Auxilius

Oh God, it was so SO badly done. I mean, what the hell. I can't even start to put words on how bad it was. It's just BAD. And I can't explain why. The best part was the guy having no voice. Edit: I just watched the DA2 vid too and hell, it was better just for the sheer stupidity that was. And I thought Saints Row 4's romances were parodies. Hell, it was just blatantly imitating the real deal. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdVVqAmTax0 You know there is something wrong when a game based on non-sensical fun doesn't even have to exagerrate to look like the original material.

Subtitles in cinematics. The Banner Saga devs forgot that and it was quite annoying for people who were native english speakers to understand what the hell the characters were sayign through their thick nordic accent. Apparently, even english people had trouble with that. When you do an iron man run: the ability to stop the run and go for a normal one whenever you want, just like the hardcore mode in FNV.

The romances sucked in ME2 in mroe ways than one since there was nothing beyond that in the characters. Case in point, my hero, not being a total ****, befriends his female teammates and three of them want to get in his pants. Okay, power is a good aphrodisiac after all. The first flirty one doesn't exactly leave me a choice so I leave her for later and check the other... who don't want to speak to me anymore... because I didn't make them my official fiancee... Great. Those characters see their development suddenly stopped because I didn't give them the affection they craved for. Incredible move for a party-based RPG. The characters didn't need to be that shallow. And while I understand you don't have to go all in when you treat the subject, there is one thing this fiasco made me realize: once you start talking about a love relationship, it's incredibly hard to escape it, just like this forum proves sometimes. I see what Sawyer meant about those 100%. Either you do a game who treat that only, either you don't do a game. First, because you need incredibly talented writers to pull it off. Second, because no matter how talented you are, once love is in the air, people who are still there won't care about anything else. The others will leave. I think people tend to forget Obsidian is a company who need to manage their PR and therefore, their own relationship with the fans. They just can't add something that could jeopardize so greatly their reputation, for the sake of the pro-romance lobby. See the good it did for Bioware that became the laughing stock of the RPG industry. And that's sad. Nobody want to go down that hill anymore.

Alright, I gotta stop there, I don't know what's with people on the internet, but trying to justify adding romances in with Science! is just completely silly. It's like the Talimancers who tried to use Science! to find how what their waifu's sweat tasted like.

People who were happy with...say, the original NWN2 campaign romances must be setting their expectations really, really low. Do it right or don't it at all, I say. Handmaiden wasn't terrible. Visas Marr, on the other hand, made me wonder about the mental health infrastructure in a galaxy far, far away. You gotta cut the girl some slack since her people was murdered and she lived for years near a Force black hole who warped her values and core being. I enjoyed Visas Marr for this very reason actually. The girl was so secluded, so left behind in terms of normal behaviour than once she met someone who were, say, Nihilus' complete opposite, her switch went off with the strenght of a Death Star and she started babbling about the universe and the longing and the echos. If anything, it was good proof a character only designed to be rescued is a walking liability likely to go mental at every turn. In a way, it was advocating how romance for the purpose of romance is terrible. And I'm sure the writers had this idea in mind so it's not like it was a fluke. Quite endearing, I say. Now, if we're talking about mentally ill women in KOTOR, there is Bastila, her lunacy, her hypocrisy and her complete inability to deal in a coherent way with the PC. I think HK-47 had something to say on the matter.

OK

My course of thought: To explain human relationships? Ooookay... Oh boy... Then, there was a wall of text. Don't you think you're getting a little bit too much involved over a non-existent matter? I mean, turning to biology to explain a desire to see love relationships between 2 almost faceless bunch of pixels in a random video game, come on. Is this not enough to enjoy it when the writers want to do so and design the story accordingly? There are plenty alternate medium or even games to get your romance on. Why is nobody besieging CDProjekt or Eidos Montréal over this?

Considering how passionate the Call of Duty crowd promancers are in this debate, it gave me a golden idea for my independant RPG that will finally permit me to make it big. The Bold and the Beautiful: The TV Show: The Game. Now with 100 protagonists over three generations to seduce and organic dynamic relationships where half the cast try to get in the pants of the other half while hating themselves. No story, no adventure, no weapons, no villain, only romance. And blurry graphics. Truly, I am a Genius.

Forgot to say that this thread getting 7 pages in less than one day, with 40 readers around, on the normally slow Obsidian forum, is a testament to how polarizing yet captivating the issue is.

