Living One

Role-playing is not playing dress-up. It's about stats, not about looks. You CAN'T play Gandalf (or some specific character), unless the game specifically casts you as Gandalf (that specific character). If you're playing it in "your head", then keep it there. If in your mind some random character you created is Gandalf then you can just imagine he's wearing his clothes as well. Or, if you think that the character you created should wear THIS but definitely not THAT, RPGs are not for you and you're the cause of the decline. Because, in real life someone actually sees you. In a computer game, nobody does. And if you think the people in the game care what you wear, you have serious troubles. Similarly, if you only play games to look cool and make screenshots to show to others, then again, please leave RPGs alone and play some dress-up game or something. RPGs are not about satisfying every little disturbed fantasy of everybody out there. Why can't people just leave them alone and go play Bioware dating-sims/dress-up games? RPG = stats. RPG =/= hats recent good rpgs like Dragon age: O and Witcher, etc. Also in case you really aren't capable of grasping it: games=about gameplay playing dress up=visuals stats=part of gameplay and SOLE mean of role playing because they are the SOLE mean to determining the role of a character(what it can/cannot be) via gameplay. LARPing=no gameplay involved Therefore LARPing in cRPGs is inherently inferior to proper role playing.

Funny, cause I see it exaclty other way around - it's all gameplay and no story nowadays. Mass Effect, for example, in my eyes sacrifices most of it's storytelling heritage for the sake of linear shooting corridors. Won't even mention Dragon Age. And newest Obsidian creation, Alpha Protocol, suffers from it too, to some degree - albeit rewarding the player with better dialogue, scenario and nonlinearity. What you're describing here is simply the effects of bad level/encounter design coupled with a tedius, one dimensional combat system contained within games that otherwise focus entirely on a story-driven cinematic experience. You cannot with any semblance of honesty describe ME3 and Dragon Age 2 as anything other than Story-foccused and story-driven.... not when gameplay is interrupted every 3-5 minutes with a cutscene. Not when half the recruitable NPCs are 'romanceable'. Not when spoken line word-counts are something like 700,000+. Not when the game itself forces your own character to spew out lines, and sometimes whole monologues, without your input. Yep.The corridor shooting/slashing galleries is there so people don't have to bother much with gameplay to get constant(and thus cheapened) gratification(wich might not mean disregarding gameplay but it surely means degrading it)and get to the next AWSHUM cinematic and romance(wich does mean disregarding gameplay). The fact that modern stories suck too is another(albeit related) issue. Also,Reddie,how is that you skipped the lengty part of the post?That wasn't accessible enough too?

Roleplaying was always about adventure. So giving this RP part of RPG more attention for once is just what made Torment so unique and awesome. Apart from the interface - kinda early iteration of NWN wheel - Torment combat system was exaclty the same as it were in previous (BG) and later (IWD, BG2) titles. The differences are not on part of the combat system but game design overall - there were noticeably less encounters and your characters were relatively stronger, so that combat was less tedious and didn't get in way of the story. And rightly so, the more storytelling the better RPG gets. Cut and pasting from another thread: "Videogames are about interaction(it's their language basically).Therefore a designer should be concerned to make the player care about it:to do this the dungeon crawling parts of RPGs(combat and exploration)provide the player with fun mechanics and stuff that will be of concrete value to the player during the game(the possibility to advance the game primarily and stuff useful for that like level ups,consumables,...)if he/she likes it.In other words these part of an RPG are most likely going to offer incentives the player(that likes them) will value. Story,instead,works differently usually:even when it's interactive the actual mechanics offer no concrete value to the player(again,usually but not always) and it is the writing rather than gameplay to try to engage the player wich is in opposition to what videogames are(if you try to have a certain quest outcome due to how you like character for example it's the writing driving you not mechanics).Of course that's not to say all 'story interactions' are meaningless from a gameplay perspective(example:do I give this npc coins i might instead use to buy a sword in hope for a reward later?or see the punishment you got by picking certain dialogue options while talking to the pillar of skulls in PST or stuff that makes you progress through the gameplay and thus get the concrete advantages i mentioned above).And even in these cases these interactions are meaningful to the dungeon crawling experience(that's why why even games like Torment,Fallout,Arcanum had those bits even if in minor parts:it wasn't a feature they had to inherit due to RPG traditions.They needed them to work.) To conclude even PST is a combat-centric game like Delterius says and it is so because otherwise it would make a weaker use of gameplay ,including the story one(it's its language as i said) and would be less of a videogame." So sorry but the argument "gameplay getting in the way of the story" is just cringe worthy to hear and the reason most modern games suck really badly.

Agreed.

where's the David Gaider-Herve Caen-Cthulhu hybrid option?

