Terror K

They do. They're a part of roleplaying, like anything else that is. Because romance and love, and even lust and passion, are real. They are just as much a part of the story and serve just as much as any sidequest or personal quest for any other character. Not everything has to be tied into the main narrative, and if it is it usually makes a game world feel small and too narrow in its focus, and you end up playing in a world akin to the Pokemon universe where every single person wants to talk about Pokemon and only Pokemon and nobody talks or thinks or even does anything that doesn't revolve around them. Romances flesh out the universe, making it feel real, and flesh out your companions and give you more opportunities to roleplay. If you can only flirt with one-off NPCs for the sake of progressing a quest and/or getting something you want and not express interest in somebody closer to you and flirt with them, it not only makes things feel arbitrarily restrictive and unrealistic, but it cheapens the emotions associated with such acts by limiting them to meaningless and selfish circumstances alone. I also find it ironic that people would find getting to know somebody over time intimately after sharing a long, dangerous adventure together where you bond by constantly facing death itself back-to-back eventually leading to rolling around in a bedroll or tavern bed together distasteful, poorly done and weak, but throwing yourself at strangers to get information through sexual deception merely because it serves the main narrative and RPG convention of charming people with your sexual wiles perfectly okay by comparison.

I have to disagree, I felt they added a good deal to the game. And they aren't just self-inserted silliness, because whether a character I am RP'ing romances somebody or not and who they romance depends entirely on the character, not on me. That's what roleplaying is about after all. But what you've said does make me think of something that I think needs to be important for romances to work well, and that's that any companion character should be a character first and a romance option second. And by that I mean that characters shouldn't be specifically created just to be a romance interest and then have a personality tacked-on later. Every single companion who can be romanced should be able to perform as a realistic and deep, fully-fledged character that can stand on their own and come across as believable and complete without that side of them. They must be able to hold their own even if their romance arc is completely avoided, and (with rare exceptions) their personalities shouldn't revolve around needing to be romantically linked with the PC. Whether they are a romance opportunity and the means that they are should be determined by their existing personality traits and other character-defining factors, not the other way around.

Failure is fine, so long as it's determined by factors one can control and isn't constantly contrived to be inevitable. I like the idea of some quests being completed through failure, one way or another. Also, if failure can somehow open more doors or add to additional content because of it, as well as resulting in different consequences, that's great too. I think the key is not to punish the player too much, and so long as there is proper context and it's well-handled, this shouldn't be a problem.

Money doesn't grow on trees. What feature do you think is less important than romances? Because something will have to go completely or be scaled back so Obsidian have the time/money to script romances. For example, in Arcanum Tarant (the main city) has a newspaper which changes based on the actions of the PC, so if you do something in the game world, something good or bad which makes big news, you can actually pick up a copy of the paper and it will say [player name] has done this. I personally think that's a good feature, it shows reactivity of the world, that the world isn't static with the same old NPC's sitting around town telling you the same rumors. It's not a neccessary feature, but it would be nice if a feature like this could be in this game. Personally speaking, romances kind of fall in a category that I feel is neither essential nor merely fluff. They are somewhere between major content and "stuff that would be nice" IMO. But to me, the whole setting would feel empty and like it was missing something if they weren't there. As dlux said, in a setting where you're going to have emotions and things like anger, pride, rage, frustration, sorrow, disappointment, envy, regret, satisfaction, fear, etc. it would seem completely off to avoid love, lust and passion. These things have to exist in the setting, and people would seem like robots without them. It would seem like Obsidian were purposefully avoiding these emotions and issues if they weren't there in some form. I think a lot of people are more afraid of the romances dominating the game too much more than actually hating the content themselves, otherwise they would simply avoid the content entirely and leave it at that. There seems to be this fear that Obsidian will have romances take control and almost define the whole game if they have them at all. They didn't in BG2... I see no reason why they should in Project Eternity. I fully understand the argument about missing out on other content... I felt the same about Mass Effect 3 when it came to the announcements of multiplayer and Kinect support for example. But the game would feel empty without romances and without dealing with these factors, IMO. I'd certainly take romances over another few missions or some "nice, but unnecessary" content like the newspaper you mentioned. Content like that can be added in Expansions or DLC later. I'd even take romances over a player home in fact. I generally enjoy them and look forward to them when they're in a game and done well.

The excuse that some other games do romance poorly is not an excuse to exclude it. If it was, then we may as well exclude good tactical combat and character customisation just because some other games do them poorly.

