Merin
-
Posts
618 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Merin
-
-
The problem is that "let Obsidian make the game they want!" is also an opinion. Someone may honestly believe, that the game will be the best it can be if backers let Obsidian do the game they intend to do. Otheres may disagree, but it doesn't make that opinion any less valid. It's the point a discussion. To present and support various ideas related to a subject.
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.
-
3
-
-
Man....
this is almost reverse trolling. Giving fodder to the people who think this is just about BioWare style romances.
He's not reverse trolling, he's just trolling. I would say the sig would be a dead giveaway.
What's that supposed to mean? Haven't you ever played Mass Effect 3? Morinth got totally screwed by the writers, they turned her into a monster! She deserves a WAY better ending.
It means that I know you aren't trolling - you are serious....
but what you are saying is directly feeding into the beliefs a few people here who think all people saying that romance in games is good are people looking for BioWare's formulaic relationship with companions system.
Apologies if it comes across as me saying you are trolling or aren't honest - I've seen you post elsewhere and know you are serious about this.
Just - what you are posting with this is EXACTLY what some people are all
about.But it is very, very hard for me to take seriously a brony telling people to go out and have a real life.
I don't have a life, do i?
So ... I'm a zombie then?
You have a life. I simply mean - you know - bronies are the subject of about as much unwarranted hatred as Twihards... so for them to try and make pseudo-judgmental statements about other's life due to their interests...
comes across as more than a little ironic, don't you think?
-
Okay, okay... I said attacking the person is bad.
I'm being bad.
But it is very, very hard for me to take seriously a brony telling people to go out and have a real life.
apologies if you are an adolescent girl, Vagr Raekr
-
For other I list Dragon Age: Origins (not 2!), Wasteland, Knights of Legend, Wizards Crown, Alternate Reality: The Dungeon and Pools of Darkness.
And I want PE to be most like a mix of Icewind Dale, Wasteland, Knights of Legend, Wizard's Crown and Pools of Darkness.
....
hmmm, missing in there are games where you get companions you recruit (well, Gold Box and Wasteland you somewhat do, but still) .... I guess that whole pre-written NPC companion thing isn't the draw for me.
-
I can't say for certain it was my question on the livestream - several were asking "firefly or farscape" for some reason - but I did pose the question a few times about whether they'd like to do an RPG based on a Whedon property, like Angel or Firefly. After I asked it a few times and someone(s) else got them to praise Firefly a few times, others started asking "Firefly RPG?" as well.
-
Let's stick with your Firefly references, because Firefly is awesome. If PE is Firefly, and Mal is my sole PC, I don't care if Wash and Zoe are in a relationship. That's on the side as part of the plot/setting.
However, if I'm controlling a party of the whole crew, I don't want to have dialogue tree options allowing the player to pretend to be Wash or Zoe and awkwardly "develop" the relationship. I'm not saying relationships shouldn't exist in the game world, simply that as a player, the act of using actions or dialogue to pursue these cardboard relationships adds nothing to my gameplay experience.
I'd agree with you actually; as the PC the Wash / Zoe relationship shouldn't be mine to command over or develop. I'd see their relationship similar to Korgan hitting on Mazzy or Mazzy making that ranger her squire. Stuff you'd only see happen that creates the illusion that your party is full of people and not 17th lvl Fighter Dwarf and 17 level Fighter Halfling.
I'd also be okay with a me as Mal PC who was *never* able to resolve the "thing" with Inara because it'd fit the characters.
Again story character is primary focus for me; I just think that within the realms of making those elements in the game Romance could be a part of it (but not must be, because again the story and characters involved may not make sense.)
I may be a bit biased about the concept... but I'd be all for an unrequited romance for the PC in PE.
-
Wow, no less than two people who more or less share my point of view in each their own way... *faints*
![=]](//obsidian-forums.s3.amazonaws.com/emoticons/default_turned.gif)
Maybe there is hope for the internet yet?
On a serious note, the above two sentences pretty much sums up a few posts of mine where I've tried to explain the same thing. Context is sometimes everything.
