Living One

Would it make Citizen Kane or Star Wars any better if they had romances? Oh.. wait they did. No not every movie or game needs to have them and the inclusion doesn't automatically make them better. Not every movie has swordfighting either and that doesn't make them bad movies. But hey, if we go and look up a list of 100 best films of all time, would you guess how many of those would, and how many would not have romance in there? Not necessarily as the central theme, but in there anyway. My guess is that most would. Don't try to twist the argument:people against romances are arguing against the tipycal PC-NPC romance.Noone's arguing against stuff like Christine-Veronica,etc

How about Herve?Maybe all love intrests should be modeled after him so we satisfy both the 'romance crowd' and the 'let's take revenge upon the romance crowd' at once. Now this is a true win-win!

You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender. If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep. 1/5 for the trolling. It's still the author who gets to decide what content gets in and what doesn't.Even if you have player choice,yes. One would think that such a notion is quite simple to understand. Exactly, it's the author who gets to decide, not you, not me. Yet people are stonewalling romance, saying that it shouldn't be in the game and I'm simply retorting in kind. But apparently, you don't understand this, 'simple notion either', because you are voicing your opinion just as loudly. I was responding to your specific post and the specific conversation it was part of.Not my fault if you come up with poor analogies. And I still have to see a convincing argument in favor of romances from you guys.Not a single one that hasn't been criticized by well thought out counter-points by various posters(Ieo and Crusty in particular). What you do or do not deem convincing is not particularly my concern. I've seen plenty of worthwhile opinions and facts as to why romances would be a good thing, hell I've seen some good counter points (Because I'm actually open minded), but not enough good ones to simply say, 'no romance, no, never ever'. Why are you arguing only with one side if you are so neutral then,mmh? Who said otherwise?And why are you even bringing up this point as if it was relevant to the discussion? I never said I was neutral, please don't try to misrepresent my position on the matter. For the rest, you once again don't understand. It's up to you if you want to keep quoting me, but I'm not going to try and rephrase the same thing fifty times because you somehow can't decipher a meaning from it. It' normal that people don't understand you.I'll let you guess why,while just giving you the hint that the reason isn't you are saying particularly complex things. Bye,dude.

Because you are a normal person.

I was responding to your specific post and the specific conversation it was part of.Not my fault if you come up with poor analogies. And I still have to see a convincing argument in favor of romances from you guys.Not a single one that hasn't been criticized by well thought out counter-points by various posters(Ieo and Crusty in particular). What you do or do not deem convincing is not particularly my concern. I've seen plenty of worthwhile opinions and facts as to why romances would be a good thing, hell I've seen some good counter points (Because I'm actually open minded), but not enough good ones to simply say, 'no romance, no, never ever'. Why are you arguing only with one side if you are so neutral then,mmh? Who said otherwise?And why are you even bringing up this point as if it was relevant to the discussion?

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames. Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame. I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make, and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending. That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices. Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence. And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what woul reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget. You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender. If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep. 1/5 for the trolling. It's still the author who gets to decide what content gets in and what doesn't.Even if you have player choice,yes. One would think that such a notion is quite simple to understand. Exactly, it's the author who gets to decide, not you, not me. Yet people are stonewalling romance, saying that it shouldn't be in the game and I'm simply retorting in kind. But apparently, you don't understand this, 'simple notion either', because you are voicing your opinion just as loudly. I was responding to your specific post and the specific conversation it was part of.Not my fault if you come up with poor analogies. And I still have to see a convincing argument in favor of romances from you guys.Not a single one that hasn't been criticized by well thought out counter-points by various posters(Ieo and Crusty in particular).

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames. Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame. I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make, and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending. That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices. Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence. And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what woul reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget. You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender. If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep. 1/5 for the trolling. It's still the author who gets to decide what content gets in and what doesn't.Even if you have player choice,yes. One would think that such a notion is quite simple to understand.

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames. Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame. I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make, and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending. That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices. Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence. And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what would reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget.

Me too.Yes,I tried with cookies/cache but still got the error.

And those "who don't want Bioware-style romances in PE" allowed you to speak for them? Hivemind, obviously. No, I never tried to suggest anything like that, that was just a simple question about why do you dare to speak for others. Are you sure? Maybe you should ask him, before answering on his behalf? Hivemind? Biowarians talking about hiveminds.The irony. Edit: Finally something that makes sense.