I honestly don't see this to be honest. Aside from the fact they were in BG2 (which IMO is the best proper CRPG to date), I fail to see how romances dumb down the game in any way. I mean... when it comes down to it they add depth and realism and more personality to the characters they involve, as well as giving the player more options and opportunities to roleplay. And that's not a bad thing, that's a good thing. It's more depth and makes the characters more real and alive. Besides, it's purely optional content and doesn't directly affect the other aspects of the game such as the tactics, combat mechanics, depth of skills and traits, etc. If you were to add romances to any of the classic RPGs that didn't have romances that Project Eternity is trying to harken back to, it wouldn't suddenly dumb them down. If you avoided the content completely and just avoided any flirting dialogue and told any NPCs that tried to flirt with you to go away, then the game would be exactly the same otherwise. Adding romances doesn't suddenly take depth away from the mechanics, dumb down the combat system and tactics, take away character builds and roleplaying freedom, etc. In fact... it adds to the latter of those.

One thing I've wanted to see is a more tragic romance in an RPG too. For example, I thought that in Mass Effect 2 when it was being speculated about Tali being a romance option a really good way to take that would have been the concept that she developers feelings for your Shepard, but due to her being stuck in a suit like that she could never have a physical relationship with them... not even a simple kiss without fear of dying. A little akin to Rogue from X-Men admittedly, but I thought this could have been a really emotional take on a romance, and would have resulted in a rare case in the Mass Effect series of a romance not being "two to three flirts and then pre-final mission shag" like the others. But no... instead they just went with, "I can pump myself full of anti-biotics and we can totally do it right now!" which I saw more as a missed opportunity than anything else. I'm not sure of the specifics with Project Eternity, but I could see something similar being utilized if, for example, one particular romance option was of a race that severely burned or harmed others whenever physical contact was made (or perhaps stole their soul or something, since souls seem to be a key factor in this series). Perhaps one of the Planetouched style races could have this attribute... I don't know. But I always felt it would add an interesting dynamic and would be a romance that would never result in just pointless dialogue followed by a shacking up.

In all fairness, I don't think DA2's problems had anything to do with the platform it was being developed for. Some of them did, but not all of them. There's also EA, the rushed development cycle and a lot of their design decisions as a whole. But I do remember Mike Laidlaw pretty much outright stating that with DA2 consoles were the lead platform, and that's largely why the tactical camera went and the game became faster-paced and more action-oriented. Let's just say that it was a contributing factor amongst several many other issues.

What actually brought me here the most and piqued my interest was not so much playing those classics of old like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Fallout, but the lack of them, and more specifically seeing where RPGs seem to be going lately, particularly over at BioWare who used to make great games, but are lately stabbing their old fans in the back for the sake of pandering to mainstream audiences. I was recently arguing on their forums about how much of a betrayal Dragon Age 2 was to fans of the original given that the reason Dragon Age was created was to be a return to BioWare's roots by making a proper, epic fantasy RPG for PC RPG fans and a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, and how they just immediately and deliberately abandoned these original concepts and that original vision only about a year after Origins came out with the horrible dumbed-down mess that was Dragon Age 2. And then news of Project Eternity came to me via an article I read at CVG. It was good to see Obsidian were still willing to make proper RPGs and wanted to make a project like this in an era when every AAA release seems to be going for the same audience and trying to be the same damn type of game: the cinematic, story-driven action game. BioWare over the last few years have gone from my favourite developer to one I now despise. And I think with this project, Obsidian have now definitely taken the crown from them for me. And that's fine with me... BioWare no longer deserve it. Not when they care more about pandering to the mainstream and broadening appeal than they do about their old fanbase and when they sabotage and retool their own IPs into something damn near unrecognisable to do so.

Consoles have been ruining proper PC RPGs for too long as it is, IMO. Just look at the differences between Dragon Age: Origins being developed primarily for the PC and then it's so-called train-wreck of a sequel being developed primarily for the consoles. That alone is evidence enough that this game should be made for PC and only PC.

To be honest, I've yet to see a game built around a party that claims you can realistically solo actually pull it off to any decent degree. Not without you having to make sure you're at least five levels above all your enemies anyway.

No for me. Not unless they are very, very rare, perhaps only made and used by one particular race, and to use them you'd have to somehow train in them specifically. I've always preferred the more pure fantasy style over the semi-steampunk, dwarves with flinklock rifles type of deal.

