Jump to content

Lurky

Members
  • Posts

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lurky

  1. I'm feeling talkative today. Well said. Of course, intertwining romances with the story has the side effect of needing a story that allows that kind of development. Not all stories allow that, and if they don't, this also means that a romance would not be a good fit for them. Considering that PE will be designed so that companions are helpful but completely optional, I wonder if PE will have one of these stories. (That said, I do get where the SJW come from when they ask for diverse romance options. Nobody likes feeling excluded, and seeing how fans enjoy them and wax poetics about their emotional engagement to certain characters while they have nothing of that because their preferences aren't included does kind of suck. But this is also the reason behind the increased focus on romance breadth at the cost of depth, and the invention of playersexuality, so a line clearly needs to be drawn.) Busty elven women in chain-mail bikinis? An wats "WRONG" with that ? Being sexal id suddenly started to be a crime ? Nothing wrong with having sexual urges, as long as their fulfillment is not a part of the general writing and art direction of the game. Not saying sexiness should be banned, but it should be appropiate to the context, just like romances. And that does not include stretching the contexts to make them fit I wouldn't even say it was cool then. It really didn't feel right in the game imo. But it was much more tolerable and much much less annoying than the inyourface implementations in some other games (ie: Dragon Age or The oh yea my character is a male sloot Witcher). That some have come to expect 'romance' and want them so much in their CRPG that there's as many threads in this forum about this subject.... well, to them I say go out and get a "Romance, Marriage, Pregnancy and having Children." in the real world, and perhaps you might not be clamoring so much for such things in this or any other game. There are games such as The Sims that are much better suited for folks who wish to pursue eromances and efamilies than a CRPG game, especially one that is aiming to be a really good one. So by your logic if I have something in RL I wouldn't want that in an RPG? Okay so lets say in RL I read history books, I hunt recreationally and I enjoy visiting exotic and foreign cities then I shouldn't ask for lore, interesting monsters to fight or exciting dungeons and places to explore in PE? Yeah that makes loads of sense You do know what the definition of a "fantasy RPG " means right? I'm not sure if Valsuelm was trolling or not, but he does kind of have a point in his post. Namely, the fact that romance should be experienced in real life, and not in a videogame. (I'm kind of omitting here the perspective of a roleplayer that doesn't engage in self-identification with the PC and considers romances as merely another tool of playing, yeah. That's because the statement I'm about to write doesn't really apply to that kind of player.) I don't think I have to point out that fictional characters can't react to the player's real mood, nor can they touch or hug a physical person (let alone have sex, which is something that a lot of romancers want to see, ironically enough), but it's good to put a reminder of the obvious truth. For all the hype around romances and their power to immerse the players and draw them into the story, they should be taken as what they are: an illusion, and an extremely limited one at that. Forgetting about this is something that the creepy fanbase of BioWare does routinely, so it's not that bad to put the obvious reminder from time to time. I can already hear someone saying "But that's the same for all character interactions! All of them are illusions, why aren't you picking on them?". To this I can say that the absence of physical presence in the real world is much more noticeable and lamented for a lover than for other kinds of relationships (there's a reason why long distance relationships usually don't survive, after all). I think it's fair to say that fictional romances do feel more limited than, say, fictional friendships. So far, we know that romances are much harder to implement well, are subjected to much higher expectations, and have a much greater risk of failure, both in terms of emotional resonance and in terms of feeling real. I'm not a fan on making artistic choices based on what's easy to do or not, but damn, videogame romances seem like an especially ruinous investment of time, considering the alternatives. And you can't even be poetic and say that's what makes them worth it, because the things that make real world romances worth it cannot really be done in the games. (No, Bruce, I did not say that "profitable investments of time" should be the primary and overriding criterion for making artistic choices. Just anticipating your response.)
  2. If her magical soul powers depend on the passion of her vows, I bet she can resist Besides, never underestimate the appeal of the forbidden fruit. Making someone completely unavailable can provide good opportunities for storytellers
  3. Forgive me if I'm reading you wrong, but it sounds like you're promoting an opt-out system for romance. This means that getting on the romance track is easy, and that you have to actively steer the conversations to go back to the platonic track, with all the consequences of doing that. These consequences are usually negative: awkward conversations where you have to break someone's heart, or possible loss of influence, for example. How about the opposite, an opt-in system? The platonic path is now the easy one, and it is the player the one who has to make an effort to steer the conversation into the romance path. No scripted falling in love, no heartbreaking conversations, no loss of influence. Nonromancers are happy, and romancers get what they want, too, it's just that they have to put more effort into it. Would you be okay with that? (I don't want to hear the usual "wow you're so lazy what's the problem in making you choose what you want", by the way. Because the same can be said for romancers).
