makryu

I must say this analogy is all too revealing of the mindset behind romance hate. Needless to say, some of us don't see video game romances like that at all.

What the people who "like" romances however do not get is the law of economics. There is no "more OPTIONS", there are different options.Different options non-romancers wont get, but without romances, non-romancers still get all the other options. Options that may be locked out due to gender or other romance choices. Options that are now to be used for other conversations. A LOT of conversations will be locked out if writing for romances, even for the pro-romancers themselves, that now can be given to EVERYONE to flesh out characters, get interaction and make memorable characters. I understand that there is a limited budget, yes, and to develop some things you gotta give up OR REDUCE other things. But I see what you wrote in another angle. You assume that the only personal preference that can lead a player to not follow a particular dialogue/interaction path/tree is whether someone likes romances or not, hence why you assume that everyone would get more options with no romances. Except that is far from a fact. I can cite you a number of reasons why someone might not have followed a certain dialogue/ interaction path/tree over the years. Out of the top of my mind: - A player almost never makes non-human characters. Any dialogue trees specific to certain races were mostly lost on him; - A player finds a number of companions annoying or uninteresting. He either chooses not to have them in the group or, even if he has them, he didn't always gave them the nice buddy answers that usually were required to develop growing relations with them; - A player doesn't follow an evil or **** path. Entire pages of dialogue won't be seen/listened to; - A player allies with certain factions but finds no reason to ally with the opposing ones in other playthroughs; maybe he finds their stance/cause so stupid he doesn't bother at all. All dialogue related with that faction is lost on him; - A player dislikes certain classes and never plays them. All of those classes specific dialogue is not experienced in any way; - A player dislikes playing dumb characters. The dumb character dialogue tree is never seen; Any of those could replace romances in your argument, which means that the options would be far from serving "everyone", as you wrote. In short, your case is made only based on your personal taste (dislike of romances), above all others. Why your taste should somehow be assumed to be the "right" one is above me, and romance is quite unfairly targeted in that aspect, as I'm sure a lot more players enjoy the romances than, say, play the <insert obscure race or class here>, if we get to the point of discussing which dialogue trees are more "useful" ( wouldn't get there myself, but some seem to do sometimes). Read above. Selfishness comes from your arguments (you want your taste to prevail to the point of the exclusion of others), not from pro romancers. See above.Imagine Mass Effect II. Now imagine, if instead of romances for all characters, they used those resources to actually flesh out characters. To add a main plot. To not have dozens and dozens of conversations locked away from you simply because you didn't romance, and all that could be re-molded into something fleshing out those now talkless characters for everyone. Budding more with Garrus for example. Wouldn't that be... something you would have wanted? I think you attribute quite a lot to the presence of romances in that game, as if its absence would fix all that's wrong in the game (which couldn't be farther from truth. If the only thing wrong with Bioware were a supposed unhealthy fixation in romances, we'd be in CRPG paradise instead of genre-starving). I see no reason to believe that. I'd like to see most of what you mentioned in the game, but I think the or/or logic here opposing romances is nonsense. I could as well say I'd prefer they nerfed Garrus to make up for it, or reduce the budget spent on gun physics. Again, a matter of taste.

Judging from some replies, you'd say that instead of wanting romance to be in the game we're defending that Obsidian should implement a real-time interactive quantum physics simulation inside PoE.

Writing can mean many things. Does it mean that PoE should have x in its writing because BG2 did? Considering nearly half the races you play aren't romanceable, the writing/romance isn't there in BG. Play a Halfling? Nope. Play a dwarf? Nope. What about a Gnome? Nope. I've always played Halflings in at least my first or second play through. Where's the romance dialogue? Not there. So it would be false advertising to sell BG2 having romances when some of those races don't have romances. You would have to put a disclaimer on it. Romances but only for these types of races. Other races are excluded. Even the box doesn't mention romances. It was never a selling point in the first place. Yes, it can mean many things. One of them is romance, precisely what I'm saying. Or you want to suggest the writing of the romances is not "worthy" to be grouped with the rest of the writing? Regardless, it does not mean PoE had to have it because BG2 did. It does mean that it was perfectly plausible to expect romance to be in the game. As for how many races did have romances and whether it was a selling point, I don't see the relevance of for the discussion at all. The fact that the least played races were excluded is regrettable, that's all. Also what's put in a box to attract consumers has little to do with what's critically acclaimed about a game afterwards. I'm sure you'll find many important features that made BG2 memorable aren't in the cover either.

