kenup

Yeah, where is the badge already obsidian?

What are uhmans? And it's elves and dwarves.

Morte... Monte just eat some popcorn dude.

Shouldn't this be posted in that other thread?

I ****ing knew it!

More than enough I would say. Quality over Everyone above me said it, so there is no need to repeat it. And we can always depend on the adventurer's hall(I hope they find a better name ingame) for extra/replacement hands in battle.

You are turning my statements around. First of all: Many women in Video Games ARE perfect looking. In some games ALL of them are perfect looking. Thats what i critizise. But no one says anything about perfection. And the statistics come out of nowhere, so they are null. What the companions will look like, will depend on where you pick them up and who they are as well as the developer's choice. They are individuals, not a random pick from the masses.

You didn't? what is this then? I'll repeat, please, learn to read. It's not saying all romance is mature. And I must say, all romance can not be considered mature. But the state of maturity in itself involves various levels of romance. Don't play with words. "Mature topics include romance" means that "romance" can be or is a mature topic. But what is a mature romance? And how are many "romance" options mature? Give me an example of a mature romance vs immature one in cRPGs. It's not me who's playing with words. I said "orange is fruit" you bent it to "fruit is orange". As to examples of mature romance, I really wouldn't want to do it with existing cRPGs, but FO2, although subtle, humorous and sex oriented, displayed a certain level of maturity in this case. So did PS:T in my opinion. Better examples can and will be done in the future. On the other hand, romances in DA:O or SWTOR are not adressed in a mature level despite of love-making scenes. They are simply "give enough gifts to bed with X" mechanism aimed for puberty. So they were subtle in the games you consider mature. In PST as far as I remember, they were limited and they were part of the narrative. Then why did you make a list of features, based on how many different options there should be? And that there should be bitter things like marriages with raped victims and persons the pc widowed? Those are not subtle. Too many options, don't make them subtle or mature. And again you play with worlds. If you said "orange is fruit", which is a very bad analogy, since nobody argues that an orange isn't a fruit, but let's forget about that. I said "a fruit can be an orange". But what chances does that fruit romance has to be an orange mature? I'm really tired of this but again, all romantic themes doesn't have to be mature, and I didn't say that... I'm saying, it can/should be adressed in a mature and realistic level and complete lack of romance would result in a drawback in maturity level. In FO2, the PC could be forced to marry a man/woman he/she slept with. In PST the player dealt with stories of broken hearts he caused. These are fine examples but also they don't dominate the story. Yes I gave examples of mature romance themes but I don't want romance to dominate the story unless the main plot is about love. And unless it's some kind of wicked love, I don't think it's a good idea. Yet leaving romance out is not a good option. That's because the father of those npcs is pissed about your deed, not because of happy "romance". And considering that you can be a pornstar, I don't see any romance arc here. Nobody says it should "dominate" the story. But relationships do affect the persons involved. You can't just have a romantic relationship with someone in a story and not affect the plot, and if it doesn't it's just a minigame. And won't multiple romances, in the same time table affect their quality, since each one of them will be given less attention by the author? And excluding romance is not a good option? According to what, sales? Plot integrity? Self satisfaction? Does the inclusion of other kinds of relationships instead of romance make up for any of those?

These statistics are completely made up by me, as I said, founded on the word average. But let me try once more. I am talking about two kinds of beauty here. The first one is purely physical, close to perfection and standard in many video games. The second one may have average or even ugly looks, but the character of the person has some (as clicheed as that sounds) "inner beauty", that makes him/her stand out. Now, I don't say that someone physically beautiful can't also have "inner beauty". If these things come together it is great. But a majority of the population (the "average" part, estimated by me at 60%) is not close to perfection, though they can still be beautiful. Now, diplomatic and social skills could of course be influenced by both (and doubly so in the case that physical and inner beauty are combined). Thus, good-looking female diplomats might make sense. But not thiefs. Or warriors. Or priests. Or mages. Their skills are not influenced by beauty. So it is quite logical, that interesting (because skilled in their field) characters of these professions mostly are not physically perfect, because the majority of them would belong to the biggest group - average looking women. They would still be beautiful and interesting in their way, for sure! Thats were i want to go. Dwarf woman with beard, stunty, but charming and capable? Beautiful, in her way. You take perfection into account, when nothing is perfect, or at least I didn't say so. And I'm not talking about "inner beauty", but about exterior beauty. Even if we take your "statistics" at face value, it doesn't matter how much percentage is considered ugly or beautiful, the real question is: What stops beautiful women from being skilled or smart in their majority? Who says that the "ugly" woman won't be the one not skilled? Not saying that "inner beauty" doesn't matter, but what says that the level of external beauty controls the possibility of skills of a person? That's a false dichotomy. Was Fall-From-Grace considered ugly or average? In the chance she's none of those, did that affect her skills? negatively or possitive or none at all? If she was one of those, would her skill ability be affected?