  4. I don't see why you are ranting about romance haters, Ulquiorra. Nobody is hating on romances here, merely dissecting what makes them work and what doesn't. It is a necessary step to understanding how to integrate them into the game in a way that everyone is pleased, after all. You know, I was going to examine your posts and try to show the many ways in which you consistently misrepresent what is being said in these threads. I was going to explain why "I don't understand why not make some people happy if it costs so little" is a load of bollocks. I was going to detail what these costs and difficulties are, and why romances are so damn complicated if you truly want to do them well. But what's the point? People have already done so in the several dozens of discussion around this subject, and they have been repeatedly ignored. So let me state my point of view in a different way. I've been lumped with the group of the antiromancers several times. I find this to be laughable, because, when it comes down to it, I have nothing against them. I have played several games that had them, and you know, there have been one or two cases where a romance did resonate with me, and succeded in making me more emotionally invested into a character in a memorable way. One or two romances, out of the several dozen options available that I've seen in different games of different companies. This is a terrible success ratio. But that's not the point. The point is that, thanks to this, I actually do understand where you guys are coming from. When you talk about how the romance with a certain character touched you, I can relate, because I've been there. When you say that a romance can provide unique roleplaying possibilities, I can understand, because I've had the chance to appreciate them. Do not assume that I'm against you, because I really do get your position. But seeing so many romances means that I've also seen a lot of their failings. I have seen how the romances that did resonate with me also alienated a lot of players and turned them off from the character, because that same romance didn't feel meaningful to them, quite the contrary. I have seen a lot of cringeworthy romances, and have experienced that alienation myself. I have noticed many times how certain romanceable characters felt limited, because their non-romance content either was lacking or it simply did not offer anything comparable to their romance. I have seen how, in the same circumstances, a character that did not bother with a romance path felt more complete, more reactive, and enjoyed a lot more success with the general player population. I know what romances try to achieve, but that doesn't diminish the fact that, in many cases, I have lamented the effect their presence had. The truth is, romances are incredibly hit or miss, and there are far, far more misses than there are hits. On top of that, PE will only have 8 companions, for a party of 5+PC, so the margin for misses is even lower. This is a reality that should not be ignored in any way when deciding on what kind of companion interactions should be, and that is what annoys me the most. Even if we don't consider the difficulties of implementing a romance well, people also ignore the risk romances carry. Personally, in the case of PE, I'm of the opinion that the risks and failings are not worth it, especially when the modding community can, and probably will, add lots of romances for everyone. If you have thought critically about this topic and have come to the conclusion that the complications, the resource drain, the risks and the consequences of failure are worth the small chance of having a virtual romance that appeals to you, then I can accept that. But, from all the people I've seen that support romance, do you know how many of them I've seen with that stance, in the entire run of discussion on this subject? I can count them with less than the fingers of one hand. And if you think that I continue posting in these threads because I hate romances, or the people who like them? You are mistaken. I continue posting because romances need to be treated with the gravitas they have, and for this, they desperately need some critical thinking put into them. This will not be achieved if any criticism made about romances is painted as hating. This will not lead to good writing or good romances at all.
  5. Glad to see that you're reading both sides There is no official word on children being represented in the world, as far as I know. If you mean the possibility of the PC being a father (or a mother! no matter what you might think about it, I'm certain that some female players would like that possibility too), well, if the very existence of romances is questionable, thinking about kids might be a little premature, don't you think? For the people who happen to be uninterested in pursuing romances, that happens to be one of the grievances I mentioned. There is no reason why expanding the standard base conversation/story line and adding onto it should be limited to a romance, is it? Platonic relationships are also possible, and they can also expand the characters and let you know more about them. If you want to deepen your relationship with a character but are not interested in a romantic relationship, the Baldur's Gate implementation gives the player no options. Previous threads proposed a solution for this, which is to have two paralel, mutually exclusive relationship paths per character, the platonic and the romantic. The problems to this are several, of course. First, it means that the time of writing a character is pretty much doubled, and resources are limited. Second, it means that the early interactions have to be ambiguous enough for both paths to work, and many people are not happy with the results of that. If they're not ambiguous then either they veer towards the platonic (and the romancers don't like that they have to be the ones coming strongly to the characters), or they veer towards the romantic (and the nonromancers are uneasy at the fact that they have to turn down their friends). No good solution has been found for this. If you are thinking of Aerie or Viconia's romances, then I can guarantee you that they are not an afterthought. You might be thinking of the strictly romantic dialogue you encounter, but for that to look natural, the entire character and character dialogue has to be designed in a way that it fits. I'm not sure if the writers have the companion arcs and possible interactions with the PC charted already, but the decision to include a romance path or not is far earlier and has far wider repercussions than you might think. Of course. Mods will happen regardless of what the developers choose. And even if PE ends up having no romances at all, there is enough of a fanbase around them that mods will certainly cover this
  6. I was writing a big post clarifying my point, but I see that mcmanusaur ninja'd me. I'm a slow typer, what can I say To put a finer point to it, I was downplaying the importance of sales. Not dismissing it completely, as you seem to be implying, but downplaying it. It's basically another way to say what mcmanusaur said, but yeah. In any case, I want to point out that both interviews, yours and mine, were made in the same period of time, which is the Rezzed 2013 event. Thus, both are equally recent, even if yours was published 3 days later. Which is not that much time, actually. Hell, both interviews don't even contradict each other! They say the same, except that the Eurogamer interview adds a little more to the same statement.