That is disturbing to say the least. yeah really

just a gentle reminder... If you feel like someone is harassing you or attacking you for simply stating your opinion on the topic, it is probably better to not engage them. If you feel it is particularly egregious, use the report feature. I know it's hard not to respond... but nothing good can come from it. Nothing is gained from commenting on each other's personal lives and levels of maturity. and now back to our regularly scheduled discussion... But clearly there's a lot to be gained by opening circle-jerking threads where you have to agree with the op and using the "Codexers made me cry" excuse to try to ignore arguments that might make look silly your request for asinine features. Meanwhile pretty much every romancer goes:"i swear the fact that i obsessivly post about romances is not an indication i'm obssessed about this feature!!1!see i even voted that option in the poll number159!1!!" Actually, this is exactly the type of post that Merin is talking about ignoring/reporting. It is one thing to disagree and it is another to specialize in these ad hominem, vitriolic posts. The issue is not people engaging in a dialogue with conflicting opinions, it's using these generalized statements to degrade the poster or devalue his/her contribution. "Nobody should take your opinion seriously since you're just an obsessive Bioware loving, sex-depraved basement dweller!" Something that occurred to me reading this thread: many people have stated they hope that if romance is included, it doesn't follow the Bioware model. To me, this actually goes without saying. Even if one likes the Bioware model (I personally am ambivalent towards it), this is an Obsidian game and I would not want them to squander their creativity by copying Bioware's model for romance progression regardless of the quality of said model. Innovation is key, and I think that in addition to maturity and relevance most people probably want to see something new and uncharted in regards to romance. It's pretty fun how your post confirms what I wrote word by word. Also Obsidian/Troika/BIS romances aren't much different from Biowaste's.Another point you guys always try to ignore.

I don't see why that should be true. No, this is first and foremost a game, and story never comes first in a game, not compared to game mechanics, balance, user interface, overall fun and so on. Of course, in RPGs, like in graphic adventures, story is far more relevant than in other genres and can add a lot to the experience, but it still is "additional value", it shouldn't ever be the core purpose of the experience. interacting with the story is a major part of most IE games. as is character creation and progression. those are all part of the game mechanics you speak of. And they are all designed for and around combat. If combat becomes pointless (and by pointless I mean whatever satisfies the 'only for the dialogues' player base), then those mechanics are pointless as well. 1. I completely disagree that these games are designed completely around combat. There are stats, skills and spells with little to no combat implications. 2. make it an optional easy mode. everybody wins. Videogames are about interaction(it's their language basically).Therefore a designer should be concerned to make the player care about it:to do this the dungeon crawling parts of RPGs(combat and exploration)provide the player with fun mechanics and stuff that will be of concrete value to the player during the game(the possibility to advance the game primarily and stuff useful for that like level ups,consumables,...)if he/she likes it.In other words these part of an RPG are most likely going to offer incentives the player(that likes them) will value. Story,instead,works differently usually:even when it's interactive the actual mechanics offer no concrete value to the player(again,usually but not always) and it is the writing rather than gameplay to try to engage the player wich is in opposition to what videogames are(if you try to have a certain quest outcome due to how you like character for example it's the writing driving you not mechanics).Of course that's not to say all 'story interactions' are meaningless from a gameplay perspective(example:do I give this npc coins i might instead use to buy a sword in hope for a reward later?or see the punishment you got by picking certain dialogue options while talking to the pillar of skulls in PST or stuff that makes you progress through the gameplay and thus get the concrete advantages i mentioned above).And even in these cases these interactions are meaningful to the dungeon crawling experience(that's why why even games like Torment,Fallout,Arcanum had those bits even if in minor parts:it wasn't a feature they had to inherit due to RPG traditions.They needed them to work.) To conclude even PST is a combat-centric game like Delterius says and it is so because otherwise it would make a weaker use of gameplay ,including the story one(it's its language as i said) and would be less of a videogame.

But here's the rub - who is asking for BioWare style romances? I'm sure some people who voted would like them. Full disclosure - I don't nearly have the problem with them that some people seem to, I've enjoyed them well enough. But, then, I enjoyed stealth and combat in Alpha Protocol and apparently that makes my judgment skills impaired... But I've only seen the word BioWare or BSN appear in these threads as cautionary tales, at best, or subjects of ridicule, at worst. This is a straw man. I didn't put the word BioWare in any poll questions. I didn't give the option for BioWare style romances to be selected - except for Question 4, which I've not seen one person say they wanted BioWare style romances in response to the question. It is a straw man because there's not a majority, or even vocal minority, advocating for "tent sex" or "fapping material." At worst I've seen mentions by people that "it wouldn't bother me if there was sex depicted", but that's almost always in the same post that will also state "It wouldn't bother me if romances weren't included at all" as well as "I only want them if they are of good quality." It's darn near universal that nobody really wants Obsidian to include them if they don't fit their vision of the game. So all the fear of BioWare or tent sex or whatever is almost baseless. Almost. I'm not denying some people will want that. But it's not the "barbarians at the gate " that many of the people are trying to make it out to. It's not even close to equivalent. There are far more people harassing others and, against the Forum Guidelines, mercilessly bashing BioWare or David Gaider or the boogeyman okay, that last one was sarcasm. Or a metaphor? If people don't care that much about romances why do they feel the continuos need to have these threads and put quite a lot of effort into them?

