kenup

And why the f' are all these things that costly, when they don't deserve it in the end.... was kinda my question. And were are the graphics in TOR? That's what I'm saying. No one but the best voice actors put effort. The development teams are most certainly not. Bioware for example shows this in every release in the last few years. They don't care to make an if statement to control how Sheppard's class will react differently in cutscenes. They are lazy. The money doesn't go on the game it goes on ****. And TW2 has much better graphics than TOR while having a much smaller budget. Like TOR? or DA2?

And even if people said anything like that, why do you or HS care? If you do something that others don't like, man up and take the insult like a champ. Why does he bring those up instead of finding real arguments to support his side of the debate? And if you don't do those things, again, why care? They are not that serious insults anyway. Prove that you are above such things, if you feel they are low, don't cry about them.

What I want to know is why publishers spend all that money into AAA++++++++++++++++++++++ titles, when the games definitely have less effort put into them? TOR is certainly the best example of that.

Nah I think there was a bit of a miscommunication there. I do remember that thread though. hmm... Well, whatever. I like weird companions, I don't think having one of the native races will necessarily be as weird as something rarer(though that might reach clichés) though. And from what I understand Godlikes don't have to have a weird appearance, it depends on the God, so one of the guys we see may already be one. So I like weird looking companions, but I would care more if their personalities and past were the biggest mystery despite the appearance. Someone might be something else in disguise, or they may have been somewhere "strange" that might have affected them. Or they might not even be of the "living" world. And from what Avellone's last interview said; their souls previous bodies might have been weird or somewhere! That last part I would like to see. A lot!

Never mind. Damn edits!

http://www.gamesindu...-on-kickstarter You tell em, Chris. Leave the romances in the teen novels and the japanese dating sims. You know if this was a bioware RPG, I would have sex with you like there is no tomorrow.

Uh... I think someone from OE said that these 5 are not necessarily companions. So there might be more room for strange party members.

Personally, I don't think ME2 qualifies as an RPG. It's a 3rd person shooter with some slight RPG elements. It gives you a character that you can customize the ideals, motivations, personality etc. of. Role-playing games only need the ability for you to role-play a character for it to considered part of the genre; as the title makes explicit. Sheppard has a personality, motivation and ideals? And how are they customizable? The game is a rail-road.

You of all people accusing others of passive aggressive behaviour and ad hominem attacks is frankly hilarious. Wow... just, all but that last one? It looks to me like maybe you don't understand what certain terms mean. You really mischaracterized A LOT. Ok. Merin, even if I accept your points about romances as the best ones on the matter; if you can't see that HereticSaint is just getting aggressive, uses ad hominems all the freaking time, generalizes, is a strawman etc., don't get angry if no one you debate with takes you seriously. He never debates or argues a point. He just attacks the presentation and never argues our points. That's ad hominem. Edit: Finally more members than guests watch this thread!

Why were my posts deleted? I'm not trolling(not in the ones in this thread at least), I swear!

And again you don't understand why we want them out. Or you do and you don't want to admit the real reason you want them. Any interaction in the game is NOT a social interaction, not for the people playing anyway, it's part of the narrative. The characters socialize. You can immerse yourself all you want while you play, but you are not socializing. And a writer, one that doesn't **** at the thought of the characters they write, can't just write down whatever idea comes to their head. They have to take their time to think it through, them and their peers have to review it before implementing it. And that costs time, money and other resources like QA. Complexity is irrelevant. The endings to ME3 were complex, they anyone with a brain asking WTF just happened. But they are crap and full of plotholes. Depth can't be grouped together with complexity either cause they don't go hand in hand. And you still fail to tell me what is depth, and why is it so paramount. If you want a story that involves a romantic relationship, go ahead and make a thread proposing your premise of that story. But once again you ask for romances not a certain premise or plot. You are asking for added content, as in additions and features. If you assert I am asking for romances. Then that means pretty much everything else in the game, ranging from friendships, to tactical combat, to diversity in gameplay choices are all things I'm asking for as well. If you don't want romances as an option, then why don't you go ahead and make a thread and propose your premise of that story and how it makes sense to explicitely leave that out. I'll be waiting. Also, I'm rather sure we both understand what depth is and why it's relevant. Shallowness is a bad thing. The Bioware romances in Dragon Age 2 are shallow, a primary example would be Isabella. It isn't difficult to understand. Everything is irrelevant. According to you, clearly. Also, stop saying what I do and do not want. Clearly you don't understand, in fact you did exactly what I said you would do in the post you quoted of me and didn't even bat an eyelash while doing it. Which isn't only hilarious, but also kind of sad. So, you say I don't understand you because (Insert reason here), I say you don't understand me because (insert reason here). Glad that all worked out. And then you tell everyone that we make ad hominems? Right..... You know you didn't argue any of my points. You just generalized; and put character interactions in the same category as pawns on a battlefield? Not to diminish tactical combat of course, but they are not the same thing. And the rest of your post doesn't say anything, It's just "I'm right you are wrong." without anything to back it up.