  7. Oh dear. This again. Zalpha, you have encountered a somewhat hostile reaction to creating this thread, but that is because this is an incredibly long-running and controversial subject here. This has been talked about since the very first day the Project Eternity Kickstarter was launched, in September from the past year. Think about it. This topic has been debated in these forums for roughly nine months, there are literally dozens of threads about it (Amentep's list was not complete), and many of them have been closed because they exceeded the length limit per thread. A lot of debate has been had, and lots of things of variable insight and niceness have been said :\ This might be a little unfair to you, since you are a newcomer here. But it's wise to be aware of all the reasons that have made people tired of discussing romances, and it is understandable that they aren't very keen on seeing it again. Now that this is out of the way, I don't think that anyone here thinks the topics of love or romance are bad by themselves. They do, however, have many grievances about what surrounds them, about the way they have usually been implemented, and about the overzealous drive that some fans show when they push for their inclusion. Bioware has been mentioned already, haven't they? It's gotten to the point in their forums where feedback from fans has become so relentlessly insistent about this topic that it's comparable to lobbying, and many fans there are so singleminded and pushy about this that they are comparable to addicts. A harsh comparison, I know, but the symptoms match. Again, this might be a little unfair to you, since you don't have that kind of behavior. But it's wise to be aware of all the factors that have made people wary of romances. All of them. About the grievances themselves: The point of fan behavior is not something that should concern Obsidian, but nonetheless it is wise for us fans to be aware of it, so that there is some perspective about why these discussions can be so volatile. The point of badly implemented romances is, indeed, something of concern, and has been dissected at large in the various threads that have been linked here. Some of these points have been brought up in this thread, too. So, on to answer various questions here. Project Eternity will be as mod-friendly as possible. Nobody questions that. The main point of contention I've seen is that romances have this tendency to overshadow many other companion interactions and story elements. Sure, some people love them, but if their presence could be harmful to the experience of other players, surely you can understand why they would oppose them. How can they be harmful if they're optional, you might ask? Sometimes it's because the characters lose depth and reactivity in their overall interactions, because that is reserved for the romance path. Sometimes it's because their optionality is "pursue romance path or have nothing else to do with a certain character", which is not an equal choice and not very optional, actually. Sometimes it's because the story has to bend over awkwardly in order to acommodate their presence. The points are various and I don't remember them all, but they are legitimate points, and should not be ignored. Some people have tried to come up with solutions, with ways to build a romance path that also pleases the people who aren't interested in that content. But they haven't been embraced by many, and they have been lost in the sea of posts and flames. How many times has BruceVC said something along the lines of "yes, I understand what you say, but I still want to have lots of hot bikini-clad women I can romance and have sex with" in the various threads around this forum? Making sacrifices for the sake of other people's game experience is hard, both for antiromancers AND for proromancers, and when the topic in question is something as emotionally charged as romances, expecting consensus is pretty much wishful thinking. And now to you, Bruce. Actually, Avellone has gone on record saying that financial success is not that important to them. There are several interviews of him where he has said that. Here's the most recent one. The reasoning is this: thanks to Kickstarter, Obsidian doesn't have to return any monetary investment. If they manage their budget well and don't pull a Double Fine, they're already even, and any sales made are net profit for them on top of the rest of income Obsidian makes. He'd like the game to sell well, sure, but that's because it's the kind of game he loves to make and would like to continue doing so, not because he wants to get rich. That means that he wants it to be a game he likes doing. And Avellone has also gone on record expressing his dislike for romances. The point is, sales or popularity aren't really that important to the developers. Therefore, these arguments are irrelevant when arguing for the inclusion of a feature. Now, if you've read the interview, you're probably thinking "Hey, he wants the backers to be happy. I am a backer, and romances would make me happy. Isn't that a reason to include them?" To which the answer is "Hey, other backers would be happy if the kind of romances you like were not present in the game at all. Isn't that a reason not to include them?". Which brings us to the point I outlined before: expecting consensus on a topic like this is wishful thinking. We're not going to be able to decide how this should be handled, so it's up to the developers to decide. As long as their decision is informed and well thought, there isn't much to do for us but to accept their decision. And being well informed means that all sides of the argument have to be presented. Dude, Amentep already gave you some reasons in the top post of the last page. And you didn't counter them, you just basically said "I could counter them but I won't". Why not? You have what you asked for, right there for you to pick. What are you waiting for?
  8. It is true that there is a new Torment game coming out, a game specifically inspired by PS:T. But you seem to be missing something: that game simply wasn't in the horizon when the Project Eternity Kickstarter was launched. In fact, the idea of having a direct spiritual successor to PS:T wasn't a possibility back then. Thus, PE was considered to be the next best thing possible, since it promised the best mix of the three IE games (BG, PS:T and IWD, not just BG), and that included story and companions made in the vein of PS:T, which emphasize depth over breadth. That mix of characteristics that Obisidian promised is what made people interested in the project, and thus it has to be respected. Because that promise was what attracted the funding necessary to be able to make the game. Of course, after the popularity of PS:T was proven and inXile had managed to pull together as many factors as possible to make sure they'd be able to deliver, the Torment Kickstarter was launched and successfully funded. But that doesn't change the fact that "story and companions made in the vein of PS:T" is part of the promises made for Project Eternity, and is a reason why many people pledged money to this project last year. Since Obsidian can't go back on their promises, it means that now there will be two games inspired by PS:T in a greater or lesser degree. Bad news for those who aren't fond of the style of PS:T, but unfortunately, that's how both Kickstarters turned out to be. If it's any consolation, another thing that was promised in the PE Kickstarter (a promise that Obsidian will necessarily have to keep, because it gave them extra money) was an expansion for the game. Expansions tend to have extra companions, so at least you could have that. Even better would be if Obsidian could "patch" any new companions they made into the main game, with enough reactivity added to them so that they can be comparable with the original ones, but I don't know if they would be able to do that (because it would involve revising the entire campaign again). In any case, if you didn't like any of the companions of the main game, perhaps the characters of the expansion could be more to your liking, since Obsidian would be able to incorporate player feedback of the original companions when making them.