Perhaps to you. For me it's not the romances. And many parties I played through in BG2 had no romances, which turns out there was no significant part at all. This kotaku article is how I feel about BG2 and mentions no romances. http://kotaku.com/baldurs-gate-ii-is-still-one-of-the-greatest-rpgs-ever-1278311582 Not perhaps, certainly. The whole point of my argument is that it was expected that at least some people would want some sort of romance given the games referenced as influences. You didn't. Since my point wasn't that ALL people would be expecting romances, just that there was enough reason for some to do, I fail to see any contradiction. The article you linked mentions 1) writing; 6) the little things. I could easily argue that 1) writing includes the romances, since by then there were almost no cutscenes and all the romance was set up solely through written dialogue and descriptions. Stretching a bit I could say 6) the little things can also include small details of the relationships, such as differences in reactions of the characters depending on whether there was romance or not. Regardless, number 1) is enough to support my point, which is that romances were a significant part of what made BG2 remarkable, the writing. The fact that romance isn't specifically mentioned means nothing, the same way that the fact that it only mentions Jan Jansen by name doesn't mean the author didn't like Minsc and Boo banter.

I don't see why you would be expecting romances. The core features and selling point of the IE games are not romances. If you look at post 525 in the second paragraph, I explain why there (not gonna reproduce a lengthy paragraph again). I'll agree that romances were not selling points or core features, but BG2 and PS:T were praised by what was considered a new level of character interaction at the time and the romances were a part of that. Part of what made these games unforgettable to the point they could help a Kickstarter succeed by mentioning them was the storytelling and the characters, and romance was a significant part of that, so I don't understand why it's hard for you to see the reasoning behind expecting them in PoE.

This has been explained already, but writing a separate romance path, and making that romance fit in with that character's other interactions and expressions, would cost a lot more resources. It's not simply a matter of adding a dialogue option to pursue a romance. I didn't mention anything about how much resources I believe would be needed, neither is that relevant to the point made, since for people who wanted romances whatever resources needed (provided the amount wouldn't be absurdly high to the point of forcing the drop of what they would consider "core" features) would be well spent in implementing it. PS:T didn't really have romances, at least not the way it's usually done in RPG's (repeatedly choosing dialogue options to build up 'romance points' to romance someone and ending up in a relationship with them, usually in the ending). The 'romance' with Annah was more about her plight as an orphaned and discriminated tiefling. Admittedly Fall-from-Grace is the one coming to my mind, I never went the way of Annah. I was pretty sure that was romance, though. The fact that it wasn't built the way recent CRPGs did hardly matters, I never said I wanted romances only in the Bioware style (which I agree is flawed, although I still derived some enjoyment from them). I really don't see why BG2 having more content for romanceable characters undermines my point. If you mean the fact that those who did not wanted romance were short-changed in that game, it did not have to be that way in PoE. Have I said otherwise? Was I supposed to divine the fact that their discretion would not include romances?

