Jump to content

qloher

Members
  • Content Count

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

52 Excellent

About qloher

  • Rank
    (3) Conjurer
  1. I would absolutely love it if someone can help me to watercolor this portrait! Thank you for your time and effort!
  2. PST having a bad combat system, doesn't help your argument about sacrificing combat for romances. I made arguments against yours. If you are offended by a light hearted joke at the end, you really need to man up, boy. Skyrim in your opinion having some problems with spell system (I personally haven't even played Skyrim and am not interested in doing so), doesn't help your argument as well. There is no at least half-decent romance in Skyrim as far as I know. And this absence didn't help TESV game at all. Your argument was a colossal miss from the get go, you see. Simply saying so doesn't make it true. Really, you guys (Living One & kenup), you have opinions but you are not good at arguing with facts at all. jarpie on the other hand have what it takes to lead an interesting discussion, I give him/her that even if we disagree about the subject at hand. Watch and learn.
  3. You really like the 'wait a bit and repeat arguments that already received a counter point',eh? Player choice is not an excuse to put in whatever you want.It's still the designer who has to choose what gets in and he should choose what makes sense. Funny thing is, your "counter" has been countered as well thousand of times. I guess you just really like the 'wait a bit and repeat arguments that already received a counter point'. Now should I repeat this counter to the counter, someone will pop up and say I'm repeating myself. But of cause I'm repeating myself, my opponent makes me do this by repeating himself in the first place. Except it hasn't.Unless you are trying to tell me there are arguments in favour throwing random stuff in games even if they don't make sense. Romances making no sense in RPGs as a matter of principal is not a fact, but only your personal bias. As for "it's up to the guys at Obsidian to decide, not to the romance crowd" argument, the counter is the following: "Yep, it's up to the guys at Obsidian to decide, not to the anti-romance crowd either".
  4. JesusIi've been trying to ignore you, but seriously you know nothing about writing. If you care to go back a few pages I've done you the courtesy of a brief explanation of why you are staggeringly incorrect. I'd be interested in what you think about it. And, yes, I suppose our brains are wired differently. I'll give you that. Care to share a link? It doesn't matter if it's important to me; it is important to me, but it doesn't matter. The point is that it helps give more choices for combat, and we all know what happens when you cut off spell choices. And you don't ask for a sub plot, which may or may not be filler, you ask for filler minigames and simulators, because you think RPGs are there to experience a virtual reality. And what the **** is a romantic love sub-pot? We all know what happens when you don't care much about combat in your game altogether. And I absolutely love this particular result. As for the "pot", can you find a better argument than clinging to typos? That's just low.
  5. You really like the 'wait a bit and repeat arguments that already received a counter point',eh? Player choice is not an excuse to put in whatever you want.It's still the designer who has to choose what gets in and he should choose what makes sense. Funny thing is, your "counter" has been countered as well thousand of times. I guess you just really like the 'wait a bit and repeat arguments that already received a counter point'. Now should I repeat this counter to the counter, someone will pop up and say I'm repeating myself. But of cause I'm repeating myself, my opponent makes me do this by repeating himself in the first place.
  6. kenup Well, if for your a battle spell is more meaningful and impactfull to the story than a romantic love sub-pot, I don't know what to tell you. Guess our brains are just arranged differently or something. For me a battle spell is but another munchkin ability I can absolutely live without. As for 2 or 3 months per romance, you've got your answer already. It's 2 or 3 months per character.
  7. Where did they say this? Link or it didn't happen. You do exactly the same by asking to sacrifice romances for spells and side quests. You are no better.
  8. Thing is, my answers are so dig that forum engine won't let me post 'em sometimes due to an excessive use of quote tags. So I have to cut my expenses based on the total "budget" . But yeah, it's only fair to let me answer everything. Let's see what I've missed the last time. 530 voters from 73986 backers is 0,72 percent so that's not indicative at all. Not true. You can't dismiss a poll merely by saying that the sample taken is actually small compared to the whole population which opinion is involved. That contradicts to statistical science in it's basics. For example, US National exit poll samples usually consist of 8,000 to 20,000 people while there are 314 million people live in USA overall. So 8,000 constitutes only 0.00254%. So our poll is pretty damn good from this standpoint. Obama will win because tech-savvy youngsters prefer democrats statistically. But that's off-topic. And I'm not