  9. Ah, but what makes you think that there will be some party member you're attracted to? I mean, I get that you push for sexy women with stripperific outfits in the game every time the topic arises because that's what you like, but so far, the art style hasn't gone in that direction. Imagine that all female characters in your party were in that style. Imagine that they were as attractive as Cadegund or Sagani, which you haven't shown much interest for. Even worse, imagine that the women of the party are of the more bestial races, like orlan or aumaua (or some sort of deformed Godlike). Would you be okay with that? Just curious to know
  10. I am not Faerunner, but I'd like to give my view on your view, BruceVC. I hope you don't mind. Well, I argue that, when people have things to do in camp (such as spell memorization, or duties like cooking, night watches and stuff like that), when they are physically and mentally exhausted from facing death on a daily basis, when there's a lot of factors that can make a person think "maybe another day", the realistic and immersive thing to do would be to NOT expect sexual conduct. Sexual needs are simply a pretty low priority, and not even everyone has needs that have to be relieved, as Faerunner detailed. Even if there were characters that absolutely had needs to relief, the realistic and immersive thing to expect would be to NOT do that with each other. That takes a lot more time and care to pull off than just doing it yourself. So there you have it: two different views of a situation, where both can feel authentic. Perhaps the former is more relatable to you, but for many others it will be what I said. Who is more right? That is for the developers to decide, according to the feel they want to give the story. But there is something I can say: if directly opposite approaches can feel realistic for people, then it means that this argument is pointless. Remember: the story comes first. What matters is that what is in the game feels appropiate to the situation, and that can happen with both. Now, you could argue "but Lurky, I play RPGs because I like indulging in the things you say are unlikely, such as getting laid with hot women that totally desire me. Don't I have the right to such fantasies?". In which case I can say "sure, but my fantasies involve not having to deal with the kind of situation you describe, because it really does not appeal to me at all". You want sexualized women with fleshed out romances in your party, I want professional women with fleshed out personalities in my party. So we're not going to be in agreement with this either, because both situations are mutually exclusive. People are quite happy and content expecting that from Obsidian because 1) they pretty much promised they would do so, and 2), they have a reasonably good track record on being able to do it successfully. In the case of romance, none of the points I said apply. Why do you keep mentioning sex, by the way? Do you expect Obsidian to animate isometric sex scenes with tiny humanoid figures getting it on or something? This is not a cinematic experience like recent Bioware games I don't think it's a matter of actively blocking this kind of content. It's a matter of priorizing content and romance not making the cut. In a world with infinite money, infinite time, infinite computing power and infinite human intelligence to implement it, I don't see why the attempt shouldn't be made. That's because a world with infinite resources would mean things like infinite numbers of lifelike potential party members with an infinity of fully fleshed out relationships routes that accounted for an infinity of NPC likes and dislikes, so having fleshed out romance paths would not diminish other parts of the game at all. (Of course, if a game was done like this, people would not like it because a lot of highly complex and mutually exclusive choices would mean that romances would be as complicated as in the real world. But that's another thing.) Alas, PE is not a project with infinite resources. In fact, they don't even have abundant resources, like AAA studios. Their resources are limited, which means that they have to prioritize. They already limited the number of companions to 8 during the Kickstarter campaign, because writing companions is an incredible amount of work. Do you know how much more work do romances take to make? Can you imagine how costly it would be to make them well? That is the reason why they get so much opposition. In order to make them justice, they would need a big effort, which would impact other writing areas. For people with romance on a low priority, it's not worth it. Of course, if romance has a high priority for you, this decision will probably bum you out. But hey, I've already accepted that the game will not push all my buttons. I'm sure you could handle that if you had to, too. And if not, you can always try mods. Speaking about mods: I'll hold you to your claim that you can do romances well, Lephys. When PE comes, I want to see what you can do there
  11. ITT people have been scolded by the Internet/society/other people to have a little more empathy for their fellow human beings, and are so mad that unconsiderate behavior has unwanted consequences that they have to hijack perfectly civil conversations to unleash their butthurt We're not in kindergarten anymore, guys. Not all is about you. We weren't even talking about bigotry in the real world, here. In any case, as has been stated before, the setting of PE likely won't have real world sexism or racism. It'll probably have fictional bigotry for orlans, but as long as their playthroughs are as fun to play as the others, there shouldn't be much of a problem here. That is the conclusion of this thread, right? Why am I asking. This thread probably won't have more fruitful discussion than that, anyway
  12. That would certainly be interesting to see, yeah. Though I'm not sure if there will be a dominant culture in the region we'll explore in the game, which would make for a more balanced approach for all races, where various cities and places have each their own bias for a race (except orlans, everyone seems to be biased against them). But if there is a dominant culture, it would be interesting to see it be non-human, yeah. How about the aumaua? They're big and tough, and they're one of the new races, so no preconceptions about them. They seem to dwell mostly in regions close to water, though. Bummer. In any case, it seems unlikely that they will go for the most overt forms of bigotry. There probably won't be "human-only", "elf-only", "men-only", "women-only" shops. Maybe there will be "no orlans allowed" shops, and pile these issues only on that race. I'm not sure how they could balance that though, because even the Nosferatu could shop in stores without problems (and the shop owners would be like "hey, cool disguise", and let you shop like it's the most normal thing of the world). Perhaps all the important NPCs of the cities you encounter should be conveniently tolerant, too. Or maybe the shop owners could be orlans themselves, who have to grudgingly sell to everyone because business is business, but give lower prices if the PC is an orlan too. That could be one way to balance it.
