Living One

Great interview,expecially a certain answer. Good that dialogues won't be insta-win buttons.As for dialogue density I pretty much expected what he said,though I hope there will be some descriptions and exposition PST-style from time to time.Maybe for particularly important conversations.

Even if I agreed Annah was the weak link (which I do in a limited sense), I wouldn't say Avellone is a weak romance writer. Fall-from-Grace, Brianna, and Visas Marr all met specifications. Don't remember much the latter two(started and quit soon because I didn't like where things were going) so I'll concede you they might not suck even if I doubt.Grace still had the problem of wanting to follow a dude she just met...because...he's awesome?Her conflict with her own nature was nice but her ''motivations'' to follow and romance TNO were quite weak compared to what non-romanceable companions had. So now we are reading something into Morrigan's romance.The Old God didn't symbolize a damn.That was BW pretending to be deep while writing usubstancial stuff.As always. Her specific contraddiction weren't there to add depth.They were there to ego stroke the player by making him feel the only special one able to look beyond her snarkiness and get her.Similar thing with Annah sadly.Depth my ass. Some more cheap ego-stroking right there.And why would she need TNO when she was previously portraied as a strong woman?Why does she become that spineless all of a sudden when she could just have been portraied as a character where strenghts and weaknesses were both as preminent(like,I dunno the rest of the companions.And guess wich other companion suffered a bit for the same problem even if to a minor extent?Yes,Grace).?(already answered that above). And for today I'm done(almost midnight).

Annah was truly spiritual.Oh wait. Depends on how fine of detail you look at it. She did resist physical advances, was motivated more loneliness, and feared fate. You could say similar things about plenty of Bioware romances.They still wouldn't have any depth.She falls in love for TNO merely due to a juvenile crush.She might have been afraid for her fate but how does she deal with it?By throwing herself at some random dude's arms?Please.That might even give feminazis something to talk about. Let's face it:Avellone is a good writer but romances aren't his forte(not that I blame him:the chances of doing something right are small when it's pretty much always been done poorly).

Annah was truly spiritual.Oh wait.

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. Except we have.The fact you couldn't find any good arguments to counter our points from our posts above(no arguments about romances being bad if not relevant to the themes of the game?)and go all 'you don't have arguments' is proof.As well as all previous pages and threads. But,you know, I'm starting to think you are just trolling.I've already countered your point about 'romances allowing roleplaying' probably within this same thread before and both times you couldn't argue.You can't have such reading comprehension problems.Next time if you don't have any new arguments I'll report you for trolling rather than answering.

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. It doesn't have to do with just RPGs per se.It has to do with the themes of the game. You're right it's up to Obsidian and they don't sound too happy about romances. There is a difference between the two crowds tho'.We have better informed arguments.

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.

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. Even if it was half/ a third of 2-3 months just for the romance path for it'still quite a bit.And we are also talking about 'a pretty quick writer' here,eh.

fix'd

Majestic!

Side content is related to the exploration of the world,wich,and it has been stated,is a primary goal of the project.Therefore they are necessary,in wich form is another non-specified(mega dungeon aside)matter.Ofc speaking in specific terms content that enhances the rapresentation of the world/of the story takes precedence. Arguing in favor of romances is arguing in favor a very specific matter that might/might not fit.A feature that,however, has the pecularity of having reached mediocrity at best(Grace)(if we are talking about romances in wich the players interacts). I wouldn't call the relationship with Grace 'mediocre' -- or even the one with Annah. Although the romances in Torment weren't exactly a state of being you were trying to achieve. Grace pretty much falls for TNO because...he's teh awesome?Her conflict is nice per se but there shouldn't have been an attempt to ty it to the typical quiz-style romance. Annah however is outright ruined by that pos of a romance.She falls quickly for TNO and is even ready to follow him everywhere due to a juvenile crush.It's basically the same ego-stroking biowarian crap except for better dialogues. And the attempt explore her torment( results were not quite as deep as with other companions)and ty it with the themes of the story didn't fix much because the romance had poor foundations to begin with.

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me. Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent. What is subjective about good writing? Apparently some people like James Joyce's ULYSSES. I kid. Well kind of. There's a technical aspect to writing and a creative aspect. The technical aspect is I'd agree objective to a large degree (and yet writers can subvert it to effect as well, so it's not always clear cut); the creative aspect is, however entirely subjective. At least that's how I see it. That's because SHEPPARDS DEATH with respect to the plot is an element of the story, not necessarily the point of the story. That said it is an element of character since being brought back by CEREBUS effects the character interactions that Sheppard has. To me a romance could serve as a good element of defining character between PC/NPC or NPC/NPC but only if it fits the context of the story and fits the characters involved and fits the developers vision for the game in general. It just moves the time forward! And it isn't an element of sheppard's character, because he doesn't care about it, nor does anyone else. You don't just ****ing kill the protagonist, only to bring him back to life minutes later. Sheppard is a brick. We don't see what he experienced, if anything, while dead. We don't see that traumatizing, hell lethal, experience. progress him as a character. And it doesn't matter to the plot either, the time jump was not needed, sheppard's death was not needed. Same with "romance" minigames; they don't serve anything. 'Anything' is extreme. They don't serve the main narrative. Neither do side missions or the mega-dungeon. Side content is related to the exploration of the world,wich,and it has been stated,is a primary goal of the project.Therefore they are necessary,in wich form is another non-specified(mega dungeon aside)matter.Ofc speaking in specific terms content that enhances the rapresentation of the world/of the story takes precedence. Arguing in favor of romances is arguing in favor a very specific matter that might/might not fit.A feature that,however, has the pecularity of having reached mediocrity at best(Grace)(if we are talking about romances in wich the players interacts).