Actions do not always correlate to a character's motivation (as perceived by the player), there would likely be a fine line here somewhere. That's why Merin's additional concept of additional Journal input and customisation on the part of the player is, IMO, a good idea. That way the Journal can start off with a default entry that's fairly personal, but never goes into direct motives automatically. However, if the player so chooses, they can expand upon it themselves, whether by literally filling it out or via a list of particular personal choices. For example, perhaps the player can go to an Edit Mode and then get the opportunity to click on certain icons within the entry that will bring up the word "because" and then several options from there within the limits and scope of how the quest was done. This could illustrate their motivations and reasons without outright telling the, and if there's nothing listed that fits, then the player can either ignore the option or perhaps just type it in themselves. The player may even be able to add little details, such as "Companion A reacted concerned at my decision to help them, and..." followed by a selection of options for how your character regarded Companion A's reaction (e.g. "I understood their concern" vs. "I thought they were being selfish", etc.). Again, purely optional, because some players may have designed a character to who doesn't care about Companion A's opinion and only has them around because they are a great support healer or something. Overall though, it might just be simpler to be able to let the players edit the entries themselves and add whatever they like in whatever manner they like (with an option to revert to default just in case they edited beyond recognition somehow and forgot what was even going on).

If I do have to play Inventory Tetris, then I want it to actually be Intentory Tetris and allow the objects to be rotated around at 90

The problem is, in game conversations, 95% of RPGs that use these base stats in conversations don't treat it like this. During combat Intelligence us purely used to govern magical ability and strength rather than the actual intelligence of a character, but then you jump into a conversation and suddenly Intelligence determines how smart a character is and rarely has anything to do with magic directly. And that's kind of the problem there: that these stats reflect two different things in combat vs. conversations. It would all be very well if a Mage with high Intelligence were getting extra dialogue choices based on their magical knowledge (which is how it should be, IMO) but they're getting them based on how intelligent they are in the traditional sense of the word. The same allies to Wisdom. Perhaps what the game needs to do is actually avoid calling Intelligence "intelligence" and go for something like "Magica" or something, and then instead of base stats determining a character's actual Intelligence, characters all the option of several Skills or Feats based on certain knowledges, some of which they'd get automatically based on class, traits, backgrounds, etc. and some they'd get based on choices. For example, you might get choices like Knowledge: Arcane Lore, Knowledge: Politics, Knowledge: Particular Region of World, Knowledge: Particular Race, Knowledge: Hand-to-hand Combat, etc. The more points you spend on these Knowledges, the more Intelligent your character is, and they'll get extra options based on these knowledges, and then get a bonus Intelligence modifier based on how many knowledges they have. These knowledges may also boots certain combat-related aspects, for example Knowledge: Hand-to-hand Combat might give a +2 to Hit or +2 damage to all hand-to-hand combat rolls. On top of that, perhaps certain knowledges would need others that are semi-related to them. For instance, say a Mage has Knowledge: Arcane Lore but does not have Knowledge: Spellweaving. Perhaps when asked in dialogue about the subject of Spellweaving the PC would not get the +5 bonus to convince the NPC they are talking to that they know about the subject, but they may get the otherwise hidden dialogue option none-the-less and still get a +2 on it because they still have Knowledge: Arcane Lore.

That has always been a problem with these type of RPGs when base stats determine social skills as well. While they make sense to a certain degree, I remember having quite a hard time of things during my earliest playthroughs of RPGs because I wanted to create Warriors/Fighters who weren't complete boneheads, so I often ended up spending points in Intelligence and/or Wisdom as well just so they could get a good array of conversation options. The problem is, it was completely useless in combat, and spending the points there instead of in Strength and Constitution basically borked my character in combat. I'm all for avoiding the "Master of All Trades" syndrome that can affect RPGs that give too much freedom, but it's not like these Warriors/Fighters I was making were using magic or anywhere near as competent at Thief/Rogue skills such as unlocking things and disarming traps, etc.

You have to have Jim. Him and Frank Welker.

All of the above.