How far different is my stance from yours? I think more people are along this line than might seem apparent on the surface.
To those who oppose any kind of romances, know that they sell games and we need the game to sell if we want more games from Obsidian.
Well said. If they add the option to sex the companion characters in PE, HUNDREDS of refugees dislocated by the closure of BSN's romance subforums will buy the game.
Man....
this is almost reverse trolling. Giving fodder to the people who think this is just about BioWare style romances.
-
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the only acceptable answers in a discussion are the "Yes, I agree" types? Or is it that people shoudn't write that "Obsidian should make the game they want"? I seriously don't understand your point.
I think it's this -
When someone creates a thread (or posts in a thread) advocating for their own personal tastes in what should (or should not) be in a game, acceptable (read: productive, in the spirit of the forum, worthwhile) responses can range from "Yes, I need this" to "don't care if this is in or not" to "For the love of all that is holy, don't include this!", as well as "this is how I'd like to see it" to "okay if like A, not okay if like B" to "it is always bad - examples C-F"...
but what OP is saying (and I tend to agree with) is that the response to every suggestion being "don't ask for that thing!" to "let Obsidian make the game they want!" to "I sure hope Obsidian DOESN'T listen to the forums at all!" are all against the spirit of the forums.
Disagreeing with a suggested feature is not only okay, but encouraged.
Disagreeing with features being suggested, however, is not okay.
See the difference?
-
2
-
-
It's both ends of the bell curve, really. There are people who insist that romances are the height of "meaningful deep" character development, when that's not true at all (in entertainment and life) and thus demand (no, really, some do) a large proportion of character content be earmarked for only that. Then there are people who cannot stand the inclusion of any lovey-dovey for lack of realism, pandering to (insert audience type), etc.
I keep hearing this "a pox on both houses" point made, but it's rare (not never, but rare) that someone advocating romance, even hardcore advocating, comes out with name-calling and dismissing a whole group of people because of what forum they may or may not visit.
I'm not looking to finger-point here or anything - just saying that for me in particular, and for many others as they have stated, it's the name-calling, straw man arguments and dismissive grouping that is being seen as offensive. Not advocating for no romance, or thinking romance in games is dumb or always badly done... but the personal attacks on those who even speak up in favor of it maybe not always being bad.
Just attack the argument, not the person, right? And this goes both ways - I have seen a few times the pro-romance side calling the anti-side some pretty pejorative things as well and that is equally wrong.
Now, I think there has to be a reasonable compromise, but I will admit that actually talking to one of those people in the former group, in person, pissed me off enough that would fall squarely into the latter end of the bell curve. Holy crud. Thank goodness she is not the target audience for this game, but I really could never abide by... that.... (she wanted every companion be romanceable and bi, or at least one be pansexual, and there should be a cheat to skip all combat....
).While personally I think the equation and "must have" that you describe here is detrimental to any game design, unless inclusivity and romance are the core game design goals, I don't see this any more "bang your head against the wall" extremism than those elsewhere who pulled their pledges because the game could potentially not give XP for kills or because there might be some kind of cool down, level scaling or non-vancian magic.
Let's just call any "my way or the highway" stance extreme, and not point at anyone who things romance can be a positive addition to cRPGs as belong to a "group" that you deign to "talk to one of those people from."
----
And before the slings and arrows come my way, I'll point back that my stance for romance in P.E. is certainly not what most anti-romance people are drawing a line against - at least, that's how I've been reading the (more reasoned and less inflammatory) arguments.
-
For the rest of my life I'm going to have visions of him having a brilliant story scenario pop into his head whilst he screams "Wooo" to himself over and over.
He was feeling no pain that night...
I bet he was feeling a lot of pain the morning after.
For you strongly against-romance people, you can always hope that he wrote a romance the morning after.
-
For the rest of my life I'm going to have visions of him having a brilliant story scenario pop into his head whilst he screams "Wooo" to himself over and over.
He was feeling no pain that night...
