kenup

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

I would like an update like that for the game, but please keep the Paths out of videos and screenshots at least. I want them to be a surprise.

I hate Tolkien's books. HATE. And I love the movies... despite the books. I also disliked Watchmen, the graphic novel, but loved Watchmen, the movie. Same with V for Vendetta. Though, to give Alan Moore some credit, I actually really enjoyed LoEG, the graphic novels, and the movie was pretty bad. I also think there's too much combat in most games. I think L.A. Noire would have been a better game without the gun fights and car chases. I've played Blade Runner quite a few times without ever drawing my gun outside of the shooting range and the one scene you are forced to fight in. It's odd to advocate no combat in a sword & sorcery kind of game, true... and what's the point of classes if not for combat (they are almost exclusively designed to give "personality" or "flavor" to how your character acts in combat and nothing else, in D&D-esque RPGs at the very least.) But it's not odd to like video games with no combat in it. Your statement and argument are too broad. Someone writing dialog and characters for a game doesn't have to like combat, regardless of what's in the game. Just like I can write religious characters in a story, or play a paladin or cleric in a video game or table top game, and STILL be an atheist in real life. Her job isn't designing combat encounters or combat mechanics. She doesn't have to like combat. This problem with her is far more about the people complaining than it is about her. I'm not gonna comment on Tolkien, or the other books to movies transitions. And no Hepler doesn't have to like combat. But a) she doesn't want reduced combat, she wants a "Skip gameplay(which includes combat)" button, b) she is writing for a game that includes combat as a game mechanic, so whether she likes it or not she has to write stories making that combat meaningful and lastly c) DA2 had you murder at least half the Canadian population, so I don't see her not liking combat made the games any better on that respect.

They obviously have some fans, their games still sell in the millions. And why are they here? Obviously bioware makes the kind of games they need. And obviously they like their writing style. Why the need to tell every other cRPG developer have the same style? Again, I'm sorry and I'm asking for your forgiveness, but Obsidian is actually my favourite RPG developer ever. I guess this has something to do with my presence here... You certainly don't showcase that. @Merin I already wrote my thoughts about Hepler. If you can't see wrong with someone hating combat in video games, while working on those kinds of games, nothing I say will change that. Well, neither do you. The thread derailed into a conversation about BioWare now, logically we are not speaking about Obsidian. Or maybe in your mind BioWare hate somehow automatically equals Obsidian love? This line of thought is fundamentally flawed I should say. I didn't say anything about Obsidian; and I do like a lot of their writing decisions. You are the one wanting Bioware "romances"(Ugh, I said it again!), defend their writers, when numerous people have illustrated why they are bad writers, and take anything we say as "hating", when we are just being objective. Then you tell me that Obsidian is your favourite company and expect me to not doubt that?

They obviously have some fans, their games still sell in the millions. And why are they here? Obviously bioware makes the kind of games they need. And obviously they like their writing style. Why the need to tell every other cRPG developer have the same style? Again, I'm sorry and I'm asking for your forgiveness, but Obsidian is actually my favourite RPG developer ever. I guess this has something to do with my presence here... You certainly don't showcase that. @Pshaw I already wrote my thoughts about Hepler. If you can't see wrong with someone hating combat in video games, while working on those kinds of games, nothing I say will change that. Same if you can't see the wrong in not liking Tolkien's books but loving the movies and understand what a fangirl or fanboy is.

They obviously have some fans, their games still sell in the millions. And why are they here? Obviously bioware makes the kind of games they need. And obviously they like their writing style. Why the need to tell every other cRPG developer to have the same style?

I was referring to qloher.

Gaider's quote I was able to google in 30 seconds: "I find Twilight both fascinating and horrifying". You obviously missed this: "Well, I think Twilight is far more effective with its romantic elements than most people give it credit for. Granted, it has little else going for it-- but the romance it does well. I find it a fascinating exercise to analyze exactly why that is (which I do for many romances... thankfully Cori is a giant romance movie buff)." For some reason I can't link to that post directly. But it is on the same thread I linked earlier. And I can't believe you guys defend bioware.