I'd like to add that I believe there should be circumstances along the lines of the following:- If you are of a particular race, it should determine your level of success with other races based on that, and on various levels. For example, some races may automatically have a higher charisma than others, so they get a bonus, but this would be negated when dealing with a race that doesn't generally get along with yours due to some prejudice (though this may not always be the case, if certain members of that race are more enlightened and don't share the usual racism). When dealing with members that are the same race as you, they may be more inclined to get along with you and crumble to persuade attempts, but there may be exceptions to this. For example, if you are from a particular clan and dealing with somebody from a rival clan, then you may as well be dealing with somebody who is from an enemy race (or, depending on how tense the rivalry is, even worse). If certain races have certain traits familiar amongst them though, it may throw a cog in the works when dealing with their own people. For example, if trying to convince a member of your own species that something is true that is really a lie, while there are cases where they would believe you because you are of the same race, smart enough NPCs or NPCs of certain professions may know your character is lying because your race has a particular tell or skill they are aware of, since being one of you gives them knowledge of your mutual race that other races don't share. For example, elves may have a certain kind of persuasive technique unique to their race that will work on other races, but ones of their own kind may see through it. There should be differences between Persuasion and Intimidation (or whatever it's being called in PE). Along these lines, there should be additional changes depending on alignment and personality, and even standing. For example, using the extremes of a warlike barbarian PC with high Strength over a diplomatic clever PC with a high Intelligence, one barbarian PC would likely get along better with other barbarian-esque NPC characters, making both Persuading and Intimidating fairly even and high as far as success goes. However, a barbarian dealing with a diplomatic NPC would have a tougher time in general at persuading them, and there would likely be personality clashes. Whether a Persuasion or Intimidation would work would depend on circumstances, because a Persuasion may be favoured by the NPC because it seems more genuine and kind, while an Intimidate may cause them to flee, be frozen out of fear or refuse to deal with the PC because they are a bully, making it impossible for the player to get the information they want out of them. On the other hand, a bit of bullying might be necessary to make them talk. It would all depend on the personality. Conversely, a diplomatic character dealing with a barbarian may not get anywhere with their standard Persuasion methods because the barbarian NPC may see them as weak and pathetic, and this may force the diplomatic PC to try and Intimidate them, which the barbarian may see as a sign of strength and bravery, especially if the character is clearly smaller than them. It could, however, also resort in an axe to the face. Again... it all depends on personalities as well as race. The same goes for rich vs. poor. Whether this would be determined by purely physical appearance (i.e. cheap clothing and low-level armour vs. expensive clothing and high-level armour) or by a character's accomplishments, wealth and standing. A member of a Thieves Guild will get along well with lowlifes, criminals and homeless people, but not so well with nobles, politicians, aristocracy, royalty, etc. The same goes for the opposite. However, like racial traits, this can sometimes work both ways. For example, a Thief/Rogue PC dealing with others of their kind may generally get along better with them, but may have their attempts seen through because they are dealing with people in the same game and essentially trying to play a player. Similarly, they would generally not get along with the upper class citizens, but at the same time may be able to play them more and get away with more lies. Again, personalities, circumstances and stats vs. stats may throw spanners in the works and make exceptions to the rules, making things more dynamic and unpredictable, and forcing players to evaluate who they are dealing with carefully. Persuasions vs. the opposite sex could do with more depth than most games too, IMO. All too often flirts just work, ignoring personality and tastes, etc. The closest we've had to exceptions to this are alignment conflicts with romanceable companions, but there should be more I feel. First of all, to get this out the way, tavern wenches and whores generally shouldn't be fussy. Beyond that, I think we need more than just alignment restrictions on romances. That isn't to say that certain romances should be absolutely impossible with certain characters (though some will), but that some players will have to perhaps work harder if they want to get involved with another character. Personalities need to come into play beyond alignment, and even personal tastes as well. For example, to romance a particular companion perhaps the PC doesn't just have to be Good-aligned, but also have to have a certain level of Intelligence or Strength, because perhaps the possible romantic interest is into Intelligent or wise people and not into Tough Guys, or visa-versa. Perhaps certain subjects interest them more, and siding with certain factions or going against certain ones also interest them more or less. For example, killing a group of slavers may greatly impress a potential romance interest because she was once a slave herself, or perhaps she was once a guard and has a great sense of justice. Some partners may like absolute devotion and take a massive negative hit to your chances if you even flirt harmlessly with another person, even if it was just as a means to an end for a quest, while others may even be a little kinky and like the idea of bringing somebody else into the fold. Some may like peaceful solutions in general, but greatly approve of violence to a particular group of individuals for some reason, and visa versa. And, of course, some may be gay or lesbian and only be interested in PCs of the same sex, or perhaps bisexual and be into both. Whether this cuts them out completely or means a player has to really work hard to gain their interest by pretty much making all the right moves and no wrong ones is debatable. Racial traits may even apply too, as well as whether NPCs want something deep and everlasting or just a quick fling, and perhaps even questioning these factors (i.e. a character who thinks they want something deep, but doesn't, and a character who thought they wanted a quick fling, but then wants something more). I'd like to think that certain companions could be deferred to for certain circumstances too, to help your PC fill in gaps they can't with dialogue, just like they generally cover your weak areas in combat. For example, if you have no knowledge of magic because you are a Warrior, but you have a knowledgeable Mage in your party, you should be able to hand things off to them for explanations or insight. This may take the conversation out of your hands briefly, and you'd run the risk of perhaps having them say something you don't want, but that's the risk you take. Either defer to them trusting they'll back you and say what you want, or don't and possibly miss out on what they could provide.