Well, I think you are wrong here. My word vs. yours. My word does have arguments.Yours,not so much. Denial stage,I see.No romance has ever been that dry in terms of quantity,now THIS is wild speculation.And if that's going to be the case with PE why would you want it?

I insist there should also be a sack of potatoes romance option. Twitchers need their love too,no?

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have. More like you don't understand that it's a designer to decide what options to role-play you get because a game will obviously have limitations since it has to be finished and then released. And since games are always limited obvious that some content will get in and some other won't. Now,how do we decide wich gets in and wich doesn't? Player demand for fanservice or artistic considerations? It really isn't so hard to understand. Also lol,to quote myself(and from this same page too!!!): The point you were trying to bring up has already been criticized several times in this and others threads,yet you brought it up regardless without bothering to bring up additional arguments to support your stance. Nice try but, again,you'll have to wait to try again.Maybe 5-6 pages should do it. Has anyone here ever worked on an elaborate, narrative-driven RPG? The notion that romances absorb excessive time and effort from the developers is speculative at best. If it takes Avellone to write one companion two-three months at least, I'd say it's pretty damn excessive time and effort. Have YOU ever worked on writing elaborate, narrative-driven RPG? Indeed.The 'it's just speculation' argument is another thing they just won't drop despite even having developer quotes. Hey,Morality Games I have something for you too: Another 10 pages should work though.Either spam some stuff to bury it or try tomorrow.

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have. More like you don't understand that it's a designer to decide what options to role-play you get because a game will obviously have limitations since it has to be finished and then released. And since games are always limited obvious that some content will get in and some other won't. Now,how do we decide wich gets in and wich doesn't? Player demand for fanservice or artistic considerations? It really isn't so hard to understand. What if their artistic considerations are going to overlap with the player demand? Is it bad? That would be coincidece,wich per se isn't neither good nor bad.In this case?Response below. Listen to player demand is bad because behind a demand there are not well thought arguments. They should listen to whoever brings up the most constructive arguments(if they sit on the fence,that is). Wich is clearly not the case of the post you made(and neither the case of most pro-romance arguments).

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have. More like you don't understand that it's a designer to decide what options to role-play you get because a game will obviously have limitations since it has to be finished and then released. And since games are always limited obvious that some content will get in and some other won't. Now,how do we decide wich gets in and wich doesn't? Player demand for fanservice or artistic considerations? It really isn't so hard to understand.Expecially now that I used basic logic to explain(such a basic concept). Also lol,to quote myself(and from this same page too!!!): The point you were trying to bring up has already been criticized several times in this and others threads,yet you brought it up regardless without bothering to bring up additional arguments to support your stance. Nice try but, again,you'll have to wait to try again.Maybe 5-6 pages should do it.

Excuse me? Also, a MAJORITY of the people I have seen comment in the last day or two have simply said "I hope they do have romance in." and the response has been to attack that opinion by saying 'NO ROMANCE BIOWARE IS EVIL' which then diverts the conversation to said company and said writers. They wouldn't bring up Biowaste if: 1-Quite a few Obsy romances weren't so dangerously similar to Bioware's. 2-Quite a few of people didn't actually demand/show appretiation for Bioware romances(this includes BG,DAO,ME or even the unholy 'things' they released recently). 3-Quite a few of people didn't show appretiation for Bioware's rather shallow writing. You must have missed some passive-aggressive posts then. Furthermore their 'I'll bring up this point and if someone brings up a good counter argument I'll just drop the ball for a bit and when enough posts have buried that discussion I'll repeat it again instead of trying to have a constructive discussion' tactic isn't particularly positive don't you think?

I'm indifferent to Tolkien but... ...it's not just taste vs scientific theory. Social sciences can't rely on rock-solid scientific theories,yet sociologists/psicologists/antropologists/historians still have the duty to try to be as objective as possible. If you want to undergo through a well constructed discussion you have to do something similar and try to be objective.Standing there,tell each other's opinions and ending it there is not a useful discussion.Wich is something very common with biodudes.

Because everyone must love Tolkien or Moore? I hope you aren't implying that a dislike of Tolkien is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion. I'm implying that if you like the movies and not Tolkien's books, you may not understand what good writing is. And yes it is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion. You don't see a biologist worth their weight not approving of the Evolution Theory, do you? I don't comment on the other books/movies because I don't care about them, the conversation wasn't about them. With you people everyone should deserve the same respect, no matter how wrong their arguments in a debate, or their knowledge and experience on the matter. Except from the anti-romance-minigames team, we are Ebil! Welcome to the 'political correctness at all costs because otherwise thin-skins get sad' age,I'm afraid.