Here. And Hepler hates the LoTR books! Great combo for a fantasy genre story with combat eh?

The problem is that she is writing fanfiction, she doesn't write stories to write a good story, but to have her fantasies about romance. She cares little about the world the story takes place in, or about writing a good plot. That together with Gaider's love for Twillight bring us...... wait for it....... DA2! And I never said anything about ME3's combat, just that the Story Mode would serve better in DA2. And if you don't see a problem with a writer in the game industry hating combat in games that involve combat, maybe RPGs aren't for you.

Where? Who? The "Up against the wall" Isabela? Or the "virginal girl next door" Meril? Or the hawksexual terrorist, that every important person ignores at the end? The hawksexual terrorist first and foremost. Loved his magic trick in the end. Other two are also good, also I handed Isabella over to Qunari in act 2, but that was for roleplay reasons, not because I hated how the character was written or something. Have no idea how she is in the third act through. Well, I can't help you there. If blowing up a church with the most innocent, kind, respectful, and logical person in DA2, in order to stop negotiations, while crying the entire game about none wanting to understand mages, makes him a good character to you... and then everyone ignores the real threat. Anders. and fight between themselves. While at the end both leaders go insane.....ugh. I already commented on Isabella, I'm not going to again.

Where? Who? The "Up against the wall" Isabela? Or the "virginal girl next door" Meril? Or the hawksexual terrorist, that every important person ignores at the end?

Ok now you are trolling. I ignore the other two, but with these ones no one with a brain should take you seriously. You don't have to like their storylines, but Tali and Merrill had their own problems that were not linked with the main character in any way. Tali had the difficoult relationship with her race and her father, Merrill had her quest for the Eluvian. I hate Merrill and I consider her a childish emo girl that does nothing else but cry around and complain that no one wants to help her, but this is just a personal judgement. Facts are that romancing her is totally optional, her storyline goes on with or without you by her side. Yes,and the main story was a mess consisting in mandatory side-quests.But you and others will undoubtly keep deluding yourselves that romances don't detract from more important things. DA2 wasn't a great game. It wasn't unplayable either. But in the end a game being bad that includes romances doesn't mean it was bad because of them. I mean the game has sword combat and a magic system for crying out loud, clearly you can't do both in 1 game and still have a good game! Unplayable can have many meanings. All I know is that the "Story Mode" from ME3 should be used here instead. Then I wouldn't have to go through 1534562345623 enemies between cutscenes. And it wasn't bad because of romances? Jennifer Hepler was the lead writer, and she is a fangirl, a yaoi fangirl at that. And hates gameplay.

Ok now you are trolling. I ignore the other two, but with these ones no one with a brain should take you seriously. You don't have to like their storylines, but Tali and Merrill had their own problems that were not linked with the main character in any way. Tali had the difficoult relationship with her race and her father, Merrill had her quest for the Eluvian. I hate Merrill and I consider her a childish emo girl that does nothing else but cry around and complain that no one wants to help her, but this is just a personal judgement. Facts are that romancing her is totally optional, her storyline goes on with or without you by her side. Tali doesn't advance after her side mission, unless you pursue a "romantic" relationship. And Merril's mission doesn't have any effect beyond the mission on her or in the plot. The only thing that affects the plot is a slider that may or may not change much from her mission. Besides which both ME2 and DA2 are the base of **** RPGs here come RomancePGs(one with shooter elements and the other with Exploding bodies and contrived final arc elements)!

Ok now you are trolling. I ignore the other two, but with these ones no one with a brain should take you seriously.

That's the article I had seen around August, I think. It's semi-responsible for me keeping my eyes open for new projects, and the quick pledge for PE. So I think it's safe to say that, yes, I want elements from PST in the game. Though I can do without removing charring and replacing parts of my character's body.