If I remember right it was briefly touched upon again towards the end of the game when you can enter the alienage again and you can ask your cousin how she's coped after the incident. But, yeah... it admittedly could have done with a bit more depth. It kind of annoyed me that the alienage was off-limits for so long (especially since the Dalish, the dwarves and the mages could return to their origin locales a lot sooner).

We are on the same page there, my friend. Both those titles were awful. BioWare has fallen so damn hard and fast recently.

Why am I suddenly reminded of the Imoen Romance mod for BG2 (which, considering the subject matter, is remarkably well done and surprisingly tasteful)? Dragon Age: Origins also dealt with rape actually. A good portion of the City Elf origin revolves around a group of elves being kidnapped by humans during a wedding ceremony and several of the female elves being raped and killed. You don't see anything of it directly of course, but it's pretty damn clear it happened, and the PC's own cousin is rather traumatised by the event. It was emotionally quite powerful and worked rather well, IMO. I seriously despised the main antagonist in the affair, and it was the kind of thing that made my otherwise good-aligned character go to a very dark places and choose options they normally wouldn't. And I think content that can make you do that is, by and large, good.

One thing I'd like to see in a game like this is a more personal quest journal for tracking quests as opposed to the rather impersonal ones that are usually received in these games that tend to outline quests in a very sedate and to-the-point kind of way. I know there's often the ability to make notes yourself, but I still feel it would be nice if the quest journal actually felt more like an actual journal or diary that your hero is writing themselves and less like an emotionless listing of what you've done and what you need to do. By incorporating the dialogue choices you made into the journal instead of just the outcome, I imagine it could a good job of reflecting this. However, there is a possible downside to this I realise, and that's the fact that players could feel that their journal is telling their character who they are instead of actually expressing their character. I know I'm not a fan personally of a game taking too much control over my character in an RPG and telling me why I did something or forcing me to do it when I don't feel it would suit the character. So I suppose for it to work the dialogue choices and nature of resolving issues would have to be clear and defined with next to no room for error. I'm curious as to how other people feel about this. Would you guys like a more personal journal too, or would you feel it would overtly step on your toes, or would you simply prefer a less dynamic journal that gets to the point more like a quest log with perhaps the option of additional notes?

I really like the sound of the depth you guys are going into with the various races. One thing I'm curious about with companions is how easy it is to switch between them. You're limited to five, so I'm assuming ala Baldur's Gate you can switch back and forth between party candidates. If this is so, will there be some kind of central hub or party camp to quickly and easily locate potential companions you aren't using, or will it be more like BG where you have to literally go to their location on the map and find them again to switch?

Don't get me wrong... I don't mind if it's purely isometric at all, I was more curious than anything. Just because I happen to prefer a mix of the two (ala Dragon Age: Origins and NWN2) doesn't mean just having isometric is going to be a problem. I'd certainly take pure isometric over being forced to have the low-down, third-person view ala Dragon Age 2 and the KotOR titles (not that KotOR was bad, but in a tactical fantasy RPG you need to be able to view the whole battlefield). It's just that my character felt more mine and personal when I could see them better and they had a face I designed and could see up close as opposed to just being a tiny sprite with vague and plain facial features. Believe me, I'm all about not letting cinematics dominate the experience though. I've been complaining quite vocally on the BioWare forums lately how their dependence lately on cinematics and the fact that they seem to value them over actual substance is a very bad trend, and that it's gotten to the point where a feature than in the past once added to the game has now begun to control and dominate it when it shouldn't. Edit: BG has set resolutions, but there have been fan-made resolution mods since that allow you to play them at greater resolutions. I'd definitely recommend them too. BG2 in widescreen at a decent resolution is sublime. Not sure what the new BG: Enhanced Edition does, but I imagine its something similar.