  13. Hopefully, us being here giving feedback will help them not get cut I liked the mention of the Nosferatu. Being a Nosferatu had a clear effect in the way the world saw you and interacted with you, and many times you couldn't do some quests the straightforward way. But that didn't mean you had less content; you had alternative, more laborious ways of doing quests, important NPCs would acknowledge what you are but still interact with you, and hell, Nosferatu NPCs were an important part of the game, and being a Nosferatu meant being treated more favorably by them. It balanced out, in a way that, instead of making the Nosferatu playthroughs terrible, it made them different, which is good for the game because it adds replayability. So perhaps that is what it has to come down to. Balance. This is especially important for non-fictional discrimination; abuse thrown in the way of a Nosferatu won't hit too close to home for players because they're not Nosferatu, but in the case of racism and sexism, that is a very real possibility. But again, if the rights of the players are respected, if these playthroughs are just as rich as the others, no real harm should be done, and instead people could appreciate that this subject is being discussed and discussed maturely. It could be worth it. And we can help. Seriously, PE is crowdfunded and crowd-vetted. The developers are not constrained by decisions made by risk-averse publishers, which means that they are free to explore some of the more controversial topics in the way that they see fit. And instead of fearing that one thing or another will be taken wrong by the players and remove it, they can run it through here first, and adjust it accordingly. There's already a lot of thoughtful posts and points being made here on the subject, which will let them go with the best perspective in mind. The armor designs have already shown that they can make something that keeps all perspectives into account and makes everyone reasonably happy, so I have trust that they can do the same with some of the most volatile subjects.
  14. I like these posts. I think pretty much everything I wanted to say has already been said. I also want to add my support for seeing new issues examined. Isn't PE set in a world of colonialist expansion? The topic of cultural assimilation seems pretty relevant to me in that case. In order to add something to the discussion, my view is that whether there's bigotry or not in the setting, it shouldn't forget that the game can be played by people of any race, sex, gender, or orientation, and that they have the same right to have fun as the rest. That doesn't mean that the game should avoid these topics though, just that the player shouldn't have less agency because of them. If that means that overt discrimination to the point of being attacked on sight by quest givers isn't possible, then the game will have to be more subdued about it. Covert bigotry is just as realistic, after all. Not that I'm concerned about Obsidian getting it wrong, but I wanted to put that there.
  15. Hey, I saw you liking my post. Just as a clarification: I was talking in general terms there. PE does take realism seriously (look at the art style, defined here), which means that, in this setting, the criterion of "sensible female clothing" (that is, clothing appropiate to the circumstances) is a little more absolute than in other cases In the case of PE, PrimeJunta's criteria would be the most fitting. (Cool Scandinavia and the World avatar, by the way )
  16. Well, clearly the proper answer is "Does she have a physical body that would benefit from extra protection? Does she even have any kind of survival instinct that would compel her to protect herself in battle, being undead and all? Then the laws of realism aren't the same as for alive human warriors, are they?" Seriously though, I think that the "take realism into account and make sensible female clothing" is a good point, one that is worth putting out there. But it doesn't have to be an absolute rule, just one more criterion that artists should have in their mental space when designing this stuff, and sometimes the defenders can lose perspective when upholding this position. If you take these discussions as a "hey, please don't forget about this" pleading rather than any crusade or moral imposition, you'll get to endure these people far better. It's what I do when these discussions get heated, as they often do. And it's closer to the truth, too; once people see that it's taken into account, suddenly you find out that they're much more calm when the occasional boob is shown, as it's the case here Additionally, if you don't care about the realism argument, or if it doesn't apply to the setting, skimpy clothing can be criticized for other reasons too, such as unoriginality. Why is it that when an artist chooses to go for aesthetics over function, female clothing is made sexy more often than not? There are so many other ways to do that! Look at this concept art, for example; it's designed for coolness rather than realism, but the females aren't sexified, and they're distinguishable. So there's that, too. And lastly, there's also the argument of self-identification. Some people just like their characters to dress as they would, and like the characters of the world to reflect that. Sure, you can say "well, the world doesn't have to cater to your tastes, and not all characters have to be ones you can identify with or relate to", but you can also say "well, the world doesn't have to cater to your tastes either, and not all characters have to be ones you can ogle". How about a compromise, instead of constantly trying to defeat the other side? Surely it can't be that terrible to give way a tiny little, if it lets other people have more fun? Of course, this is all a moot point. The art of PE seems to have done the impossible, which is making people of all these groups reasonably happy. The only complain I still see is that's it's kind of dull, but I guess that once the bases are set, you can add spice on top of that more easily. But hey, this is the most popular thread around. I wanted to have my say too