If I wanted to go meta, I would say it's the best news for the community. Not like I want to put some above others but god damn, once, erm, "other companies", realize big money was to be made in romances, they put all their caps in that and their reputation went waaaayyyyy down the drain. Just like their forum. sweat.jpg Sure, you might restrain yourself and just add it as another factor in a grand game but no matter the media, people tend to focus on that. Heck, as a (unsucessful) sci-fi writer in my country, people told me I should make romances to "captivate" a bigger crowd. But next day, you're known as the guy who make romances, not sci-fi, and you can't really do the stuff you like anymore. And thing is, my romances always end up terribly, because I'd rather burn the ship and the people in it that let it take over my story. Once it's started, it's something that just can't be avoided. Honestly, it's like a black hole. People have a black and white reading on this and once you start, that's all they care about, be it positive or negative. Check RPGCodex or SomethingAwful for example. Goddamn, are they in permanent rage mode over the issue. For no real good reason. That's why for me, the main reason to let the problem alone is to avoid these debates where nobody win and to not gamble uselessly the reputation of your company. Come to think of it, what's the obsession with love anyway? I take it romances in real life can be lackluster and having your freak on with the busty green alien and her strange mating rituals was always popular and cool but that was always campy and never to be taken seriously.

Pretty much, and it was satisfying without going full creepy. Sometimes, you can be loyal, sincere and moving without showing your body. Same reason I liked Visas. She didn't like the hero but the idea he represented. It was more worship than love, reproducing the same mistake she did with Nihilus, and the PC could call her out on that. It's nice to play with expectations sometimes. I hope the party will be able to tackle such similar situations.

One can only hope.

Sup' people? I've been playing the Game of Thrones RPG and I stand corrected, it's been a way better experience than I thought I would get. Still, I've a complaint about this unrelated game but that features massively what will be a good part of Pillars of Eternity: Politics. It truly and utterly bogged the game down because the subject was all around me and no matter what I did, I had to keep track of that in order to not get, well, too screwed up let's say. That's the problem with the GoT universe in general, it reminds me way too much of real life and I can"t get the massive appeal the whole thing has to people. It's basically a medieval game of today politics, with the despicable human beings it attracts. I don't mind intelligent books or medium, I don't mind them tackling philosophical and religious matters, despite how much they can make people rage, according to their point of view. Hell, I even tend to seek them out. I loved Primordia for example. But when the whole thing is about making alliances, prevent betrayals and clawing your way to the top, no matter the morality or likeability, it's not only becoming boring, but annoying. So, here is the point of this whole ranting: as I said, we know Pillars of Eternity will feature politics but where will it stand on the scale of utopia vs dystopia, of idealism vs cynicism? I know Obsidian favors dark settings and I'm cool with that but please, don't let the politics take over the adventure, the exploration and the characterization, despite how popular it became lately! Ranting over, you may resume a normal activity.

I don't want to brag but it looks like Europeans are the Master Race™ when it comes to good RPG . I tell you, we need a new Lionheart game, where the story happens all over Europe. The game being good would also be an improvement.

Dunno. The Hawk worked great as a hub, just like I expect the stronghold to be, but the characters never got past their reason to be in the game. There was no fluff. Visas would obsess over Nihilus, same with the Handmaiden and Atris, same with G0-T0 and the Republic, Kreia was out fulltime to manipulate the carp out of everyone, etc. Expeditions: Conquistador is actually a good example. I remember several completely useless conversations where the PC actually remained hidden and just listened to what his followers were talking about. Every character has their own brand of uniqueness. There was this bit with the mestizo girl and the racist philosopher. Absolutely nothing was achieved but it was funny to see them banter despite their differences. I should replay the game one day.

Something akin to the first Baldur's Gate? It could be cool and it would increase the replayability. According to what you say and how you behave, people can naturally react, even toward others as well. Let's say the PC decided to not burn a forest to lure out a monster. The druid is happy, the warrior is not. He believes the druid influenced the PC. Nothing happens yet, but the more the PC is eco-friendly, the more the warrior is likely to dislike said druid, until a small event show how bad it became. It's then up to you to rekindle them or let them hate each other. That's not really part of the littlest events though. I'm sure there are better examples around .

They sure bickered a lot but I don't remember many scenes like that to be honest. There was the part when they finally arrive to NV and Neeshka does that brilliant impersonation of Khelgar and Elanee and a little scene on the first big village (can't remember the name), maybe some banter between Sand and Qara, but otherwise, everything had a meaning related to a quest. I hope we get completely useless skits, only here to tell more about the characters and maybe make us laugh a little . Because they are useless doesn't mean they are forgettable.

Come to think of it, if a party is realistic, they don't spend their full time brooding over their quest, fate or story as world saviors. They sometimes do the littlest things, like talking over useless matters, drinking, partying, etc. It's something I don't see very much in western* video games: scenes where the characters are doing nothing for the sake of doing nothing, and this despite the potential for roleplaying. Let's say the party is at a dairy farm. What couldn't they stay just to let the pressure go down a little? No snitch to meet, no mercenary to negociate with, no fight to start, no veiled threat to deal with, just a nice little time to relax after a difficult mission. Then, they all order their meat and start talking just because, permitting the player to learn a little more about their hobbies and quirks and tastes for alcohol; maybe referencing previous events for the sake of ego-stroking and consequences. Another example: it's late at night, the PC is on guard duty around the campfire but another member of the party can't sleep because ~reasons~ and they bond over it. Scenes like Khelgar and Neeshka trading (bad) insults in NWN2 were the greatest but they were so rare, it was disappointing. After all, it could have been so much more. The Planescape syndrome is to give meaning to absolutely every conversation. But sometimes, players want to see people/NPC interact together just because it's amusing. I know I do. I could even consider them a reward. *Games like the Persona understood that but they go far too much for the slapstick humor angle. Maybe something Seinfeldian would be better, just sayin'.