just a gentle reminder... If you feel like someone is harassing you or attacking you for simply stating your opinion on the topic, it is probably better to not engage them. If you feel it is particularly egregious, use the report feature. I know it's hard not to respond... but nothing good can come from it. Nothing is gained from commenting on each other's personal lives and levels of maturity. and now back to our regularly scheduled discussion... But clearly there's a lot to be gained by opening circle-jerking threads where you have to agree with the op and using the "Codexers made me cry" excuse to try to ignore arguments that might make look silly your request for asinine features. Meanwhile pretty much every romancer goes:"i swear the fact that i obsessivly post about romances is not an indication i'm obssessed about this feature!!1!see i even voted that option in the poll number159!1!!"

Quite like the idea.Make it big,with several levels,lots of unique enemies,bosses,mini-bosses,puzzles,traps and loot you won't find in the rest of the game and that feel different from one level to the other.

Sometimes I feel an immersion between my legs too. I tend to deal with it in a way more healthy than watching pixels in RPG. Yeah, because people want romance in their games because they **** to them. Makes sense, that's real mature there. Glad you're capable of having a mature discussion with people you disagree with. I think romance belongs in a modern RPG. It adds depth, allows some characters to be something more, and perhaps as a side-note is a sign of this medium maturing. I can't imagine this kind of argument went on when movies were still maturing. Oh, no, you can't have romance between the characters, that's just silly material for kids to **** to! Don't you recognize how silly your argument is? This is not a modern RPG,thankfully. Also,you know, when movies were maturing romances weren't the cheap shoehorned fap-service people are asking for. Don't you recognize how silly your argument is?

Even better:the romance is split into several microtrnsactions that'll cost about 129,99 total.And the romance will end with "rocks falls everyone dies",save corrupted and impossibility to import to the sequels. Discuss.

Indeed.Where's our most desired stretch goal?

How about making him romanceable?

George Ziets

Well,looks like I was right.What's wrong romancers,one might think that you don't have actual arguments and after all there really is not desire for quality features but only the cheap and juvenile desire to pandered to despite insisting not to be the case. Thematically relevant? Okay. Project Eternity is about the nature of souls, right? How about exploring the idea that souls can interact with and affect each other? Can certain types of souls "harmonize" with other compatible souls, making both stronger or somehow changing them? On the other hand, can souls of such different ethics, like order/chaos and good/evil, coexist, or does prolonged contact and interaction "erode" them? Do souls exist in a vacuum, only to be affected by their vessel, or can they feel the effects of other souls, in cases like magic use and romantic/platonic relationships? Is there even a difference for the soul if the relationship is romantic or platonic? If they are affected by relationships, how quickly do the changes, if any, become noticeable to the character? Along the idea of there being stronger and weaker souls, does a strong soul make a weak soul stronger, or vice versa? Or does the stronger soul start to impose itself on the weaker soul, pressing it into submission? Or do the two souls find an equillibrium? There. Thematically relevant. That's just your speculation about how they are going to deal with the souls thing.Also wath you are writing sounds more like a desperate attempt to ham-fist romances in it rather than what Avellone would write(seriously is it even possible to get more cheesy than"love can change souls","can different souls hug each other or are they damaged by it"). Also you skipped the other points. But,hey,carry on watching romancers getting so desperate to justify this crappy feature while pretending to be so different than GaiderFans is moderatedly amusing. First of all, I agree with your first point: there is no reason romance has to be in the game, especially if it doesn't fit. As for your third point, you basically said that even if the romance was well written, it would go against point #2, which is redundant and not worth debating. Concerning the second point: Of course it's speculation; we are in the "Speculation and Discussion" Project Eternity forum, are we not? As for my writing, I am no writer, and have no idea what will actually fit with the game. All I presented were ideas where to take a romance plot that would be thematically relevant. If those ideas weren't your cup of tea, that's not my problem. ...and you are seriously thinking that Avellone going for romances as one of the main themes of the story is even a remote possibility? Bah,whatever.

P. cool.Will surely go for expert mode+path of the damned for the first run then trial of iron.Glad to see you guys aren't just going for HPs bloating.

