Longknife

84 Yeah I know, I'm an ****.

Hey guys this is my thread. It's better than the other person's.

I will buy another copy if Chris Avellone agrees to sing another song on stream for me. One song, one key. Last time was Don't Stop Believin', this time I'd probably want:

Okay, if the thrust of your argument against romances is that they're all the same and there's no original concept left to explore, you shouldn't be consuming any media at all, because all stories have already been told countless times over. There is no such thing as a new or original story. What there are, are new and original settings and characters. The stories have all been told already, but the people they happen to and the how and why of them happening is what makes them interesting. And this applies to romance as much as it does any other aspect of any other story. And frankly, your self-admitted "high-horsing" is coming across as condescending and, for some people I'm sure, almost offensive, with your implication that anyone who enjoys a romance in a game (which is not terribly different than a romance in any other media) is some kind of emotionally stunted social reject who can only experience intimacy through a virtual "waifu". Just because you can't think of a good, interesting way to do romance doesn't mean it's not there. I'm extremely tired cause my dumbass neighbor conveniently seems to use power tools whenever I'm sleeping and my lack of sleep this morning is suddenly hitting me (and lo and behold he has them back out now and it's 10pm wtf?), so I'm gonna simplify my response down quite a bit, but I might post some more later. 1) Arguing a hyperbole has never been a productive or objective argument. Saying "WE SHOULD NEVER CONSUME ANY MEDIA EVER THEN CAUSE IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE" is just ridiculous. It's akin to if I say "Hitler has done some terrible things so we probably shouldn't put too much value into claims he made" and the response is "EVERYONE HAS DONE TERRIBLE THINGS AT SOME POINT IN THEIR LIVES SO WE SHOULD NEVER PUT VALUE IN ANYTHING ANYONE SAYS EVER." There IS a degree of truth to it, but it also blatantly fails to see the rather obvious point being made. Yes you are correct, but my intention with my statement cannot be more obvious, and instead you've chosen to look over it and make a meaningless blanket statement that does nothing to further the conversation by either addressing or challenging the claim I've made. 2) Let me spin it around to really sum this point up: How would you propose doing romance in PoE that would be universally well-received? Just like you're annoyed with what you perceive as elitism or something, I get annoyed with the constant "THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE DONE." I could go to the President right now and say we should go land on one of Jupiter's moons and he might say it's not really conceivable, to which I could correctly respond "JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T IMAGINE IT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE DONE." That's great and all, but if YOU want it done, YOU are expected to help explain how it's plausible and a good idea. You're essentially expecting Obsidian - a team that has expressed disinterest in doing romantic subplots - to wave their magic wands and somehow do romance correctly. This is also part of the reason I'm not afraid to come across as so bold and offensive on this topic: because I firmly believe that if an idea is this simple to criticize (see my posts above about how it's not truly feasible to please everyone with romance) and so difficult to defend (all of your defenses have been inobjective broad statements that could be applied to literally anything), then yes, it is a ****ty idea. Maybe this is my law studies talking, but where I come from, debate is a matter of "put up or shutup." I don't agree with this "that's just like ur opinion man" view of things. Of course these are opinions, but if you've got a popular opinion, then I believe you should be able to defend it. I could state that a story about a companion who has a sexual relationship with his horse could make for a deep, compelling subplot that I'd like to see in PoE and rightfully state that it's "JUST UR OPINION MAN" if you say that sounds like a terrible idea, but this doesn't mean jack-all if I cannot convince the majority of it's audience and/or the developers that this is truly a good idea. Thusfar, I've yet to see a good defense as to how and why romance should, could and would be included. The answers are all "just do it" or "hire someone that can." So yeah, let's switch it around: how would YOU make it happen? What video game do you know of that provides a romantic interest that's universally praised by everyone and does not hit-and-miss with a lot of people showing complete disinterest in the feature? Remember I'm not saying it's not doable to make one some people will like, I'm saying it's not doable to make one that appeases to enough people that it warrants the time and effort spent designing it. Name examples of extremely popular romantic interests that did not have mixed reviews, and explain to me what kind of romantic interests you had in mind that you think everyone would be happy to see. And again that's essentially my problem with the whole pro-romance crowd. A lot of meaningless "IT COULD WORK" statements with absolute ****-all to actually reinforce those claims or shoot down any counter-claims I'm presenting.