It's pretty simple, really, and most don't seem to get it: people who wanted romances wanted more OPTIONS, no one is trying to shove romances down the throats of the people who dislike them. That said, critics of the inclusion of romance seem to value any other possible interaction over it. That's ok (though odd, in my opinion at least), but don't try to convince me it's a matter of reason or logic, it's a matter of taste, and when that is pointed out don't treat those who do it like idiots when your arguments don't hold any water. People are saying this was never pitched. No, it wasn't, but that doesn't mean people can't complain about the exclusion regardless. Considering we were all invited to this forum and many are backers, I don't see why someone's opinion of what is an acceptable topic should prevail over other opinions. Also, I must point out that the devs opportunistically didn't state there wouldn't be romance in the game during the funding campaign (I wouldn't either if I were them, they were bound to lose some backers if they did), at least I did not read it anywhere. But being the game pitched as inheriting the legacy of previous IE games, and the MOST FAMOUS AND PRAISED OF THOSE GAMES (PS:T AND BG2) HAVING ROMANCES OF SOME SORT, it is only logical that there would be at least some legitimate complaints in these forums from people expecting to see some kind of romance in it. After all, people even complained about the game being real-time-with-pause instead of turn-based, and there was no reason for someone to remotely believe it would be turn-based. The argument that implementing whatever will be implemented with the resources that would be spent doing romances is better and somehow the "superior" way to go is completely baseless: it's the way to go FOR YOU. For those who wanted romances, it will certainly DETRACT from the experience. The devs went your way, congrats, but this doesn't mean we can't complain about it for as long as we feel the need to and point out the fact that Obsidian took the easy way out (if they can't write romances, hire someone who can. It's not like the gaming industry doesn't hire and fire people at will according to development needs).

I also doubt that Monte was born on D-Day. Shocking, isn't it? How could I possibly trust anything he says anymore oh wait it's a joke. What I don't understand about the promance point of view here is this: Josh said that the PoE team had come to the conclusion that they didn't think they could do romances up to the standard they demand of themselves. So why don't the promancers trust the devs' own assessment of their abilities and resources? Hah! I'm not north american nor european, so D-Day isn't nearly as significant to me, hence why I didn't notice the date. The drunk part does ring true, though .

This bit is saying those of us ('these people' he says, haughtily) who don't like CRPG romances are the ones with the problem. LOL. Which is why he can't handle the truth. Between your insistence in calling me butt-hurt and posting Jack Nicholson images, you failed to address any of my arguments. I apologize. You win the internet. I have no answer to the colossus that is your force of argument in favour of imaginary sexual relationships with videogame characters. You could have refrained from posting about it or admitted it in your first reply and spared all of us the time spent reading your gibberish. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that you're 69 years old, as stated in your profile. It's a lot easier to believe that you're probably drunk, also as stated in your profile.

This bit is saying those of us ('these people' he says, haughtily) who don't like CRPG romances are the ones with the problem. LOL. Which is why he can't handle the truth. Between your insistence in calling me butt-hurt and posting Jack Nicholson images, you failed to address any of my arguments.

Agreed. Great post I don't believe that the current state-of-the-art interaction mechanics allow for improved implementations of relationships. You'd need a strong AI backbone that has creative elements and is able to simulate realistic responses. That would require budget for AI coder plus hiring a good romance writer and possibly additional testers. The developers would need to cut other elements of the game in order to fund that content. Hence, this is not a good idea for the current game. It would be better to try this in an AAA effort. It seems to me better writing, more dialogue options and avoiding making every character romanceable by either gender would go a long way towards improvement without adding absurd costs related to AI development. Also I believe this kind of game would be the right one to do it, as AAA voiceover has a high cost, making fully voiced high budget games less likely to attempt it.

It seems the peak of your ability to argue is to post a Jack Nicholson image and claim you're right. Quite sad, really, because 1: I never wrote there would be no meaningful interactions with NPCs; Obsidian is ditching one type of meaningful interaction, incidentally one that many consider relevant. and 2: I never used the argument no romance=combat simulator, I just argued that removing romances does no good to the idea that CRPGs are supposed to be more than combat simulators (it doesn't, unless you somehow believe romancing is a part of combat, a possibility I can't dismiss given you lacking reply). Maybe in your world of Jack Nicholson images what you posted could pass as showing adequate reading comprehension, but it instead suggests you didn't even bother to read my post (maybe because it has more than 140 characters) or you have a serious cognitive disability.