And again you don't understand why we want them out. Or you do and you don't want to admit the real reason you want them. Any interaction in the game is NOT a social interaction, not for the people playing anyway, it's part of the narrative. The characters socialize. You can immerse yourself all you want while you play, but you are not socializing. And a writer, one that doesn't **** at the thought of the characters they write, can't just write down whatever idea comes to their head. They have to take their time to think it through, them and their peers have to review it before implementing it. And that costs time, money and other resources like QA. Complexity is irrelevant. The endings to ME3 were complex, they anyone with a brain asking WTF just happened. But they are crap and full of plotholes. Depth can't be grouped together with complexity either cause they don't go hand in hand. And you still fail to tell me what is depth, and why is it so paramount. If you want a story that involves a romantic relationship, go ahead and make a thread proposing your premise of that story. But once again you ask for romances not a certain premise or plot. You are asking for added content, as in additions and features.

First off, see guys, that's what I'm talking about. You don't understand why we don't want them. Where in my example does romance dominate the plot? It's weaved into the plot. It has to affect it somehow, it's not just being snarky for one line(which will still help define the character). I also didn't say that it's the best or worst plot with romance possible. You want romances. That 's' at the end is very important. We want a good story, if that involves, without making it into a love story, a romantic or other kind of relationship between the main character and some one else, that we will accept it. What you guys want is romances with different characters as added content. That is the first thing that makes them into minigames. Further than that, being deep and complex is irrelevant. Complexity doesn't make things good or bad. It's implementation that matters. Besides which, I still wait for examples of what makes a relationship deep. Writing many romances takes time and resources which could be focused on one thing, that being the plot, to make it actually good. Lastly, every relationship affects the characters involved, and if those characters are involved in the plot in some way they are affecting the plot. An enemy has a relationship with the pc; that relationship is hostile and it's going to affect the plot accordingly. A good friend may come and save you at the right time, even if he couldn't before. A lover might sacrifice herself in order to save the protagonist in the beginning or the end of the story and that affects the plot. Neither the friend or the lover dominate the story, but the relationship has an affect.

Go ahead and make that list. You'll just dub everything to what suits you. And this here is the problem you miss. If someone was asking for a Love Story, I wouldn't like the idea, but they are not asking for add ons. They are not asking for endless possibilities. This is what a plot involving romance may look like from afar: "A dragon appeared and the hero killed the dragon to save his lover." And here is what most of you want: "A dragon appeared and the hero killed it. While on the journey to the dragon's lair, the hero had a chance to get involved in a romance with companion 1 or companion 2 or companion 3." And that is just an elaboration of the above. You group bioware and japanese visual novels together. And again Japanese visual novels, which involve romance, they have that weaved in the plot, not as minigames. Despite how perverted they might be, they have more cohesive writing than bioware. You would be served better by them, than by adding minigames in PE or any other game, that is not about personal fantasies coming true.

Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways. As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less. Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames. To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary! You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****. And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc. And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that.

Interview in here: http://www.gamesindu...-on-kickstarter New interview, nice! Thanks for the link.

Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways. As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less. Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames.

Look I think the opening to ME2 is stupid and I really dislike where they took the series. But - the fact that's he's brought back to life effect the ability to influence that Cerberus lady, it changes how the marine from the first game views you when you meet, how Tali views you, how Liara views you and it comes up in dialogue. Can't remember if Shepard comments much without prodding. So it does have some effect in how the game treats Shepard with respect to the other characters. Now I won't disagree with you that most of the sex scenes (never tried them all) within the modern Bioware games exist as time jumps that "finalize" the romance relationship banter, with varying degrees of success in how those play out (and few having an in-game impact outside of postgame story outside of Morrigan). But I'm not (and I think many others aren't) arguing that romances need to have a culmination in sex either. They look at you differently because you [are being railroaded to] work with TIM, nobody gives a **** about Sheppard's resurrection. The counsellors don't care and this should make them come back from the 180 they did between games. Your companions don't care, nobody asks you how you feel about it. The VS doesn't care, with Christian Ashley describing you as a god doesn't care about your ****ing resurrection. TIM doesn't care, he just wants you to follow orders. Sheppard doesn't care, apparently he cares more about a kid he met in an air duct. And "romance" minigames are fanservice. It doesn't matter if they have a sex scene or not.

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me. Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent. What is subjective about good writing? Apparently some people like James Joyce's ULYSSES. I kid. Well kind of. There's a technical aspect to writing and a creative aspect. The technical aspect is I'd agree objective to a large degree (and yet writers can subvert it to effect as well, so it's not always clear cut); the creative aspect is, however entirely subjective. At least that's how I see it. That's because SHEPPARDS DEATH with respect to the plot is an element of the story, not necessarily the point of the story. That said it is an element of character since being brought back by CEREBUS effects the character interactions that Sheppard has. To me a romance could serve as a good element of defining character between PC/NPC or NPC/NPC but only if it fits the context of the story and fits the characters involved and fits the developers vision for the game in general. It just moves the time forward! And it isn't an element of sheppard's character, because he doesn't care about it, nor does anyone else. You don't just ****ing kill the protagonist, only to bring him back to life minutes later. Sheppard is a brick. We don't see what he experienced, if anything, while dead. We don't see that traumatizing, hell lethal, experience. progress him as a character. And it doesn't matter to the plot either, the time jump was not needed, sheppard's death was not needed. Same with "romance" minigames; they don't serve anything(other than fan service).