I'm glad Chris can do exactly what Chris wants, or maybe he just knows him limitations and chooses not to push them. Most of us have to actually do what we are paid to do. Either way with the money they made in KS I think they could have hired someone to do romances. Having more than one writer for a game is not at all uncommon, particularly when there are several different NPC's to be writing for. I just don't accept the "What Chris Wants" as an excuse for romance not being in the game. first, Gromnir is Not a fan o' biowarian tangential and optional side-quest romances. that being said we will note that many a competent writer avoids romance. the fact that chrisA doesn't wanna do romance is hardly a criticism o' game romance. chrisA may not have the inclination or the skill set to do romance well. not all accomplished writers can do justice to romance and we suspect that the biowarian tangential and optional side quest format makes the task o' writing a romance that avoids being cringe-worthy is all the more difficult. chrisA may be a competent writer. chrisA could suck at romance even so. without noting specifics as to why chrisA don't wanna do romance, we do not see chrisA reluctance as equalling a condemnation o' the... feature. HA! Good Fun! Not only that but again: can we talk about how video game romance is a different dimension from hollywood movie romance? In a TV show or movie, you design two characters and write up their backstories and their motivations for loving one another. In a video game, you are selling your media to a large number of people with various personalities and backrounds, and you only get so many attempts to provide them with a romantic interest that doesn't feel awkward. Statistically speaking, you are guarenteed to absolutely fail for a large chunk of your audience. That's just how it is. Come to think of it, I seem to recall some woman who wrote a long article about how Mass Effect totally screwed over women with ugly and uninteresting romance options, saying the men got way better choices and that the only interesting and potential partner who was actually attractive for women was actually gay. I think she got a lot of criticism cause she sounded shallow as all hell, but point being? That kind of stuff WILL happen. You cannot make a love interest that universally pleases everyone. Thank God. We'd be a boring species if that were plausible. Then from a game developer's perspective, you have to question if it's worth even wasting that time and effort on something where you cannot possibly please everyone. Even logically speaking, it seems very wise to avoid romance and spend your time and effort elsewhere.

Maybe Obsidian just knew there was no way they were going to top the riveting romance options provided by Bethesda in Skyrim and didn't want to embarass themselves trying.