By saying 'we' you mean yourself and your reflection in mirror? He means people of refined tastes,of course.

That's truly heartbreaking. 1/5 to this thread. Ever considered that some people might still like a game DESPITE some bad stuff?Like the waifu romances,the cheesy cliché-riddled 'save the world' storyline,the RTwP combat or the bland forgotten realms setting?

I'll just copy-paste an old post: 1-the "but love and sex are parts of life and should be represented!" argument from pro-romancers isn't a sufficient reason to have an actual romance for the PC.Like at all.At most it's an argument to have stuff like NPCs that are married(not in a"big deal way" like many would seem to like:just something like "the blacksmith you are buying stuff from has a wife that runs the shop at different hours,etc.")or some occasional flirty lines(like FNV with Cass)or something minor like that.If it was really a sufficient reason then every story would have the protagonist fall in love with someone.Wich just isn't the case. 2-the fact that RPGs have side stories(in the form of quests)isn't a justification for romances either:the main quest and side quests that are thematically relevant to the main one(think New Vegas) should come first expecially since time and resources are limited.In other words:side quests shouldn't be a justification to randomly throw in whatever storyline you want. 3-The argument "but if they put effort I'm sure they'll do it right".I don't think it's possible but let's admit it's a possibility for a moment:if they put so much effort doesn't that gets in opposition to point 2?

I agree with this 110%!!! Except that they were pretty much that,expecially as far as Annah is concerned:they both fell in love with TNO because he's teh awesomez and are ready to follow him everywhere just because of that.Now compare that to the rich backstory characters like Dak'kon,Morte,Vaihlor,etc. shared with TNO wich were their motivation to follow him.

Pretty much this.Dragon's Dogma does that,for example:you encounter a boss in the wilderness and a 'kill the monster' quest pops up.

I'm not going to go digging through other threads. If you want to refer to one, you could start with doing it properly by quoting or linking to it. Also, your attempt to deflect criticism by making generalizing statements about the logical capacity and "butthurtness" of an imagined cohesive group hardly helps you case. You're just continuing to make it clear that you're only here to be disruptive. Are you really not seeing how obsessive you're being? Look at your own posts, man. Look at how you have twice as many posts as anyone else on the first page of this thread. Do you think this is healthy? Is this the sort of person you are outside of RPG forums too? Well, hopefully the ban on these threads will remain lifted for long enough that I can put together a post with my own thoughts on the subject. First, though, I have a 1989 novel to read, a character juxtaposition essay to write, and the first draft of a research essay to put together. And, of course, I need to sleep... right about now. If it's healty?No more,no less than insisting with this feature bro Here's your quote: 'Also:1-the "but love and sex are parts of life and should be represented!1!" argument from pro-romancers isn't a sufficient reason to have an actual romance for the PC.Like at all.At most it's an argument to have stuff like NPCs that are married(not in a"big deal way" like many would like to:just something like "the blacksmith you are buying stuff from has a wife that runs the shop at different hours")or some occasional flirty lines(like FNV)or something minor like that.If it was really a sufficient reason then every story would have the protagonist fall in love with someone.Wich just isn't the case. 2-the fact that RPGs have side stories(in the form of quests)isn't a justification for romances either:the main quest and side quests that are thematically relevant to the main one(think New Vegas) should come first.In other words:side quests shouldn't be a justification to randomly throw in whatever storyline you want. 3-The argument "but if they put effort I'm sure they'll do it right".I don't think it's possible but let's admit it's a possibility for a moment:if they put so much effort doesn't that gets in opposition to point 2?' Is that clear now?If they put romances they can't but loose:they either put something dry to not consume much time(wich is bad)or they put a lot of time to do it right wich is undoubtley going to be a problem for the rest of the story(and yes,they'll need a lot of efforts to fix a kind of plotline that has always merely required pressing the obvious responses to get through). And I've got to sleep too.

... Yes!Lots of options!1!!Remove part of the main plot and divert resources even!!!1! Isn't your party part of the main plot though? Isn't the Adventurer's Hall part of the "No romance option, robotic party set up"? I'd say more personal-party-conflict-intrigue, "**** we just fought a dragon guys" type of thing. Not "Oh that's a nice dragon you got there ". Less of the latter, more of the former. No.They confirmed it. What a surprise. It would't enhance my experience in any case.