even a US cytizen . I put these together so I'll answer both once: I didn't say about love, I talked about romances and those two are separate. There are many kind of love; between friends, siblings, parents and children, mentor and apprentice etc etc. Romantic love is powerful one sure but it's not any more powerful than other kind of love. Friendship-, sibling-/parental-, mentorship-love etc are as special as romantic love but it's different; case-in-point Miles O'Brien and Julian Bashir in DS9 when Miles' wife asks from Julian in the series to tell her that her husband loves her more than Julian, he can't say so. Well, I'll clerify. Romantic love is special among specials. You compare how much there are movies about parental love and about romantic love, you'll see for youself. There is a reason behind it. Those are different - if you say romance the said paladin there would be lines for objecting those activities which most probably would be unique for each branch, for romance, non-romance, rivalry etc, the characters should react to what you do depending on their relationship with the PC. There are of course branches in the dialogue trees which leads to different dialogue-parts but for every larger branch the amount of the written dialogue multiplies exponentially, for example (I'm throwing this out of the hat) there are twenty dialogue events/lines per every branch and when you add another one it multiplies with another twenty...and then another twenty etc. So unless they add more lines per character which would increase the time and budget for the said companion they have to divide the lines between all the possible routes. I have already answered this in my previous post where I've told 10% + some more with darling-modified lines is enougth. So you are basically saying the poll should be discarded not because there are too few people who had voted (as you've suggested earlier), but because the poll itself is a magnet for certain kind of people, hense biased? Well, actually that is a much better strategy, it makes sence (in contrast to your first argument) and there may be some truth to it. Also I can counterplea that romance topics are a magnet for anty romance people just as well. Avellone and Cain loves to write low-intelligent dialogue, but they have said that they dislike romances. You wouldn't force them to disregard something they like to write for something they hate or dislike, would you? We've asked this before: If the story of the game doesn't concern romances at all, then they would be separate from it, should they write the romances in if they don't like to write them just to pander players who wants romances? So you've basically agreed it's not about a budget or time anymore, but about Obsidian's preferences. Am I right? As for the second part, this has been answered a lot already. We are stating our preferences, we are asking but we are not demanding. If the authors decide not to do romances, we'll accept it.
  9. Where did you get that 10%? I've pulled it out from my behind basically. But really, let's take NWN2 and MotB for examples. Both had romances. Can you seriously tell me romance dialogues there took more than 10% from the whole pool of dialogues with romanceable characters? I bet you can't. Well 30-50% of dialogues written specifically for romance routes is a dream come true, I would totally love it, but it is not necessary at all. See my examples with NWN2 and MotB. Give me my 10% of unique romance dialogue + 30% of darling-modified friendship lines and I'm a happy person. Seriously. The loot is very small part of what writer does for the companion and that is usually the item descriptions, as for example if companion has his own family sword. The actual loot itself (such as statistics) is done by the game-/system designer who has to balance it with the encounters and other loot/equipment. You assume I was talking about loot descriptions solely. I was talking about project budget money management. Let's cut loot not only in terms of descriptions, but in terms of quantity: less models, less textures. Than we can use our spare money to hire an extra writer! I would sacrifice loot. I like companion's quests, so I would rather sacrifice a non-companion's quest if needed. Or a bunch of combat spell. Ok, you are absolutely right here, thanks for the clarification. So it is less from 4M. Still a lot of money. I put these together so I'll answer both once: I didn't say about love, I talked about romances and those two are separate. There are many kind of love; between friends, siblings, parents and children, mentor and apprentice etc etc. Romantic love is powerful one sure but it's not any more powerful than other kind of love. Friendship-, sibling-/parental-, mentorship-love etc are as special as romantic love but it's different; case-in-point Miles O'Brien and Julian Bashir in DS9 when Miles' wife asks from Julian in the series to tell her that her husband loves her more than Julian, he can't say so. Would've film like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Predator, The Treasure of Sierra Madre or The Thing been any better stories if they would've had romances in them? I know films and games are different medium but they both still tell a story. Point is, 2001: A Space Odyssey is not a party-based RPG. It's an absolutely different medium. With 2001: A Space Odyssey you are a passive viewer, not an active participant. You don't have to do any choices. You are not supposed to live in their fictional world, just to watch it as things unfold before your eyes on their own. You can't really compare the two only because both have a plot involved to some extent.