So, again, it boils down to 'what you want is not what I want.' It takes time away from story or gameplay? Conceivably. Now what if someone else considered that sacrifice worth it? Is there any way to say whether they are objectively wrong for believing that? For having different priorities when it comes their games? By the same token you tell someone to go watch harem anime they can tell you to go play X game with no romance but a great story.gameplay. It's just preference yeah? And if it was usually argued like that I wouldn't be bothered so much but often people seem to think their preferences are objectively better and they take this high-horse, upturned nose approach to anyone who doesn't share it and that view just isn't... valid. This is what it boils down to: Chris Avellone can write. Chris Avellone gets paid to do what he does. Chris Avellone does not want to write romance. I'm sorry, but while it is an issue of preferences, I would be more inclined to put value in his preferences over those of a stranger on the internet. Moreso because even if you and everyone on the planet from George Bush to my dead grandmother wanted romance, but Chris Avellone and others who don't actually like romance are writing the game...? Probably not ideal to force them to write something they hate writing. This would be akin to if you expected me to write a great novel about the struggles of being a Muslim in Japan when I'm not any of that. So it's that simple. It is preference, so in that regard, what reason do YOU have to voice a vote for romance when the developers themselves clearly do not want it? And yes, sorry, but there is going to be a degree of high horsing here and there. And yes, I am going to high horse on this subject matter. Not in some elitist belief I'm a better, more educated person and all my opinions are solid gold material mind you, but because I've given all the romance media a shot, and it's all the ****ing same. If you have seen one, you've seen them all. I skimmed, but above there's a comment by a guy saying he's gonna have to give romance with X character from X game a shot, though it sounds as though it's still the story and character that are more compelling, not the romance aspects. This is the exact train of thought that rings true with me. Romance is just a cliche that's used over and over and over to hook people in, but when it comes to actually being original or thought-provoking in any way? It's not. How can it be? What's thought provoking about two people loving each other? Nothing unless something about one of the characters is thought-provoking, in which case the romance is something entirely different and not neccesary to the quality of that character. And to re-iterate: Again these guys made New Vegas. Excellent game, excellent story, and my money hands down for best written game of this millenia thusfar. It did not have romance. It didn't need it. The "survival of the fittest"-meets-philosophy story it had going for it was something very original and by no means overdone in media, and I loved every second of it. Had that been traded for "FIND CASS BOOZE SO SHE CAN BECOME YOUR WAIFU" then I think the game would've drastically suffered for it. I would argue that even IF you have absolutely no interest in New Vegas' plot, an original idea holds far more worth and weight than a "good" idea (by your standards or rather the standards of an example person) just regurgitated back at us again. If Obsidian were to come on these forums right now and say'll make a new Fallout and they can either play it safe and revamp New Vegas' story elements and kinda repeat them in new ways or try a new style with new elements of war entirely, I would opt for the latter. And that's why yes, people are going to get a little high-horse about romance: it's not some belief that omg my opinion is gold so worship it, it's a desire to see new ideas and a disgust when people are begging and insisting to see the same old elements again and again and again, to the point where it drowns out any new potential stories or ideas.

It's like 4pm for us Europeans. :C Too bad Steam can't like automatically unlock it for when the Cali dudes hit midnight.

WTF can I have my own thread too?

>crosses legs, adjusts glasses, picks up pen and notepad< Interestingk. Vhy do you feel dis vhey? Because romance is like the trope of tropes. You can find tons of TV shows and media where the entire thing that holds everything together is sexual tension between two people who like each other but are trying to figure out how to express their love. It's the most cliché thing imagineable, and not only that, but it being a seller for TV shows and movies does not translate well into games. Why? Because with romance you are essentially looking for someone you'd be willing to spend the rest of your life with, but in a video game she's a friggin' string of AI programming. It'll be abysmally limited in scope, and the likelihood of something coming off as cheesy, corny, awkward or plain out of character for you is incredibly high. Ultimately, I firmly believe video games function much like a pie graph. A video game is going to have a deadline for release and thus can't include everything. It's a pie graph in the sense that if you ask for better graphics, it takes time away from story or gameplay mechanics and vice versa. Here, I'm not willing to sacrifice more original and thought-provoking story elements to some cliche crap I can find literally anywhere and honestly doesn't translate that well into video games anyways, imo. If you want romance so you can feel all bashful and squishy about a fictional waifu, go watch one of the dozens of harem animes or the Twilight series if you're a girl. But please, do not detract from a game's potential to have original story content by asking for the same exact thing you can get literally anywhere else.

Ya I'm awesome, I know. You're welcome.

There's also the people saying backers should get early release AKA we should play now while others wait and Obsidian is a **** for making us wait this last day.

Romance in games is dumb.

1) Roll up your manual into a cone shape 2) Pour Beer into manual 3) Unroll manual 4) Jetzt steht alles auf Deutsch.

