Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lurky

  1. That would be relevant if, you know, the OP had actually started a thread for debating. Instead, he wrote an analysis, and after getting it out of his system he hoped that it would spark some interesting discussion. But what he wrote is an analysis, so it can be critizised as such. I also want to add that the criticisms I gave of that analysis were constructive, in the sense that I pointed out fixable flaws and explained and gave context to the reaction he got. It's not like I attacked him because I felt like it. So, Lephys, you said that you can't see any argument against romance
  2. If we're taking into account factors that are external to the analysis itself (such as "how well is this case doing on the forum"), then other external factors (such as the fact that player romances won't be implemented, or the fact that the case in favor of romance has plenty of presence on the forums too) are valid reasons for not examining in depth the case for romance. Either you write your analysis taking in mind the current state of romance discussion on both sides, or you don't, and write an in-depth analysis for both sides. That is how you write a neutral analysis on any matter. Ot
  3. I'm curious, are you asking the devs what kind of romances are out, or are you asking the antimancers what kind of romance they oppose? I highly doubt there's going to be romance all over the place. Not even in real life is romance all over the place, but rather in some places only, usually private. Most people are concerned with other things in public, and I expect that to carry into the game too. With that said, what you are referring to is usually known as seduction, not romance. It is possible that seduction could be an available option for the player as a way to get what you
  4. I don't think discussion about narrative is on the same footing as discussion about gameplay and mechanics. We have a lot of information about the latter, as most updates deal with that, and we can expect some things about how the gameplay will work. Thus, we are in a much better position to suggest changes and improvements to that, because we know some of the nitty gritty of how it'll work and we can extrapolate from the rest of the IE gameplay to fill in the gaps. We know very, very little about the narrative and the companions, though, which means we aren't really in a position to sugge
  5. I'm not sure that's a very wise thing to say. The pages and pages of discussion about it, and the flamey posts they can still gather would tell me that it's not just a simple discussion. It's far too emotionally charged for that, and as such, I'd say it deserves a more cautious treatment than that. Discussing the merits and flaws of videogame romances involving the player might be a valid point, but if that is the only intention behind these topics, then why post them on the PoE forums, when it's confirmed that such thing won't be featured? There's the Computer and Console forum, which see
  6. Dude, not even the people on Obsidian have faith that they'd deliver. That is the greatest reason they have cited for not writing romances.
  7. It can also plant me firmly in the anti group. You do know that the rush of chemicals is addictive, right? And that a bunch of the people at the BioWare forums do show symptoms of addiction, right? And that you show symptoms of addiction too, right? That's a reason behind the complaints that the OP didn't use SCIENCE™ for the against argument, in fact. Also don't quote me while I'm still editing my post
  8. Because that's uncomfortable to acknowledge. If there's still a bunch of people who have trouble dealing with the fact that PoE won't have romances, of course they're not going to acknowledge how utterly exploitable videogame romances are. I'd also add that most times, videogame romances are designed to be exploitable, because otherwise people complain that they're too hard. Really, I know this post was writer by just one guy, just one of the writers at BioWare that is not representative of the rest, but that whole "I actively want these games to be indugences because life is hard" is pret
  9. So you take the parts where I say favorable things to your position and summarily ignore the actual criticism I mixed in, in hopes that you'd be more receptive to it if I put it nicely? No wonder you're still going at this. There's no way to get through that wall of denial, is there?
  10. I never said that all people in the BSN are like that. Of course there are many sane individuals in there who are not comparable to the Tali Sweat poster, otherwise the forums themselves would have imploded long ago (though I'd like to mention that the Mass Effect romance subforum got so out of hand that it did get close to imploding, and mods closed it down for that reason, so food for thought). The point is that some people like that can be found there, in opposition to the majority of the Internet who has no such individuals posting that kind of content so openly. The fact that the BSN can
  11. Then behold, because it can be found here. Enjoy your read. You may have noticed that the conclusion of that analysis was to say that Tali's sweat was pleasant and aphrodisiac and just plain better than that of humans. Basically, the post used SCIENCE™ to prove Why Tali Is A Better Waifu Than The Rest, in a context of fans talking and gushing about her character, which is why that post has become infamous and an example of lonely Bioware fans that have crossed the line into creepy obsessiveness. And now you come here and try to use SCIENCE™ to put having romances as a good thing, which is
  12. ...Okay, we now have a post that is roughly similar to the infamous analysis of Tali's sweat on the Obsidian forums. I don't know how to feel about that. I mean, NanoPaladin, you spent a large part of your post explaining biological functions. Your post did not need that. We all know that doing stuff in games makes us feel stuff in our bodies because we like fooling our brains and entertainment is basically that. That's basically the argument you said in the "romance is good" part, and using SCIENCE™ to say it did not make it stronger. Seriously, nothing against you, but the OP seemed
