust you and believe that the game will be better if you develop it the way you indended." Furthermore, why would saying "let Obsidian make the game they want" automatically mean that you don't want someone to "talk about a given feature?". If I say it, I don't mind that the discussion continues after that. I stated my opinion. That's all I wanted to do.
Yep, that what I tried to say, I think you explained it better than me xD
Your opinion being "let Obsidian make the game they want" isn't invalid.
Telling people to stop asking for things with your reasoning being "let Obsidian make the game they want" isn't valid.
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you anymore than this.
-
2
-
I'm not gonna comment on Tolkien, or the other books to movies transitions.
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. 
As a sticky post.
Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
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.