Good videogame writers use gameplay as much as,if not more than exposition.To make a player feel like he's lost in a huge,wondrous dungeon you make a huge,wondrous dungeon. You don't put a dwarf and some cut-scene to make a big deal about the corridor you are '''''exploring'''''.

Ok now you are trolling. I ignore the other two, but with these ones no one with a brain should take you seriously. You don't have to like their storylines, but Tali and Merrill had their own problems that were not linked with the main character in any way. Tali had the difficoult relationship with her race and her father, Merrill had her quest for the Eluvian. I hate Merrill and I consider her a childish emo girl that does nothing else but cry around and complain that no one wants to help her, but this is just a personal judgement. Facts are that romancing her is totally optional, her storyline goes on with or without you by her side. Yes,and the main story was a mess consisting in mandatory side-quests.But you and others will undoubtly keep deluding yourselves that romances don't detract from more important things. DA2 wasn't a great game. It wasn't unplayable either. But in the end a game being bad that includes romances doesn't mean it was bad because of them. I mean the game has sword combat and a magic system for crying out loud, clearly you can't do both in 1 game and still have a good game! What I wrote wasn't hard to understand:you brought up Dating Age 2 while saying that romances don't detract from other parts of the writing.No need to comment further on such statement.Just like I'll refrain from commenting on the sword vs magic thing. DA2 was the biggest disgrace to ever happen to the RPG genre with its trash mobs,poor writing,creepy romances(including one with a loli) and terrible level design(wich 'quality' was an even bigger issue than the repetition). DAO was a mediocre game that had the same problems of its sequel,just to a minor extent.It managed to be successful due to lack of direct competition and people's low standard.Same with Mass Erection series. BG series was good except for BW's cheesy writing. The fact that you feel the need to clarify that despite not touching you TNO/just kissing you TNO...let's just drop it. All of the game you mentioned had poor masturbatory romances,except for the Grace one wich was merely tolerable. Well founded budgetary concerns won't go away because you people ask it without giving good reasons. Dungeon Siege 3 is about ten times worse than Dragon Age 2, I could actually get deep into Dragon Age 2 before the stupidity known as Isabella made me stop. Dungeon Siege 3, well... let me check Steam...3 hours played. Yep, couldn't stomach another second. And? Trash mobs,banal encounters,clichè story and characters Bioware continued to copy-paste for a decade despite the little depth,overly linear and small levels,kooldowns that kill resource management,bland art direction.

Ok now you are trolling. I ignore the other two, but with these ones no one with a brain should take you seriously. You don't have to like their storylines, but Tali and Merrill had their own problems that were not linked with the main character in any way. Tali had the difficoult relationship with her race and her father, Merrill had her quest for the Eluvian. I hate Merrill and I consider her a childish emo girl that does nothing else but cry around and complain that no one wants to help her, but this is just a personal judgement. Facts are that romancing her is totally optional, her storyline goes on with or without you by her side. Yes,and the main story was a mess consisting in mandatory side-quests.But you and others will undoubtly keep deluding yourselves that romances don't detract from more important things. DA2 wasn't a great game. It wasn't unplayable either. But in the end a game being bad that includes romances doesn't mean it was bad because of them. I mean the game has sword combat and a magic system for crying out loud, clearly you can't do both in 1 game and still have a good game! What I wrote wasn't hard to understand:you brought up Dating Age 2 while saying that romances don't detract from other parts of the writing.No need to comment further on such statement.Just like I'll refrain from commenting on the sword vs magic thing. DA2 was the biggest disgrace to ever happen to the RPG genre with its trash mobs,poor writing,creepy romances(including one with a loli) and terrible level design(wich 'quality' was an even bigger issue than the repetition). DAO was a mediocre game that had the same problems of its sequel,just to a minor extent.It managed to be successful due to lack of direct competition and people's low standard.Same with Mass Erection series. BG series was good except for BW's cheesy writing. The fact that you feel the need to clarify that despite not touching you TNO/just kissing you TNO...let's just drop it. All of the game you mentioned had poor masturbatory romances,except for the Grace one wich was merely tolerable. Well founded budgetary concerns won't go away because you people ask it without giving good reasons.

Ok now you are trolling. I ignore the other two, but with these ones no one with a brain should take you seriously. You don't have to like their storylines, but Tali and Merrill had their own problems that were not linked with the main character in any way. Tali had the difficoult relationship with her race and her father, Merrill had her quest for the Eluvian. I hate Merrill and I consider her a childish emo girl that does nothing else but cry around and complain that no one wants to help her, but this is just a personal judgement. Facts are that romancing her is totally optional, her storyline goes on with or without you by her side. Yes,and the main story was a mess consisting in mandatory side-quests.But you and others will undoubtly keep deluding yourselves that romances don't detract from more important things.