  10. I'm really interested on how you came up with the "week to write romance", especially if you want it to be substansial. Here. No. Throwing more dialog into X doesn't automatically means throwing less dialogue into Y. Something else might be sacrificed instead. Like doing less loot. I personally don't care 'bout loot. Because polls on this very forums show 75% of people are pro-romance. Here. So you are in fact a vocal minority as cliche as it sound nowadays. And don't say polls are not an indicator. They are the closest thing to an indicator that we have. Kickstarter, Amazon and Paypal will take 5% at most. $4,163,208 - 5% = 3,955,047. So it's 4M basically. But, yeah, there are also phisical revards to make. A game about choice should have a choice for as much people as possible. We don't want it to be lenear. We want it to be an epic advanture as personal as humanly possible. No romances = not perfect for me. When we are talking about a party based RPG that is. Still may be great and awesome, but not perfect, no. For the record, so far there are some great and awesome RPGs for me I love to bits out there, yet the perfect one is still to be made. Care to explain how romances make characters more deeper than say..."Brothers in Arms"-camaraderie? Would characters actually be any deeper if one of them would have romance instead of friendship or rivalry? What makes having romance for companion more special than say... friendly competition between friends (you and companion)? Well, if you don't see how love is a special kind of feeling yourself, I don't think I can fix it with words. No, not true. I would not be happy with only one rout per character at all. So you basically want them to be as streamlined and nonreactive as possible? So the player character is running around robbing people, excavating graveyards, kicking puppies and eating babies, still a lawful good paladin from the party is a PC's best buddy simply because the only rout he has is a rout of friendship? Not good! Not so much fewer as you think according to the the polls. Goddamit, they have already confirmed low intelligent player character dialogues will be included in the game!! It is not something most of the players are gonna see in the end and it will take 90% more time to wright than the all theoretical romance dialogues put together! Something everyone here seems to miss.
  11. Ok, a nice clear summarization, let's go with it. I've done some math on the matter and came to a conclusion it take a week to wright one romance while also writing something entirely different on the background. I do not think one week per one author is such a terrible cost. Also considering the budget issue, from $4 millions on Kickstarter I'm pretty sure at least $2 millions came from the romance crowd. Even if only $1 million, still don't you think those people may deserve some slack to be cut? $50.000 from $4.000.000 maybe? That equals 1.25% from the budget. Is that too much to ask? (To ask, not to demand - an elaboration just in case someone is thinking to go there again). That is not a good argument. With this kind of logic it is possible to attack virtually anything. Because we want this specific game to be perfect in every way. And how are those bad arguments? The second one in particular. Frankly I couldn't care less about what crowds go where. The game in itself is the first, the second and the third priority. What crowds it may or may not bring to the forum is a priority #4891. So what is the problem?
  12. How about this, with romances you pretty much always have to choose the right responses or the romance cuts off but with friendships it doesnt. That is not a problem of romance as an idea. That is just an example of some questionable game mechanics used to manage romances in past games. Things can be done differently this time. I'm pretty sure I personally have never prised BG2 romances simply because I never actually played BG2.
  13. Ok, I'm glad to see we are done with this unjust accusation. Don't we all? Not more aggressive than the anti crowd. I can say exactly the same about your team. You still have not defined what "minigame" means and why is it a bad thing. Check up my wrangle with Jasede for details. You like to say you have some good valid arguments, so show 'em to me. Nope. What you don't get is there are things called sub-plots, calling anything that is not directly tied up to the main quest a filler is silly. Did I ever argue that? I'm pretty sure I did not. This I also never argued. Also the key word here is "in some way": romance can be crucial to the main plot, but doesn't necessary have to be so. It can be a subplot on it's own with ties to other plots. That are just lies. Alistair's and Morrigan's romances from DAO were incorporated into the main plot tighter than any Obsidian romance up to date ever was. That is not saying it makes them automatically better solely throught the virtue of being so overarching plot-significant. Just stating the fact.
×
×
  • Create New...