You didn't? what is this then? I'll repeat, please, learn to read. It's not saying all romance is mature. And I must say, all romance can not be considered mature. But the state of maturity in itself involves various levels of romance. Don't play with words. "Mature topics include romance" means that "romance" can be or is a mature topic. But what is a mature romance? And how are many "romance" options mature? Give me an example of a mature romance vs immature one in cRPGs. It's not me who's playing with words. I said "orange is fruit" you bent it to "fruit is orange". As to examples of mature romance, I really wouldn't want to do it with existing cRPGs, but FO2, although subtle, humorous and sex oriented, displayed a certain level of maturity in this case. So did PS:T in my opinion. Better examples can and will be done in the future. On the other hand, romances in DA:O or SWTOR are not adressed in a mature level despite of love-making scenes. They are simply "give enough gifts to bed with X" mechanism aimed for puberty. So they were subtle in the games you consider mature. In PST as far as I remember, they were limited and they were part of the narrative. Then why did you make a list of features, based on how many different options there should be? And that there should be bitter things like marriages with raped victims and persons the pc widowed? Those are not subtle. Too many options, don't make them subtle or mature. And again you play with worlds. If you said "orange is fruit", which is a very bad analogy, since nobody argues that an orange isn't a fruit, but let's forget about that. I said "a fruit can be an orange". But what chances does that fruit romance has to be an orange mature?

Well said. If they add the option to sex the companion characters in PE, HUNDREDS of refugees dislocated by the closure of BSN's romance subforums will buy the game. Presumably they'll all be posting here from then on? Nope, sorry. I don't think we can take that kind of risk. Their numbers(and other qualities) will darken the skies of every thread.

I don't agree. People want to stand out. When everyone is beautiful, no one stands out. I guess that would make the whole problem worse. I don't see an automatical "all were happy" only because all people become beautiful. In fact, they would use even more cosmetics or possibly use body modifications to make themselves different. I am talking about genetic beauty here, not taking care of onesself. I do not say average women are not beautiful, in fact, that is my point: They can be beautiful as well! It does NOT take a bombshell to have an interesting, beautiful female character. And the statistics I meant are pretty simple: Lets say, there are 20% "good-looking", 60% "average" and 20% "ugly" women out there (and that is a very generalizing statistic, sorry for that). Then it is quite more probable for the skillset to belong to the 60%, as long as you don't think that beauty and skill are correlated. Which, given diplomacy, might be the case, but certainly not in terms of lockpicking, acrobatics etc. (staying true to the thiefs guild example). And where are those statistics based? Why is only 20% good looking if as you say, average women can be beautiful? Statistics are, or at least should be, based on a population or a group. Natural beauty also needs to be taken care of. And again if "average" can be beautiful, why would that beauty not affect her diplomatic and social skills, or at least their success?

You didn't? what is this then? I'll repeat, please, learn to read. It's not saying all romance is mature. And I must say, all romance can not be considered mature. But the state of maturity in itself involves various levels of romance. Don't play with words. "Mature topics include romance" means that "romance" can be or is a mature topic. But what is a mature romance? And how are many "romance" options mature? Give me an example of a mature romance vs immature one in cRPGs.

Again I'm not talking about "ppw". Neither do I say that everyone should be a bombshell. But looks matter. One person taking care of herself, can be part of her diplomatic skillset, or it can simply be that she cares about herself, or both, or other things. And again, you say that average, like it's something negative. Not to mention, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Where do you base that beautiful women being skilled is not probable? Looks affect your image and as a result your charisma. And what statistics are those?

You didn't? what is this then? And you still didn't answer my questions.