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames. Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame. I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make, and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending. That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices. So where is the maturity in a romance minigame? Where is the depth? Nobody "railroads" you. Use that word in the appropriate forums, BSN and bethesda's forums, or for the appropriate games and their developers. You are an active participant in the narrative not its god. All the choices have to make sense within the narrative. It's funny, because you post vehemently about how romances shouldn't be in the game, then claim those who oppose you are, "wanting to be God". What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Great argument! Now try a real one and not something that is ad hominem. I'm not the narrative's god, but romance(and any other literary device) has to somehow be used by the plot, cause romance isn't just a minigame. It, like any other relationship(friendship, rivalry etc), should affect the plot through character progression. If that doesn't affect the plot, then it's wasted space, the main(and possibly the other person) remain static bricks. Romance in stories isn't combat that can be shown through mechanics and graphics, it's a plot device.

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames. Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame. I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make, and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending. That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices. So where is the maturity in a romance minigame? Where is the depth? Nobody "railroads" you. Use that word in the appropriate forums, BSN and bethesda's forums, or for the appropriate games and their developers. You are an active participant in the narrative not its god. All the choices have to make sense within the narrative.

No arguing against aesthetics. Look at Cadegund's armour, it's really good from both a functionality and aesthetics standpoint. In my opinion anyway.

This is a big reason why romances do not work. Equity. Soon, all npcs must be bangable because the player must have equitable choices. Frankly, I hope OE avoids this pitfall entirely. If not, the entire slate of npcs will be little more than contestants on some fantasy dating game show. If equity is the issue, then Dragon Age: Origins has the right concept. Two straight pairings (Morrigan and Alistair) and two wild cards (Leliana and Zevran). Not quite fair, but reasonable given the demographics. Yeah but you see that's the point. Trying to appease to every demographic doesn't make anything more mature or deeper. It takes a feeling like romantic love and turns it into choose your own adventure minigame. Imagine if every movie had alternatives about every romantic relationship in them. NO matter how good or bad they might be on other accounts, the subject would change to "go and see your favourite x movie OTP doing it" or "see your OTP having a Happy ever after", even if the author never wanted this as the primary attraction.

You can always try to check under the skirt.

One word. Effectiveness. Not to mention boob plates would have weak spots, Falling face down with such a thing can push and close the sternum and that's not good

Well, a rogue, bard or thief having an attractive and well taken care of body, makes sense. Though that doesn't mean they are perfect. A warrior would also make sense to have a healthy looking body, especially if they train and fight regularly and have to run around with a semi-heavy armour on. Though again not equaling perfect proportions Just my .02 Female runners often have problems with breast size. I.e. it's really difficult to be a runner when you have big ****. It does not make sense for female warriors to be big-breasted. It's not realistic. I notice that you are conflating "big-breasted" with "healthy-looking", as well. Was this intentional? It's a completely illogical and nonsense conflation. In fact, often the opposite is true, as the fatter you are, the bigger your breasts are, both for men and women. Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. That was one point I wanted to make, and it seems you got it in reverse. Attractiveness and healthyness of a body, are not equal to big breasts or anything like that. That was my ****ing debate with the OP, that attractiveness does not equal to what she(?) considers being shown as "ppw".

Skyrim overdid it. First Dragon: OH #%#$ a dragon, run! Second Dragon: The dragon is attacking the tower, join us so we can kill it, It'll be a hard battle but we'll get him. 10836th Dragon: OH #%#$ a dragon, don't move so I can one-shot you with my Exquisite diamond slingshot. That's why you get the Deadly Dragons mod on top of playing on the hardest difficulty. They actually become a threat! And more annoying, if not accompanied by a mod that dramatically reduces their numbers and one that stops the drain soul music.

Is it even legal to call DA2 an RPG? Yeah, as in Romance your Party Game.