Yes. Hence the sociopathic label. Fundamentally lacking in empathy. I've got nothing against people wanting to play villains; it can be fun, sure. You're right that my personal enjoyment is a part of what's being reflected here, and I don't find the Legion at all enjoyable or sympathetic, but I still also maintain that a woman who sided with the Legion would also have to be fundamentally lacking in sense. I wouldn't know, I've never managed to make it past my first vist to the Fort on an attempted Legion game! I can only judge based on what I encountered, and everything I encountered suggested to me that the vast majority of women (and, yes, a significant number of men) would run screaming in the other direction/whip out their sniper rifle. It doesn't really matter what Caesar's true personal opinions on the matter are; it's the impressions that the characters would get that are important in a roleplaying context. 1) I fail to understand how a female would be a sociopath but a male would not. You said it yourself, "fundamentally lacking in empathy." You're basically implying that I, as a man, cannot express empathy for the enslaved women and therefore cannot be held accountable as a sociopath when I do not. You're also failing to acknowledge that the men are slaves too. Nobody within the Legion really has a choice what they do. The women are slaves, the men are legionaires (with few exceptions for men who seem capable as slaves but not capable as soldiers). The women are forced to serve and treated like cattle, the men are stuck on the front lines with a dull machete and told they're to ambush an enemy squad or die trying. (and they mean it) In that sense there should be empathy for all of them, and the previous guy's statement about how you'd need to be a sociopath to support them regardless of gender holds. (mind you, if someone wants to debate needing to be a sociopath to support the Legion, that's besides the point. The point was more that gender is a non-issue when it comes to deeming the Legion sociopaths or not.) 2) I've no idea how much you've spoken to Caesar, but he can come across as one of the most intelligent NPCs in the game. This dude is friggin' citing Hegel at you in a game, no joke. I'm not a Legion supporter by any means, but holy hell, did Caesar teach me to respect the Legion. The Legion gets **** done. The Legion has an honesty to it. (aside from their betrayal of allies, of course) The Legion did it's god damn homework and by god if you've got a job for them, they can and will get it done with enough heads and dedication. The Legion culture - for all it's obvious flaws - does believe in a greater good and doing things to help your people rather than focusing on yourself. There is absolutely nothing keeping someone like myself who holds such respect for the Legion from respecting them as a woman. I have a female friend I bought the game for, and she herself respected the Legion before she respected the NCR because they seemed more honest with her and weren't constantly being hypocritical in their actions. Mind you, neither she nor I actively support the Legion, but again what you're essentially arguing is that supporting the Legion while not being a sociopath (someone devoid of empathy) as a female would be impossible, and that's simply not true. There's a "for the greater good" element to the Legion where it's supporters acknowledge the atrocities it's commiting, but argue it's all neccesary to bring about a better future. There is no reason you can't find a woman who considers the hardships of the Legion to be the better alternative to the corruption and seemingly bleak future of the NCR, the uncertainty and disorganization of Indy, or the cold and heartless society that Mr. House would likely breed (or rather enable, since he doesn't encourage such behavior and merely does nothing to discourage it). Again, I simply do not see how this is a gender issue. This is more a personal issue between you and the Legion. It's fine that you - as a woman - cannot support the Legion, but that does not mean it's impossible for every woman ever without the need for that woman to be a sociopath.