I'm genuinely amused at the fact that most people against romances in RPGs tends to refer to them as "primitive", "juvenile", "poorly-written", even "perverted", etc. It's mostly an offspring of the tendency to call any character, story, quest, etc. "poorly-written" simply because a person doesn't like it. Romance detractors seem to try and make this a question of correctness instead of taste. In other words, if you like romances in RPGs you're basically an idiot. The way I see it, it's an effective way to completely divert the subject from its focus. And the focus should be on the difficulty that these people have to deal with a virtual romance at the same time they want pretty much anything else (friendship, rivalry, etc.) to be present. We have been asking all these years for games to emulate in some way aspects of human relations. We usually look down upon action RPGs precisely because they tend to not provide much in that regard. Still, a vocal minority insists in criticizing romances as detrimental for the CRPG experience, and instead of defending improved implementations of this type of relationship they simply want to get rid of them, a position I believe speaks of a too common uncomfortable attitude towards sex and everything that traditionally is seem as coming along with it (prejudice, guilt, etc.). I believe the role of romances is severely downplayed by these people. My own experience with BG2 and PS:T tells me the opposite: I still remember my wonder at watching Aerie and Jaheira fighting over my character, something I had never saw in a game, as well as my subsequent decision to make my character choose Aerie much because I couldn't bear for him to get into a relationship with a widow of a dear companion (Khalid). In PS:T, I remember my character agonizing over his final fate, but taking some comfort over the fact that Fall-from-Grace could very well find him in the Nine Hells, no matter how tragic their relationship was due to her nature. None of those experiences, which I remember clearly to this day despite having played the games at their release, almost 15 years ago, would be possible in a game without romance. There's no way PoE won't be a poorer game without them in my view, no matter how excellent other areas prove to be. If we intend in the future to regard RPGs as role-playing games instead of exclusively party-based combat simulators (what they mostly end up being), I can't see the gain in parting with the option of romance in a game instead of trying to improve it.

I never said the writing would not be of quality. I did question whether this could be a sign of a game less focused in dialogue and story, since the same reasons used to ditch romances can be used to ditch other dialogue-related optional paths. After all, people can say what they want about romances, but their presence is usually related with an attempt to add more options to non-combat interactions within a game, in other words, to make the player focus in something other than combat.

Can't say I'm not disappointed. Ever since the beginning this project was sold as a merge of PS:T, BG2 and IWD. Romance in the two of those that had it was well done and worth playing through for those who like this sort of thing. I do believe a large enough amount of people expected it to justify the inclusion in the game. Would it take away resources from other areas? Yes, it would. Just like I could say 11 classes is a bit too much for me and I can't imagine myself playing more than 2 or 3 at most, then maybe the resources could be redirected towards more monsters, races, etc. I wouldn't make that argument (I'm all for variety, after all, even if it won't benefit me directly), but when people defend no romance option using the same reasoning I'd say it's selfish and short-sighted. Obsidian is wasting the opportunity of making meaningful romances the right way (avoiding silencing romanceable characters who are not romanced, for instance) and taking the easy way out. It kind of makes me fear for how much of a focus on dialogue and story there will REALLY be in the game, after all, since most of the arguments against romances can be made for all optional dialogue trees (be they a path of friendship, rivalry, etc.), and I believe most if not all backers, even those against romances, would like those in the game. Not a deal breaker, but somewhat worrying, at least.

It would have been nice if they said it here first, but still no one could possibly expect that they would start and finish a beta in time for April at this point.

Great update! Definitely want more like this. I'm left wondering here if you guys have an estimate/guess of how much work, if any, goes to the garbage bin with areas that are completely scrapped or heavily modified? It seems to me that those early passes play an enormous role in avoiding such a thing, if it happens as I imagine after all. In the subject of important yet obscure aspects of development, I'd like to suggest an insider look at AI programming.