  17. Thanks for explaining yourself, Haerski. You're right, I had thrown you into the sack of Bioware fans I had argued with in the past, and I assumed you shared similar views with them on the topic of love and romance. It was unfair of me to do that, and I apologize for it. Old habits die hard, I guess. That said, I want to reassure you of some things. Even after misjudging you, I never thought that dating sims are the only games you play, or that you wanted PE to become a dating sim. I never thought you were delusional enough to actually want that. With your defense of this topic and your mention of Mass Effect I was indeed reminded of people I had argued with in the past, so what I did think was that you played mostly Bioware games (and mostly the recent games), which aren't dating sims but have dating sims mechanics as a part of the roleplaying experience. Many people with that track record do find these mechanics to be the most enjoyable part of their playthroughs, and are in fact the kind of people who ask in the Bioware forums for bigger focus into this part of the game. It's a bit of a grey area, but in the Bioware forums it's gotten to the point where feedback from fans has become so relentlessly insistent and singleminded that it has become lobbying from romance junkies. A harsh comparison, I know, but the signs are there. And that's where I cross the line. When the Kickstarter launched, many of them extended this behavior to these forums, and some of their descriptions of things they wanted here were pretty much descriptions of mechanics found in full-fledged dating sims. Which is why I said that some people do mask their intentions in order to get what they really want; all the emotional gratification of dating sims, without the stigma that actual dating sims carry. You'd be surprised of just how persistent and insidious at the same time these people can be. Of course, just because a lot of people came here with their misadjusted expectations doesn't mean that everyone who manifests an interest in this topic is addicted to it. In the end, it's all a matter of perspective, and the people I mentioned have little of it, which is why I went on a tangent bringing up other unrelated settings. If you can enjoy stories with or without love equally, then great. Again, I apologize for lumping you with that collective, and I'll make a point of trying to have more perspective myself, too. I still reserve the right to mantain some skepticism for future discussions, though So, now that this is clear, I'll try to get back on topic. You know, I used to complain a lot back in the day that all discussion about romance used to be only about trying to find arguments for and against their inclusion and trying to win the debate. I used to complain that everything revolved around their worthiness in cRPGs, and that nobody said anything about the nitty gritty of their implementation, which is what can make or break them. And now that this topic tries to examine aspects of their implementation, I had to be the one derailing it. Sorry for that So, my answer for the topic at hand is that I am largely in support of your suggestion, Auxilius. If you make sure that your characters have good arcs and appropiate closure, anything added on top is a bonus, and leaving some parts vague can make their bonus and good memory last more. In fact, Obsidian wants PE to be a franchise, which means that leaving some parts of the characters vague is actually a very good way of giving them room for expansion! It makes players remember the characters more, and it lets the writers use the same characters in later titles, so as long as they don't feel incomplete, what's not to love? And lastly, about your suggestion applied to romances: Out of all the romances I've played, the most effective for me were those that centered on the build up of the relationship. The getting to know each other, opening up, perhaps some sexual tension in the background, and some acknowledgement at the end that is appropiate to the emotional path I've chosen. That is what has left me with the best memories. Giving me a physical scene as reward, explicit or implied, isn't nearly as effective; they're usually awkward, and I don't even get to feel the benefits because I'm not the one having sex there. It's like watching porn; it might feel good, but it pales in comparison to the real thing. At least the emotional build up is something I can relate to. So, I am in support of your suggestion in regards to romantic love, too. It has downsides, though; as I mentioned earlier, some people do not have enough with that, and they can be quite insistent in saying so. But if they want more, they can make it themselves with the power of mods, so why not?
  18. Allow me to rearrange your post a little for better addressing your points, Haerski. Planescape: Torment had a cynical/downer story, but it had a good love story going because it was designed that way, in a way that it was relevant for its themes. If the story or setting had been different, it would have been a different case. Can love not be a good fit in some stories? I gave you some examples earlier. I can expand them if you want. VtM:B is a game where the main character is a recently created vampire in a cutthroat society, manipulated by various factions that don't care about your interests at all while you follow orders and make a place for yourself. Additionally, vampires in this setting are undead predators who struggle to keep their humanity; the very setting says that these vampires cannot experience mortal love. I'm not sure how I can ilustrate the point better without giving spoilers of the story, but as you can imagine, not the best place for love. The setting of Warhammer 40K is even more extreme. The tagline is "in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods", so you can imagine how the place must be. There is such totalitarian repression and rampant inhumanity that those who haven't renounced sex tend to go to the other extreme and turn to Slaanesh, who, well, just google him. So, in the former example the PC can't feel love, and in the latter all the focus is on murder. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that love doesn't fit some stories. Now you might think "why would anyone want to play there?" to which I'll give you the answer: humor and good execution. VtMB is a very atmosferic and immersive game, and the dialogue is great and funny, which makes the game quite enjoyable. And WH40K is so extreme that it has a certain campy sort of charm. Nobody takes it too seriously, which lets people enjoy the setting for what it is. Regarding your last question, I am aware that love isn't all about sunshine and happiness. But are you honestly telling me that the people who want love and romance to be included in their stories would be happy if it was represented only in the form of soul crushing tragedies? Because that doesn't match my own experience. Most people pushing for the presence of love and romance do so because it's something they enjoy, not because it's something they want to make them miserable. You were talking about stories and their believability, in general. You did not talk about their realism or normalcy, which means that the extremes can be included. PE is aiming for both believability and realism, but in general terms they are not synonyms, and the former can exist without the latter. Settings like WoD or W40K and their stories can attest to that. Sure, the examples I gave are more extreme than LotR or ASoIaF, but they still meet the criteria: they're well-crafted settings, they have good stories (or the potential for good stories) on them, they are good for roleplaying (even WH40K, which is indeed not focused on characters, still has books for roleplaying), and they're still designed in a way that love doesn't really have much of a place there. You can't say that they don't count just