-
Do. Want.
-
--what type of romance plot do you enjoy (tragic, happy ending, marriage/family)?
Any and all that are well written. I personally think it's far too easy, almost a cop-out, to write the tragic romance. Just like writing dark stories, anti-heroes, shades of gray (both interpretations)... while writing an interesting and compelling happy romance is very hard without it being saccharine.
One that entertains me more than others is quite cliche. The love triangle, with the guy's best friend ending up being the girl he winds up with, even though she helps (or hinders?) his attempts to get together with a different girl.
Yes, I love John Hughes movies.
--are there particular game mechanics that you like to see when romances are included (complex questlines, cutscenes?)?
For a game, assuming that the question implies a player character romancing another character (companion or no) - I like to see it build over time, over many interactions, with potential missteps along the way.
I'd rather there wasn't a formula applied - you make your main character, you recruit companions, X number of companions are romanceable, you have to fulfill three dialog objectives, do one side quest, and make the right game story choice to be rewarded with relationship! THAT'S artificial. That's gamification of relationships.
I want it to happen as part of the narrative, even aside the narrative, but without a "win" scenario.
--what romances or relationship plots from other games did you enjoy that can serve as examples?
I love the Raynor / Kerrigan relationship in Starcraft. This one might be a little odd, but I also find really moving the relationship that Master Chief and Cortana had in Halo. I also really enjoyed the Mona and Max Payne relatioship in Max Payne 2. For quirkiness, there's the York and Emily romance in Deadly Premonition. And here's one that'll just come across as creepy because people are going to misinterpret the meaning, but the Ray / Lucy relationship in Blade Runner was really well done (in a similar way to the Mike / Sis one in AP.) Finally, for a well written character solely motivated by love, Alan Wake is a great game.
For role-playing games in particular, I liked the romance with Tali in Mass Effect and the romance with Bastila in KotOR. I think Alistair was well written as well, and my first DA:O play I was a female city elf who was romancing him but then watched him leave to go off and get drunk when I chose to spare Loghain and put Anora on the throne.... so the romance with Alistair was good while still being in a pretty gamey set-up and part of the horrible diaper sex. I really enjoyed all the "relationships" in Alpha Protocol, I thought they were really well done. Final Fantasy 6 (especially the opera scene), Final Fantasy 7 - and I always assumed 8 (though I never played it, I believe it has a great romance.) I cannot remember her name, but there's the daughter in the big family in ToEE whom you can chat with and even marry I believe - that was very fun and satisfying.
--What, even, is romance?
Well, in this context it's not heroic literature... it's love. In a game it's playing through, or watching/reading the development of, feelings between characters. This can take so many varied forms, from glances to flirting to one night stands to marriage. It can be unrequited, it can be unfulfilled, it can even be unacknowledged.
-
Copy and pasting my contribution from a few threads ago -
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.
-
1
-
-
Are you asking for romance minigames or romance as part of the main story?
For me?
Part of the story - it doesn't even have to be part of the main story, or the focus.
But there should be romance. Side characters. NPCs with NPCs. Maybe part of the main story, if that's the story Obsidian wants to tell. Maybe between companions. Maybe your main character with an NPC who isn't a companion.
I don't want a mini-game. I want role-playing.... so there shouldn't be a cookie cutter formula applied to companions. IF it fits the story Obsidian is telling or the characters Obsidian is creating, then romanceable companions. If that isn't what Obsidian is planning for companions, then not romanceable companions shoe-horned in just because.
But romance should exist in the world, and should be a motivating force for at least some of the characters in said world.
-
It is rather depressing isn't it?
Here's the thing, though...
it's usually closed as a result of someone finally taking the bait. Anytime a romance thread pops up, there's a crew of about a half-dozen regulars who come in and start calling people names (biodrones, promancers, "lonely basement dwellers with body pillows", whatever), start posting a lot of negativity, and then start making "serious suggestions" about raping dragons and such - all in an effort to poison the conversation, provoke strong reactions, and get the threads closed down.