I wanted to see OP's website but it tried to scam me. Paying to use a forum... Is that a joke? Anyway, it ties in with this old thread of mine (you're guaranteed to not have to pay to read it): http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64539-manipulating-villains/. I thought at the time the system was too complicated. It's cool to see they worked their way around it. Lephys proved himself to be quite prophetic .

The unique dialogue toolset is a dangerous idea. I remember KOTOR 2 and how the best answers were damn easy to find: just go for the longest line. But if absolutely all lines are reflecting the intelligence of the character, then it would be awesome. Way more awesome than playing a dumbass like in Fallout 2. You know what? The best idea from Alpha Protocal was the dossiers. If you can create some about the characters you'll regularly meet and hace access to their files, then the entire game becomes a battle of wits, which can be cool or annoying depending on the people that will play, even if isometric WRPG will probably attract not many kind of crowds. Alpha Protocol wasn't exactly liked despite this great strenght, sadly. Anyway, I agree with the rest of your message. Sometimes, people are wary of clever people. And since the game is likely to give the player character a reputation according to his achievements and merits, a manipulative dude is likely to see his job getting according harder the further he goes, with people getting more and more wary oh him. But honestly, I can't see that being made. It would be a huge pain to craft sych complex answers and reactions according to a reputation. In New Vegas, it just went good/mixed/neutral/bad. Here, it would be strong/weak/dumb/clever/brave/cowardly/soft/hard/charismatic/loner/etc/etc/etc.

Well, I realized a simple thing when I was reading another thing: whenever you manipulate someone to get stuff done, you only get to fool the punck clock worker, the random mook or the drunk idiot down the street. Even if you get to lie to a real villain, main or not, it never get very far. The story won't evolve according to your gambits. As far as I know, everyone know choices and conséquences as they're provided in games like, say, Alpha Protocol, but what if they were more subtle? For example, let's say a recurring side quest involves the party tracking down a serial killer. He's smart, cunning, arrogant and like to troll the bejesus out of them. Now, go for the direct approach and you will only finally catch him with a huge body count, if you get him at all. But play with his expectations, find out about his personality, select the answers that are the most likely to make him react the way you want, and suddenly, he's less efficient at his job. His murders become sloppy, the pleasure he get for dominating his adversaries crumble, afraid he is to get caught by the likes of you. And finally, once he feels like your breath is down his neck, he does a huge mistake, maybe allowing you to devise a cool enough plan to get him with the hand in the cookie jar, if we admit we need to get proofs). That's the kind of mighty satisfying quests I'm expecting from such a smart game as Project: Eternity. Maybe it's too late to design quests But I think I got a good point. Players don't just want to act smart, they want their smartness to get results. As cool as the Silas quest was in New Vegas, the only thing a player had to do to manipulate Frumentarius Douchebag was to click on the line with a big fat [iNTELLIGENCE 8] written right before it. It was satisfying, but only as a watcher, not as a player. The only equivalent I can think of is getting so much under Marburg's skin in AP, he drops his cool to have a chance to get Thor(n)ton.

Colon Cancer: The Game: The RPG: Part 1: There is something rotten in the kingdom of Dyrwood. OR A Piece of Eternity. Works too.

I'm not sure I like this idea. I mean, is there is a bid bad evil overlord, sure, but it's been seen way too many times. Because the enemy organization got a leader doesn't mean the leader is THE MAN. Hell, he could be a front man, with an honorific title, while the whole organization, that is made of a lot of persons, cells or whatever, is the real villain. Something a little more whole, so to speak. Because you get him doesn't mean it's the end for the whole thing around him. Because the President of a nation dies doesn't mean the nation is defeated. I get the idea that a big villain is an unavoidable character. His characterization can decide of the fate of the story he's in. But there is a whole new world here, and it would be sad to see the story mainly defined by only one guy (and some sidekicks). The worldbuilding would certainly suffer from it. That's why people like Mask of the Betrayer. There were not only several villains, but antagonists, and all of them have an agenda and a different purpose, that happened to interconnect. Maybe this dude could be one man among many, but I guess it would defeat the purpose of the idea of this thread to make him so.

Harasho!

If only because logic is subjective. A white man will save a baby over an elderly because said baby has the life in front of him while the elderly already lived long enough. A african man will save an elderly over a baby because his advices and experience are valuable and the baby doesn't even realize it exists.