So you want the game to do anything in order to sell more? FPS games sell as well, should PE change from it's current goal to become a MW clone? I think asking for well written romance dialogues between at least a few characters of different gender is far from anything. Hyperbole is bad. On top of that, if they have to sacrifice small things for them to sell MANY more copies, then the answer is yes. Because I want sequals. Obviously there's a line, but you rather exaggerate. Not everything has to have a direct sequel, but aside from that, No good writer makes sacrifices for the masses. They write what they want, and those that matter love it. You're part of a mass of naysayers in this case and you ask the P:E writers to sacrifice romance for other things. Then you come and accuse people of the same thing. What you fail to understand is we're not asking the next Fifa to include romance. What we are asking is a mature cRPG to include romance because mature topics include romance amongst other concepts. That's a really good argument. Good "romance" arcs are used as plot devices, they are not there for the player to choose between this person and the other. Geralt's relationship with Triss? That's important, it affects the plot and gives opportunities for both characters to develop. While optional, Safiya, Kaylyn Okku/One of Many and WhatsHisName in MotB and the KotOR 2 companions', their relationships, whatever the kind, also serve the plot and character progression. The romance part is optional in MotB and semi-optional in kotOR 2, but the relationship, again whatever that is, is a plot device. Not some sidequest or dialogue minigame. This doesn't happen with Sheppard and the characters in ME. Some make a little character progression, but the Narrative fails to show this affect the plot, or Sheppard. They are just side quests, the relationship with the characters is unimportant to the plot. And by the way, you tell me that "romance" is mature, but you don't present me the why of it. And for that matter, is any romance mature? Is a romance in a kids fairy tale also mature? Is romance the only kind of relationship that shows maturity? You don't tell me the answer to these. All I hear is that you want options, for straight males and gay males, ditto for women. Do you care about mature relationships being part of the narrative, or just satisfying everyone's desires? And that is all you do in the end. Have your own opinions, don't just go with what others tell you. Instead of giving us a good reason for minigame "romances", and many options on that matter, making the game better. Give me a good example of multi-"romance" options making the story better, that it enhanced the narrative, that all of them affected it in some meaningful way.

So you want the game to do anything in order to sell more? FPS games sell as well, should PE change from it's current goal to become a MW clone? Where did I say "anything"? We funded a cRPG and we are discussing the inclusion of romance. You come up with Modern Warfare clones. If you rather support a FPS than a cRPG with romance, then this is seriously the wrong forum for you. Where did I say I liked FPS? That's a strawman and it doesn't matter If I do or not. The point is, why should the writer or combat designer etc change their scope just to sell? Your post suggests that romances should be included, simply on the fact that they attract buyers. And on an off note, I like how you people call us totalitarians and a lot of other things that might be considered offensive. Yet you use ad hominems and strawman arguments

That doesn't change the fact that one must find something attractive, on the person faking it in order for the hoax to work. And I would argue that a beautiful woman can be leader of the thieves guild, without that meaning they are devoid of skill. In fact their diplomatic and leadership skills combined with looks might give her an edge over the easy to hide pickpocket of the guild, which would be best as the person to do the difficult jobs that need sleight of hand rather than social skills. And you seem to take average as not attractive? I'm sorry if I misunderstand.

I agree on the "well taken care of", but not on "attractive". Imo these are two very different things. They would be rather slim, bony or muscular and definitely not along the lines of the standard ppw. Look at Brienne from Game of Thrones for example. Well-trained, well taken care of body? Yes. Attractive? Not from her looks - maybe from her principles. Jaime Lannister definitely sees something in her. Not disagreeing completely, but I think someone who wants to talk their way through something, has to account for looks. Do not misunderstand that for perfect proportions, or double Ds and round asses all rolled into one(or skimpy clothing). But since their job might involve faking attraction to a member of the opposite sex, in this case men, why not make sure that the body is attractive? Or highlight the right parts.

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

Yes, sure. But they clearly stated that they want it based on IE games, that were originally created by Bioware. hahahaahahahahaha! Nice one!

So you want the game to do anything in order to sell more? FPS games sell as well, should PE change from it's current goal to become a MW clone? I think asking for well written romance dialogues between at least a few characters of different gender is far from anything. Hyperbole is bad. On top of that, if they have to sacrifice small things for them to sell MANY more copies, then the answer is yes. Because I want sequals. Obviously there's a line, but you rather exaggerate. Not everything has to have a direct sequel, but aside from that, No good writer makes sacrifices for the masses. They write what they want, and those that matter love it.

So now we start comparing romances to FPS. Good arguments. Next step - "Romances - are devil! Burn those, how propose them!" I didn't compare "romances" to anything. The logic in his post says "Do X thing, just to sell more.", that's what I challenged.

So you want the game to do anything in order to sell more? FPS games sell as well, should PE change from it's current goal to become a MW clone?

Oh, God NO! I hope you are trolling. And spring 2014 is not that much of a development time. Guess what other games had more or less 2 years development cycle...