"I come in to work and read a little email. Sometimes I'll have a "breakfast snack" in the form of cheese and peanut butter crackers. This holds me over until lunch time. Upon my return from lunch, I'll continue to work on my current tasks." Now I know why it's taking so damn long for the updates to roll. HA! Seriously, I gotta echo other posters and say the stronghold certainly doesn't qualify as ruined. I'm glad there will be another coat of "ruin" paint over it. Otherwise it's damn beautiful.

The thing is, the less game developers become preachy, the better. Of course almost no one wants to go around killing children. But that doesn't mean the choice should be made for the player. You can play GTA without randomly killing people on the streets, Rockstar didn't have to make them invincible for that. Also, equating child murder in a game to real interest in doing child murder is laughable at best. Anybody making this association (plenty of people in this topic, at least implicitly, by suggesting you're a horrible person if you want vulnerable children in a game) must logically agree with the various and ludicrous attempts at linking real world violence with in-game violence, which have no support whatsoever in science, and therefore can't honestly consider themselves gamers, imo. What I decide to do inside MY single-player game, in MY home, shouldn't be the business of anybody else. It's just one of those individual morality subjects in which somebody takes an issue with something somebody wants to do that does not concern them in absolutely any way. Games used to be only about furry pets and abstract entities doing innocuous stuff. Know why that is? Because the initial demographic of players was composed mostly of kids. That's not the case anymore as these kids have grown up and still want to play games. And guess what, adults don't need hypocritical game developers or players, no matter how righteous they think they are, hand-holding them and telling them what they can and can't do (regarding moral distinctions, not technical and creative limits and options, of course) in the virtual worlds created inside their homes.

Fantastic update. Sounds like one of the most, if not the most promising feature so far. I'll echo comments here about being able to rule by fear, and being unable to develop every stronghold feature/experience every event in a single playthrough. This will add a lot to replayability. I'll also add that it would be fantastic if having certain features, upgrades, visitors, hirelings in your stronghold would add options to your interactions in the world at large. Examples would be to "convince" a NPC wizard to collaborate with your goals by threatening him to have a small army at his doorstep, or unlocking a certain magic door in the optional dungeon only if you know an ancient magical password by having developed your library and hired a researcher.

I don't think the UI has to be exactly like IE games for PE to feel IE-ish. These days, a fragmented UI is pretty much the norm, and I think for a good reason. This game looks like it will be gorgeous, so you guys don't want to waste space with large frames, no matter how mood-setting they can be. I rather like the ideas of making retractable UI components (mouse over the corners and they appear, and/or make them disappear after some time. If you could make it highly customizable it would be great. Let everyone choose what and where stuff should be, within reason. Aesthetically, I think the UI textures should look as if it will pop-out of the screen, I don't get that feeling from the WIP at all. Finally, give us the option to have their numbers on screen if they want to. Most people don't like them, but your demographics is probably comprised of hardcore CRPG enthusiasts. We're not most people.

LIAR! You sir, are a liar! I call the unity image a Photoshop farce! I demand that you send me the prototype files, with the sole intent of undeniably proving to me that this is real! You might as well send me regular updates of the prototype to avoid further accusations... Now seriously: dare I say this will be the best looking 2d game ever?

As with all things, it's all in the balance. Blank slate can be good for many things, but ultimately the player resents the parts of the game (mainly NPC reaction) that do not live up to that openness. On the other hand, a character with a partially fixed background allow developers to make a more responsive world, one in which NPC reaction tends to follow the characters actions more closely. As far as CRPGs in general are concerned, I think there's space for both types and one isn't inherently superior to the other. As far as Project Eternity is concerned, I personally hope they implement variable backgrounds and the option for a blank slate too.

I'm pretty sure Obsidian knows what to do with the feedback they'll get. It's not like any backers have executive power over the game development (Thank God for that!). We're essentially meddlers (with a few exceptions). That said, I believe it's only normal that, in a pie chart, QA will be a small slice. Also, if you compare it with the "other game" chart you'll see that the QA slice is even slightly bigger in Project Eternity.