because they're not your thing. I know that PE is not going to be in the style of WoD or WH40K. I'm aware of that. But when I see people making blanket statements saying that love has to exist in a believable story, sometimes it grinds my gears, and I feel the need to speak up. And I'm not apologizing for defending my stance, either. If you feel you can say what counts as a believable story or not, I can feel like interrupting you and correcting your assumptions. And by the way, people like the main characters of the works you said aren't that normal, either. The characters of LotR are various forms of fantastic archetypes, and you'd be hard pressed to find a normal, well-adjusted character in ASoIaF. That's the point. Fictional characters need to have a little more going for them than "normal", because normal people are boring. Settings like WoD/WH40K have substantially less normal in their premise than LotR/ASoIaF, but it's still a matter of degrees; as stories and as settings where stories happen, both styles are valid. Not what I meant. I wasn't talking about love interests in general, I was talking against specific examples. For example, using backgrounds in order to explore themes of love does indeed make assumptions about the player. Depending on what is being assumed, some character concepts will not be viable, just for the sake of story reasons I might not care about. That's the kind of freedom I was talking about. What you can do in the game will always be restricted, you're right about that, but the characters you can make before starting to play, well, that's a different story. My apologies if I wasn't clear in this distinction. Now, I've reread what you said and I see that I misunderstood some of it. You were in favor of a romance between NPCs without involving the PC, and for some reason I understood you were in favor of predetermined love interests for the PC, like, say, Triss in TW2. That was what I was against. NPC romances don't have the same complexity as romances involving an extremely variable PC, so as long as I'm not forced to care or go along with them, I'm not against NPCs being in love, in principle. I think it would all depend on how it's done. If they do their job well, it won't feel cheap, because whatever character development happens will feel natural and appropiate. You won't even care that no romance took place in the story. I also want to say, again, that you expectations are rather curious. You think the Obisidian developers could somehow be able to pull off a "universal" background for characters of 11 different classes of 11 different ethnicities of 5 diferent races (plus possible godlike versions of any of them) that can come from any place of the world, and that they'd be able to make it so that this background could fit them all well. But you think that character development and party relationships without romance would seem cheap, that it can't be pulled off believably? How so? Where's your trust in them? This has ended up as a very long post, and I really don't feel like repeating the arguments I said other times, so I'll state my stance and leave it there. I'm not saying that romances should be excluded on principle. I merely object to the line of thinking that says that they should be included on principle because how could they not. The "how could they not" is what I'm answering to. I'm also highly skeptical that player romances could be pulled off in a satisfactory manner for most people, considering how varied both the players and the player character can be, but that's another topic of dicussion. I don't really have a problem with people who want romances because they like them and make them feel good, either. But I've seen too many people in these threads trying to mask what they really want in the way that they feel will get them most support, and that's not helpful for anyone. At least be honest about your intentions.
  19. Eh, sometimes love is untouched because it doesn't fit a story. Or at least, the story doesn't care about it because it doesn't fit the main character or main quest. Excluding love from the setting is harder, but it can be done too: just look at Warhammer 40K. And it's a tabletop game, complete with a version with pen and paper roleplaying rules. I can understand, though, why so many people are so adamant in repeating that no story can exist without love. There is some correlation between stories that have no place for love and stories with a downer/cynical tone, and some people dislike the latter so much they'd rather not think about them. I don't usually enjoy downers, either, so I get why some people tend to forget this other perspective. Of course, even if I don't usually enjoy downer or cynical stories, I can like some of them. For example, look at Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. It had a dark cynical tone, the story didn't really have place for love, and the closest thing you had that resembled that feeling was not being a monster and limited expressions of empathy. Yet I never felt that my roleplaying was artificially constricted, and it was written in a way that I thoroughly enjoyed playing and replaying it. If I had restricted myself to think that a story has to have love to be believable, I would have never found a game that turned out to be one of my favorite cRPGs. So there's that, too My point is that well done, believable stories without love are possible, and they can make for great experiences too. After all, the believability of a story comes down to how well it handles the willing suspension of disbelief, so if it does its job well, pretty much any premise can be believed and enjoyed (even the most unrealistic premises, like the existence of magic!). Therefore, I have to say that statements like yours, saying that not including love goes against the believability that sustains fictional worlds, are very narrow minded, and you're missing out if you continue thinking that. Now that I feel I've included a bit of a different perspective in this discussion, don't worry: from what the developers have said, the story likely won't go in that direction, and if it does it will likely have a sense of humour about it (which helps a lot). But it is a valid direction, too, and I felt like defending it. I also want to add that I think your expectations are misplaced. Some things you've said, like predetermined love interests or common background traits, necessarily make assumptions about what the player's character likes. From the updates on PE, it seems like the game has a big focus on giving freedom of roleplaying and customization, which goes directly against making assumptions like those. I'd rather have the focus on freedom than on romantic plots, myself. It remains to be seen if romances will be in or not, but I sure hope they're not included just to fulfil a quota. As for love, if it's going to receive any kind of focus it should be because the narrative demands it, not because some people need its presence in order to be able to believe a story.