And they rarely get called to task.
If it just remained people civilly discussing pro's and con's, or their personal preferences, these threads wouldn't be so long and the topic wouldn't be so heated.
But for all the talk of "people coming over from BioWare" and "ruining things" - it's my fervent opinion that most of the problem from romances on the forums comes from the virulently anti-romance crowd.
Well, and games are mostly to blame for that. I stated in an earlier post that they really have corrupted a person's way of thinking in resemblance to Hollywood. (being that they can't produce a movie without T&A being in it anymore.) Random shower scenes, pool scenes, things thrown in as eye candy because it gets more people to watch the movie. Well, ever since the first games started experimenting with how far they can take it, they saw the $$$ signs. Now it's become a cliche so to speak and a part of our gaming society.
No, BioWare is mostly to blame for this. If we have to use the word "blame" - they were heralded as kings of RPGs for a long time (whether everyone agrees with this or no), and then they simultaneously did two things -
1 - went cinematic and storytelling over game designing
2 - overreacted to pressure from minority opinions that caused them "bad press"
with point one, they show cinematics in everyone's face, so we get slow motion scenes of gutting dragons and, more importantly, video game character making out awkwardly. Deeper into point one, they are so set on telling a certain story that they force certain things to happen - and to the consternation of players who DON'T want to role-play romance in a game, this meant companions quite visibly and verbally (cinematic, after all) hitting on them.
with point two, they bowed to Fox News and whomever that lawyer with an axe to grind to gain 15 minutes of fame was (Adam Sessler hated the guy, I remember that much) and after their largely (arguably) tasteful "sex scenes" in Mass Effect 1, decided to put diapers and fur bikinis on characters in Dragon Age. This made the already awkward sex scenes farcical. Moreover, they overreacted to calls for inclusion and equality in DA2 and just made every character (save Varric and Aveline, mind you) bi-romanceable. Which REALLY tripped the triggers of people uncomfortable with homosexuality when virtual characters of the same sex hit on them (see point one)
It is bigger than BioWare, but I do know that BioWare does deserve the lion share of responsibility for the anti-romance crowd being so virulent.
----
I think, however, very few people asking for romance, even romance with companions, are asking for Dragon Age 2, diaper sex, or cinematics. Some may be, but I think they are a smaller minority than the virtolically anti-romance people.
-
1
-
-
In Alpha Protocol you got an achievement if you slept with all the women in one playthrough even.
But, to be fair, you were given the option to play James Bond, so...
Am I the only one who didn't play AP like a James Bond movie?
No, I didn't for, uh, the first five times through the game. But my last play - yeah, I finally played as the egotistical, womanizing, murdering ****.
-
Wishing they'd pledged higher than they did?
Uhm...
I wish I could have pledged a thousand and got to help write even a small part of the game...
but outside of that, no, I feel pretty good about my pledge.
-
There is a game with achievements for the romances? I hope you're making this up. I'm losing faith in mankind by the minute here. I can just see it now:
Achievement Unlocked: Gotta **** 'em All
Achievement Unlocked: Booty Bounty
Achievement Unlocked: Scissor me Xerxes!
Edit:
Achievement Unlocked: Donkey Desires
Achievement Unlocked: You Can Do WHAT With Your Tongue!?!
Well you get achievements for romancing each character that can be romanced in DA and ME. That's a pretty much open admission as to how important Bioware thinks these things are.
In Alpha Protocol you got an achievement if you slept with all the women in one playthrough even.
But, to be fair, you were given the option to play James Bond, so...
-
I wonder if anyone else caught early in the livestream tonight (well before the drinking got heavy, like maybe an hour or so in) Chris Avellone answered the question of "was Neeshka supposed to be romanceable" with "I wanted her to be."