I respond only becouse i really don't like that sentence a here why : 1. The same thing we can say about Stronghold, new races, new comanions, crafting and enchanting. 2. If it is a waste of time writers, developers should know better than you don't you think ? 3. If we think of romances like DA:O romances then yes but if we think of them as storyline related (affecting it) or at lest something done well then NO NO NO ! 4. If more time whould be spend on quests or dialoges it have 2 sides we can get more quality and the same size or much more quests, dialoges but low qualiti, Stick has two ends 5. Doing good ramance options is a great oportunity to learn new skills for writhers, if we silmpy put aside everything that we are not good at then haw the hell can we develop ? 1.Those are more integral part of the game,not some fapping-related minigame. 2.Ofc.But if that's your opinion,why are you making suggestions on their forums?Same goes for everyone:we post in hope they'll read us and evaluate our positions. 3.Again,this point is about putting lots of resources into romances to make them right.Wich is impossible/p. unlikely since Obsy has a bad track record with this feature.Just,like you know, the whole industry. 4.Not sure what you're trying to say here. 5.They can't be done right.And even if they could you'd need to spend a lot of effort into them to do them right.And here they do become a time sink.

... Yes!Lots of options!1!!Remove part of the main plot and divert resources even!!!1!

It's because them silly people will want the effort spent elsewhere, the same amount of writing could net a few quests instead. Anyway, I'd hazard a guess we'll hear a bit more of this once the kickstarter is over. If they come out now and flat out state there'll be no romancing in Eternity, a thousand pledgers will back out (and 10 will increase their pledges). And if they admit about 20% of game dialogue will be slurpingly good cyber-romancing, there'll be even more backers making u-turns (and a bunch of pledge uppers). Just dont touch the subject with the 10-ft pole before the money is in the bank. **** cannot be slurpingly good.

It's because they are a waste of time for the writers.Time they could spend to improve the rest of what they're writing.Wich sounds a p. good thing considering MCA is already busy with PE,WL2 and two novellas for both games. Plus,I personally find the sole thought of even seeing the obvious romance-dialogue option irritating since it's likely going to be the usual cheap ego-stroking stuff(no,don't bring up the argument about Obsidian not being as bad as Bioware at romances:that's still one of the few thing I really don't believe anyone can do right).

Thankfully no.

Really nice screen,stretch goals and lore update too!

r00fles!

This is getting tiresome because I've already addressed all your points previously and more than once.So this is the last time I'll explain why it's either a bad idea or a waste of time to implement this feature. 1-"Where are the compromises? The fact that you could let the game play itself with a complicated enough script? That only really works if the combat encounters are not challenging and that has nothing to do with scripts but with encounter design." I've already explained that the quality of the encounters is low BECAUSE of that feature.You said it yourself:"Managing your party yourself is always a much better system if you want the maximum benefit from all abilities of the entire party."The problem stems from the fact that DAO had to dumb down its own encounters to make itself playable for people who wanted to solve battles with a system that's much less precise(by your own admission).And no matter how good the script is it won't be as good as managing the party yourself. And if encounters aren't dumbed down to make so viable such a gameplay option?If they are variefied(they have already confirmed their commitment in this regard) then the players will have to constantly change the scripts wich means that the ''''advantage'''' of not needing to manage the battle goes down the toilet since you'll spend a lot of time in more clumsier menus,going back and forth between various slots rather than simply selecting the needed ability during battle.If encounters are good,then tactics slots won't be enough to win(or at least you'll performe much worse making death more likely later on).With good encounters the scripts might be nice only if they complement active management(thus they should be quite limited)not if they try to be an alternative(like in DAO). Basically you either create an option (DAO-like scripts here)and make it viable with all the attached consequences(wich,as explained,are bad in this case) or you create the option but don't make it as viable as it could be avoiding all negative consequences(but in this case why waste dev time creating it then?) 2-" However there are many combats where you don't really care about detailed management, killing a few dogs in a corridor, a guard or two in a room, some bandits on the road. You don't need to micro manage everything for that and can let the scripts run along while only controlling one character." In these cases encounters are so simple that you need very little managing anyway.This, combined with the fact that such encounters shouldn't be 'many',makes the implementation of such a feature an even bigger waste of time for developers. Is that clear now?That feature is at best a waste of resources/time for devs or at worst it'll simplify the game.