  20. High heels aren't very practical, but people still wear them 'cause they look nice. Same reason someone would choose to wear an enchanted mail bikini that provides the same protection as a full suit of plate (which is what centurion was asking about). You know, some women might like heels or really short clothes a lot, and some of them are willing to sacrifice some comfort and practicality to wear them, but none of the girls I know are willing to sacrifice too much of either for the sake of their looks. For example, all girls I know that wear high heels only do so when they know that they won't need much mobility when they wear them. If it looks like they'll go to a place that has uneven terrain, or if they'll need more mobility than just walking around, most of them ditch the high heels real fast. Which means that any warrior lady worth her salt would not wear heels, if it looked like they could hinder her. Nobody wants to sprain an ankle in the middle of a fight. Additionally, even if they're in a place where they know that they'll be able to wear high heels comfortably, many girls I know also carry a spare pair of flat shoes in their purse, because high heels make your feet sore after a while. Sorry, but I can't imagine a warrior lady that stops mid-fight to change her shoes because her feet are starting to hurt The same applies to clothes that show a lot of skin. Many women I know like to show the goods, but only if they find it appropiate. If they're going to need good mobility, they'll wear clothes that allow proper transpiration and keep everything in its place (so, no outrageous cleavages or skin exposure that can catch you a cold). If the place they're going has a temperature less than adequate for exposing a lot of skin, they'll bring extra clothes, and they'll put them on as soon as they can (or they'll spend their time trying to look like they're not shivering, and then complain on Facebook about how cold they were and curse their lack of prevision). A combat situation would tick a lot of "inappropiate" checkboxes, so I can't imagine a warrior lady worth her salt that chooses to wear such outfits in such an inadequate situation. So yeah, that's a reason why I'm not a fan of chainmail bikini or high heels in combat. Forget about your usual arguments, I find them unrealistic because I can't imagine any sane woman that would ever willingly wear them, much less a woman that sees a lot of fighting every day That said, I understand why they exist, and I understand that these reasons are deep-rooted enough that they're not going away anytime soon. But seriously guys, you could at least be more original if you want to handwave the ridiculousness of these outfits! You say things like "the warrior lady wears heels because she can fight just as well with them, which makes her badass instead of a moron for hindering herself and risking her ankles so stupidly", or "the chainmail bikini is enchanted so that it protects just as well as real armor, and it also somehow offers a termic bubble so that the woman isn't cold for having her skin exposed, and it also doesn't look inappropiate at all, for real", but it's so much easier to turn it around and say, for example, that the outfits are actually protective, realistic armor that has been enchanted to only look ridiculous, in the chance that it makes your enemies try to attack parts that look exposed but are actually well protected. In fact, that seems easy enough to do. You could find, as a rare item, an enchantment scroll that lets the player learn how to make realistic looking armor look like the armored bikini of their choice (with some flavor text that says something like "the scroll claims that the purpose of this enchantment is to trick the enemies into hitting well protected spots, but looking at the armors it can produce you think the wizard who wrote this might have had other intentions in mind"). That way, if you like this kind of thing, you can learn the scroll and apply it on regular armor (and if the game has good reactivity, female warriors would likely have something to say about having to wear that!), but if you don't like it you can sell the scroll for a good load of cash. Make the rest of the armor of the world look believably practical and well suited for combat, and you'll also avoid the brunt of the criticism related to the oversexualization debate. Why whine about how the politically correct people are ruining your fun (maybe they're just people like you, who also have the right to defend their own form of fun!) when a little inventiveness can make more people happy?
  21. But... we already know how male/female armors are going to look like in PE. They're sensible, and they look functional and realistic, but they're also good-looking, varied and easily distinguishable. We already have armor that meet all the necessary criteria. What are you arguing for, exactly?
  22. Or maybe I was hoping that someone had direct experience about this topic, if they played a game where what I asked was proven or disproven. It would certainly be more conclusive than a bunch of confusing posts on random forums on the Internet, which is what a preliminary Google search gave me before posting. Just a thought.
  23. Why isn't anyone answering my question? So, is it possible or not? Is the "requires the Steam client running to launch" code an inseparable part of the pack of the Steamworks features, or can it come separately?
  24. Is it possible for the Steam version to have all the features that Steamworks offers (achievements, cloud saves, auto-updates, etc) and not require the Steam client running on the background? If that's the case, sure, why not. More choices, more freedom. If it's not the case, if I have to choose between the game taking advantage of the Steam client features the devs could use, or not taking advantage of them to be able to play the game without the client, then no. I'd rather have the Steam version use the Steam features than to not use them. If you don't want the features the Steam client offers, that's okay, the GOG version has exactly what you want. If you want them and the devs want to make use of them, the Steam version offers exactly this. But if having the game on Steam without the additional benefits it provides is the cost for having the game on Steam without requiring the client, then I don't want that cost to be paid. Especially when you already have a perfectly serviceable alternative. This post was far too long-winded to say that I see no dilemma here.
×
×
  • Create New...