What about the specifically anti-female homophobia of the Legion described by Veronica in her companion dialogues is "logical"? Even granting your assumption that women are ("logically") viewed as breeding machines in service of the Legion's war effort (And -- is that actually logical? Would having tons of babies actually be a great thing for a tribe mobilizing for war in a water-poor, food-poor region?), there is no rational benefit to prohibiting relationships between women, which can easily flourish alongside enforced pregnancy. The only reason for it is the sadly typical desire to police and limit female sexuality just for the sake of asserting control. A couple things: 1) I did not say misogyny does not exist within the Legion. I said it does not exist at the top and that the misogyny is an unintentional side effect. That random Legion Recruit is going to call you a worthless woman, Caesar is not. Your mere presence as a pivotal part of the Mojave campaign means you single-handedly have a chance of existing as a testament to the fact that Caesar is not a misogynist, and as such, you have an opportunity to do away with the misogyny of the average Legionaire. 2) Caesar has issues with greed and corruption. How does he plan on solving the rampant greed and self-interested idealogies present within the human race? Well for one, he wants to wipe the slate clean and be it's revered dictator with absolute control so that he can teach people to value the community over the self. That demands an army. Second is the question of how to teach his ideology even after he's won. The answer? Indoctrination. Caesar wants to indoctrinate his Legion so that they'd never think twice about being selfish rather than doing whatever they can to serve the community as best they can. And you know who's REALLY, really susceptible to indoctrination? Little kids. This is why Caesar values children so much. It's because to him, this generation of Legionaires is all fine and good, but the children are going to be the first real generation that was fully indoctrinated and grew up in the Legion. He needs them to provide his nation with a future, as well as a future fighting force. Children are essential as they provide everything he could possibly want, from economic strength to military might to loyal subjects. Though all of this is long-term and more planning for the future, of course. You may wonder why Caesar doesn't calm down the childbirth and just have all men and women serve? Well two problems arise, those being 1) what the HELL happens to the future of the Legion and 2) who would be responsible for the supportive roles that are equally as neccesary as the militant ones? Women adopt these due to convenience, because they CAN simultaneously give birth and manage such roles. 3) Gay sex within the Legion is again another unwanted side effect. The Legion, just like the Brotherhood, stresses the importance of procreation. The difference? The Brotherhood is small and manageable, the Legion is not. If there's a lesbian in a Brotherhood chapter, everyone will know. If there's a gay officer or two on a warfront in the Legion in the middle of a war? Well one it might be easy to hide, and two, is yelling at them really THAT important in the grand scheme of things? You could even presume it's merely a result of them not seeing women in ages, not blatant overt homosexuality coupled with a lack of desire to procreate with women when the opportunity arises. The females of the Legion are not so lucky, as they're in a more supervised area and more strictly watched. This is the same exact reason why for example you'll see Silus escape from the Legion but you don't encounter a female slave who escapes: Silus is on the front lines and thus has better opportunities to abandon the Legion. Sure enough though, they want Silus' head on a pike for what he did. I don't believe the Legion is supportive of chems or cannibalism either, in principle, and yet Hydra supposedly stems from the Legion and evidence suggests some Legionaires are cannibals, while the White Gloves, the Great Khans and the Fiends both receive "alliances" so long as it serves the Legion's interests and war efforts. Why? Because being morally strict and fighting with these groups over their cannibalism and chem use isn't productive and doesn't help the war effort, and everything - EVERYTHING - banks on the Legion succeeding so that Caesar can have absolute control of the region; it's all moves made for the greater good, in the eyes of the Legion. But I digress. The point is I don't think Caesar or other high up officers would be too pleased to know about gay legionaires if they believed it got in the way of actual procreation. In cases where the Legionaire is bisexual...? I honestly don't think they'd care as long as babies are being made. This just ends up being low down on the priority list because they're in the midst of a war, and cross-examining ever Legionaire with homosexual tendencies and evaluating where exactly they stand on the gay spectrum isn't exactly productive. Ultimately, again what's being highlighted are flaws within the Legion itself, not so much Legion gender relations at it's core (aka at Caesar). Caesar has no interest or motivation to oppress women, but people misconstrue what they're seeing and think the Almighty Caesar views women as inferior, thus they start thinking so themselves. The complaints you've voiced amount moreso to "Caesar is a fool if he thinks he can influence human nature at all times," and sure enough these are examples that his plan and methods are pretty flawed and he can't feasibly be everywhere at once or influence the thinking process of every human being. But the debate was essentially "you cannot logically provide a female Courier with a reason to support the Legion." This is simply untrue. There is no reason that a female Courier cannot draw the same conclusions I've drawn, agree with Caesar's methods and believe that her service to the Legion could actually do some good in tearing down the misogyny that exists amongst the common Legionaire.