Well,looks like I was right.What's wrong romancers,one might think that you don't have actual arguments and after all there really is not desire for quality features but only the cheap and juvenile desire to pandered to despite insisting not to be the case. Thematically relevant? Okay. Project Eternity is about the nature of souls, right? How about exploring the idea that souls can interact with and affect each other? Can certain types of souls "harmonize" with other compatible souls, making both stronger or somehow changing them? On the other hand, can souls of such different ethics, like order/chaos and good/evil, coexist, or does prolonged contact and interaction "erode" them? Do souls exist in a vacuum, only to be affected by their vessel, or can they feel the effects of other souls, in cases like magic use and romantic/platonic relationships? Is there even a difference for the soul if the relationship is romantic or platonic? If they are affected by relationships, how quickly do the changes, if any, become noticeable to the character? Along the idea of there being stronger and weaker souls, does a strong soul make a weak soul stronger, or vice versa? Or does the stronger soul start to impose itself on the weaker soul, pressing it into submission? Or do the two souls find an equillibrium? There. Thematically relevant. That's just your speculation about how they are going to deal with the souls thing.Also wath you are writing sounds more like a desperate attempt to ham-fist romances in it rather than what Avellone would write(seriously is it even possible to get more cheesy than"love can change souls","can different souls hug each other or are they damaged by it"). Also you skipped the other points. But,hey,carry on watching romancers getting so desperate to justify this crappy feature while pretending to be so different than GaiderFans is moderatedly amusing.

Not just that but if they put romanceable characters then the possibilities of more original companions are much lower(a romanceable character would hardly be like Dak'kon,Morte,Dean Domino,etc. and the number of companions isn't that big already). 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.And let's be onest,we know it's really unlikely such relationships will be a main theme.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? inb4 pages and pages of "but love and sex are parts of life and should be represented!1!","but it's just optional side content","but if they put effort I'm sure they'll do it right" arguments regardless. Well,looks like I was right.What's wrong romancers,one might think that you don't have actual arguments and after all there really is not desire for quality features but only the cheap and juvenile desire to pandered to despite insisting not to be the case.

Hey, we're entitled to tell them as without our money they'd have no project. So really, they owe us. They owe you? Dude, do you think that your 20$ is enough to buy a project? This thread... I think he was being sarcastic

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but um, a romance isn't exactly an extra bit of character interaction. We're looking at 3-4 months at least, and I honestly don't blame the naysayers when they say (specifically) that the resources might be better spent elsewhere. More power to Obsidian if they decide to do it, but honestly? Nothing against them if they don't. Resources are PRECIOUS. I think a big problem in this thread is that the concept of in-game 'romance' is being slung around in all kinds of ways, ranging from the extremes of the Bioware approach to just a few lines of dialogue, so let's speak in the narrowest sense: how much time do you think it cost the development team of Planescape: Torment to put in the Annah romance? I'm guessing not long. And yet in doing so they gave more depth to both the Nameless One and Annah. Nothing more than subtext and a single kiss was needed. Not the most satisfying CRPG romance, of course, but in such a case I think less is definitely more. More depth?How exactly does a juvenile crush to some dude she just met(in the form of a corpse at first,of all things) that leads her to follow him wherever he goes as if she was a fangirl following his favourite actor add more depth? That's why I always drop her in favour of Modron or Vahilor.Her motivations to follow TNO are just so juvenile compared to other companions.

Not just that but if they put romanceable characters then the possibilities of more original companions are much lower(a romanceable character would hardly be like Dak'kon,Morte,Dean Domino,etc. and the number of companions isn't that big already). 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.And let's be onest,we know it's really unlikely such relationships will be a main theme.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? inb4 pages and pages of "but love and sex are parts of life and should be represented!1!","but it's just optional side content","but if they put effort I'm sure they'll do it right" arguments regardless.

That's the case with many modern rpgs, sadly. Arcanum wasn't rich in this regard either. Apart from some enemies damaging armor I don't recollect much variety so I hope that in designing this ruleset Obsidian uses more imagination and realizes how important this aspect is. It applies to any class / party really; for any given encounter there should be a few different strategies that could work, but there should not be any strategy that you can just keep using and beat every single encounter with. Of course it does. I was just hinting that I'd love to be able to dual-wield in this game. Cryptic messages, I know. @septembervirgin Indeed, a developed background and history make monsters more interesting, but I was talking from a combat perspective. Yeah, ability damage, injuries, disables, life leech.. so many possibilities to play with. Basically, all of this shouldn't be relegated to spells only. Many monsters should have such innate 'on hit' effects. Yeah,Arcanum was just as bad as modern RPGs in this regard and so was Fallout(granted they had other qualities but the problem was still there).The only modern RPGs that are good at this are mainly on consoles only sadly(the D. Souls games and Dragon's Dogma). Hopefully Obsidian'll put quite a bit of effort in this since the majority of the IE games were good at this.

Can't people stop asking for any DAO feature in this game?First the ****ty tactics slots idea and now this.