For PS:T, I'm not far in. I've never gotten far in - this is my fourth attempt to play the game. But from initial flashbacks, to journal messages, to meeting your eternal love who solicits a pledge from you to either save or join her... yeah, I'm out of my mind for seeing this romance as central to the game so far. Again, not far in... but it's a big theme so far, as big as anything (immortality, death, and eternal love I'd say at this point.)The "out of your mind" bit was uncalled for, but I can sort of understand it as a gut reaction. There is no "love" in PS:T. But if you plan on finishing it some day, I'll not spoil it for you by revealing the truth behind "relationships".
I'll probably fail at staying interested in the game and end up reading a wiki or something about it. It took me 5 times to get through the NWN OC, and 3 times for Arcanum... so I've a good gauge on what it would take to get me to finish a game.
PS:T wasn't one I would have tried again, except, you know, PE is happening so why not. I watched Phantom Menace 4 times trying to find something redeemable in it, I can play PS:T one more time and see if the magic finally catches me.
-
Big congrats to Obsidian! Now make the best Project Eternity you can, shut up all the naysayers, and become the name that everyone will say first when asked "Who makes the best RPGs?"
-
Why do I even let myself get dragged into these discussions, especially wishing for rational discourse? Every time it boils down to ad hominems, straw men, and eventually image spam...
Romance is a huge, central parts of MotB and PS:T. And there are plenty of romancing to be done in AP, James Bond style if you like.
I find it odd that Obsidian fans ignore that the majority of Obsidian games have romance as central to storylines. How does MotB's plot make sense, AT ALL, if you take love out of it?
I don't know about MotB, but PS:T? Are you out of your mind?
The entire chain of events of MotB, the reason to defy gods and try to upset the natural order of the planes, starting whole cosmic wars, is the love of two characters. And it weaves all the way until pretty much the end of the game.
For PS:T, I'm not far in. I've never gotten far in - this is my fourth attempt to play the game. But from initial flashbacks, to journal messages, to meeting your eternal love who solicits a pledge from you to either save or join her... yeah, I'm out of my mind for seeing this romance as central to the game so far. Again, not far in... but it's a big theme so far, as big as anything (immortality, death, and eternal love I'd say at this point.)
But, yes, thanks for saying I'm out of my mind for that interpretation. Out of my mind. Nice.
Just because YOU desperately want romance and fundamentally believe it is required for a "good" story hardly makes it so--it's subjective.
I don't desperately want romance. Your evidence of this is, what, that I posted in this thread? That I created a poll to fix the fact that I contributed to the closing of the previous romance thread?
I don't fundamentally believe that it is required for a good story either. Where do you see me say that?
Straw men.
Please, if you are arguing at me - and the all caps "YOU" sure seem to be you addressing me and not people arguing against your tastes in this thread - at least give me the common courtesy of not making up arguments for me that I am not putting forth.
-
2
-
-
I'm afraid your mistaken. Video games are intrinsically ego-stroking for the player, especially RPGs. The whole idea is to identify with a character who does great things.
Is this really that absolute? Roleplaying doesn't intrinsically mean that people roleplay themselves. They roleplay a character with a distinct personality which isn't their own. Where exactly is identifying yourself with the character comes in?
For a lot of players, they seriously do play themselves in the game world... or project themselves onto the character. It's not how I see role-playing, but many, many people DO see it this way.
-
How does MotB's plot make sense, AT ALL, if you take love out of it?
There is likely a difference in the eyes of developers (and part of the fanbase) between PC romances (as in, in which the PC takes part) and NPC romances. MotB has love as one of it's central themes, but it would lose nothing of Safiya wasn't a romanceable character.
I don't think that's true. Safiya's feelings for your character, her justification for sticking with you, and whether it's because of who their past selves were or because of who your current selves are, is pretty central to MotB's themes.
If your character couldn't embrace or reject her feelings, I think something significant would be lost from the story.
about.
![=]](http://obsidian-forums.s3.amazonaws.com/emoticons/default_turned.gif)
).
The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
I actually avoid most of the game forums, and have since a little after Dragon Age 2 released... and almost never visited the Mass Effect forums, to be honest. I was there for Dragon Age: Origins, and stayed pseud-active due to making friends there.
But I recognize your forum name and avatar, so there's that.