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have. More like you don't understand that it's a designer to decide what options to role-play you get because a game will obviously have limitations since it has to be finished and then released. And since games are always limited obvious that some content will get in and some other won't. Now,how do we decide wich gets in and wich doesn't? Player demand for fanservice or artistic considerations? It really isn't so hard to understand. Also lol,to quote myself(and from this same page too!!!): The point you were trying to bring up has already been criticized several times in this and others threads,yet you brought it up regardless without bothering to bring up additional arguments to support your stance. Nice try but, again,you'll have to wait to try again.Maybe 5-6 pages should do it. Has anyone here ever worked on an elaborate, narrative-driven RPG? The notion that romances absorb excessive time and effort from the developers is speculative at best. It's not speculative. Anything a professional author writes needs to be edited, and be well thought out. You don't just write whatever comes down from your head. It needs to work with the narrative and it needs to make sense with that narrative. Inter-relationships between characters are not easy, especially when you have to account for many possibilities, like previous choices.

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me. Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent. What is subjective about good writing? I can understand not liking a story, or type of story. But we are talking about basic writing rules here. "Romance" minigames are like killing Sheppard at the beginning of ME2, just as justification for the time jump, but never exploring the meaning of dying and being brought back to life.

To be fair, while this time around as I recall it was an "anti" poster who brought up Bioware, since this topic has a long history in the PE forums (can a month be long enough for a long history?) some posters who are "pro" have started by listing Bioware romances from the ME / DA series, so its not uncommon for BIO to get pulled in from either side in these discussions. I think that there have been knee jerk reactions from both sides as well, so not every post has been part of a solid discourse on the pros / cons of romance as a type of between party (or outside party) relationship. I'm aware of this. I've been following this thread for about... 3 of them now. (This being the third.) I acknowledge that I don't know from beginning to end the rise and fall of the flow of discourse around here. That said, his statement was not true. Several people in this thread alone have brought up reasons. Also, when earlier someone decided that they were the maligned party because they were told to maybe try to be civil and were thus the only ones 'not being respected' because they were 'evil'.... it's just laughable. What reasons? All pro-mancers say repeatedly is "maturity and depth". Do they even know what those words mean? You want multiple pc-npc romances for all sexual orientations and turn ons, may I ask why? Besides fan service, I don't see any reason for that. You want them as extras, when what you don't understand is that we are talking about a story not a simulator. There can be good stories with romance, but romance to whatever extent is used as a literary and plot device. They are not DLC content and they are not there to please every sexuality. Gay or Straight, a good story doesn't have to try and please everyone, for them to like it. And after wanting all these, you say that you don't want bioware "romance" minigames? You bring up romances from PST, KotOR 2 and other OE games but when we say why those were good -because they were plot devices rather than fanservice- and bioware's "romance" minigames suck in comparison, you defend bioware .

Wasn't really trying to change your opinion; I just felt it strange to single out a posters not-liking Tolkien's writing as a reason to discredit his opinion (at least that's how I took what you were saying). People have disliked his writing since the books came out and it continues today. I'm well disposed to him and I still find getting through LOTR a bit of a chore (like Melville who I also like but not an easy writer to read due to the impenetrability of the prose). Why is it wrong for me to discredit his opinion? Does he have any reason to like movies(and I'm not saying the movies are bad) more than books? What I get from his argument is that he doesn't like reading and just likes CGI etc. Does he have some well thought theory, or proof for romance minigames being good? Does he make any valid arguments as to why 'such and such'? All he does in each thread is point out a poll, which only shows popularity, not reasons to support romance minigames. And most of them just contradict themselves. They say don't want bioware romances, but when i say something about the people who wrote those romances, they get defensive and cry. How can I take them or their opinions seriously after that? How can I not discredit their opinion when they support bad writers, but discredit good ones? They don't even know what they ask for.

From literary critic Edmund Wilson's review printed in The Nation in 1956. Point is, not everyone thinks Tolkien is "good writing". Just like not everyone thinks video game romance is good writing (to try vainly to approach the topic of the thread). I see that in this thread already and I knew it from before. Doesn't change my opinion, or opinions of anyone who is not here to support romance mini-games. or all the opinions of all the people who for some "strange" reason like the books more than the movies(for a lot of book to movie transitions, not just LOTR). You know humans have been writing for too many years, we kinda have a collective knowledge about what's good about it and what's bad, or at least not as good. I'm expecting people to use arguments and examples to support those arguments, but all I see is: "I want romances. Here's a list with all the possibilities I want included so as to be fair to all sexual orientations. Oh, and by the way, I love the writing style of the writers that work at the company who's writing style I say I don't like." That's ****ed up.

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 not approving 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 knowledge and experience on the matter. Except from the anti-romance-minigames team, we are Ebil! Welcome to the 'political correctness at all costs because otherwise thin-skins get sad' age,I'm afraid. I was going to say something about that, but neither do I want to get banned, at least not for politics, nor do I want to turn it into a debate about politics.