  13. That's exactly what I was asking (Thanks!), but now I have the answer I realise it doesn't necessarily answer my question. Fallout 1 and Fallout: New Vegas were both M-rated, but F1 was comically gruesome but fairly fantastical whilst F:NV had an awful lot of moments that were about more human darkness and I, personally, found it desperately unpleasant. Which again, is not a criticism of the writing of NV, which was superb when it was at its most unpleasant, I just don't associate the IE games with being particularly harrowing, and I don't generally look to high fantasy to harrow me. Y
  14. There's...something...about...that...sentence...that seems...a bit...harsh on...Josh... Anyway, I'm curious for a bit of a Dev response here. What sort of certification would P:E be shooting for? Personally, for something like this, I'd like it to either sit in the (to use British classifications) 15, or high fantasy 18 category (Fallout 1+2, THE ORIGINAL CONAN ). I really admired much of the writing in New Vegas, but it was appallingly grim and on several occasions left me feeling like I shouldn't have bothered playing it (which is to it's credit). I just don't know if P:E needs
  15. On the other side, some arguments in favor of romance come across as saying that snow really really should be in the game, and thus there should absolutely be areas of frigid climates included. And it's like, hey, the game might not have areas like that, and it's perfectly okay if it doesn't. I'm sure snow exists in some place of the world, and you might find mentions of it, but it's no big deal if players can't encounter it and play with it themselves. I mean, if you look at this from the point of view of a professional writer who knows what he's doing, a lot of discussions here are compl
  16. Maybe, can you provide some links or websites that show this is a popular component for RPG fans? I can show you that the Reaper vs Thresher Maw fight was a very popular part of Mass Effect 3 if you want. Therefore, PE should have giant flying machines of destruction fighting against giant worms, because people dig that.
  17. You can create those hirelings by yourself and they probably don't have much of reactivity towards anything, in other words they are mute party members that do what you command, if I have understood correctly. I was referring to this: I read this as there being 16 Obsidian provided joinable NPC's and that the eight hirelings are not Adventurer Hall products. Have I misunderstood? That is bit confusing part in this update, I thought that it ment that player can only make 8 characters in adventure hall and reason (in my mind was) for that would be fact that npc
  18. Nope its not new, I've been making this point for ages. But its not as simple as that, I would rather say you will increase the fan base as Romances are popular and Romance do draw certain loyal groups of people who love discussing and supporting them. And by increasing the fan base you would assume that these people would buy PE and that will generate more revenue. I just don't believe romances are the key to this. I would seriously doubt you would see a massive sales drop off in a bioware game where romance wasn't included. All your are doing is trying to connect sales to roman
  19. Er... what? 1) Of course they are possible to implement, but doing so will have an impact on the rest of the game being developed. A mod won't. 2) Previously, she had argued in favor of including romance in the planning stage of the character writing. Now she provides an example of a well done romanceable character, and this good example did not follow this guideline at all. You don't find this to be contradictory in the very least? Why mention the guideline if it's irrelevant? 3) I am well aware that her point wasn't the specifics of the development of the mod, but since it was pu
  20. Well, I went and searched for information on this mod and I found this: So, your example of a "good starting point for a romance done well" is: 1) A character from a mod. Mods have a bunch of crucial departures from the rest of the game: they do not draw from the budget of the game, and they are optional in the purest sense of the word, for example. I do not find this to be a fair comparison. Especially considering that PE will likely not let you disable parts of the character outside of the game, like the mod allows you to do. 2) A character that was not originally designed a
  21. I know, right? It's like this thread went back in time to September, with all the namecalling and such EDIT: That includes you, CrazyPea. You know, since you liked my post.
  22. Oh, this is rich. And then proromancers complain when they're classified as desperate because they want romances. You're just as guilty of unfair generalizations. What's the matter, you have to put people down becase you can't understand how could anyone not be on your side, or what? Gah. Okay. Moving on. No need to say nastier things. Oh, look, you just invented Dragon Age 2. "DA2 did it" is not a counter-argument. Dragon Age 2 might not be a counter argument by itself, but examining what Dragon Age 2 did and why was it so poorly received can be one. And the truth is that there
  23. Aw come on, I leave this thread for a week and people are strawmanning and flaming each other again? I hoped that the entropy of this thread would increase more slowly. Several posters are right when they said that both sides are guilty of that behavior, but what can I say, I tend to take more personally the preconceptions made by romancers. Especially things like this: Because I've seen this particular generalization a lot, I wanted to single it out. People understand perfectly that both are valid ways of playing. In fact, many of the complaints against romances are actually comi
  24. This post turned out to be huge, so I'll be addressing individual users' points in separate spoiler tags.
  25. Aw, this was going fairly well for a romance thread. I thought we had some understanding going on, guys You say you can understand why a lot of people loathe them, but then you proceed to make a bunch of assumptions and equivocations that are, quite frankly, very ignorant. Perhaps you do not understand that well why a lot of people loathe them. It is realistic to ignore the attractive and available person you spend months around. It happens all the damn time in real life because of many reasons, of course it's realistic. What isn't realistic is that the presence of someone attrac
  • Create New...