[[Merged] Women, Feminism, etc. in PE]

Is Obsidian known for writing unrealistic female characters and making sexist characters?

I quite clearly remember the Handmaiden stripping down to her frilly lace underpants and using the usual "clothing is a cultural construct" excuse.

 

Have you ever seen african or south-american tribes?

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2]

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.

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!!!):

 

Furthermore their 'I'll bring up this point and if someone brings up a good counter argument I'll just drop the ball for a bit and when enough posts have buried that discussion I'll repeat it again instead of trying to have a constructive discussion' tactic isn't particularly positive don't you think?

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.

 

If it takes Avellone to write one companion two-three months at least, I'd say it's pretty damn excessive time and effort. Have YOU ever worked on writing elaborate, narrative-driven RPG?

[[Merged] Women, Feminism, etc. in PE]

Just had a thought anyone else thinking about,Austin Powers 2 where Powers gets out of the water in a bikini in a Prodidy of Heather Graham. Who says only girls get to wear the Chainmail bikini?

 

Indeed, I'm fine with chainmail bikinis for the ladies, if you have equal parts chainmail mankinis for the gents.

 

Is Obsidian known for writing unrealistic female characters and making sexist characters?

 

You could read my posts:

 

And allow me to also point out, yet again, that I think there is no need to worry too much about the representation of female characters in respect to PE, because the team looks to be doing a great job with it.

 

 

and

 

I LOVED both the choice of making a dwarven ranger female (not a combo you see often, female dwarf you know - "it's the beards!"); and the look of Cadegund. Both would certainly be attractive by offline human standards, but both look like they could indeed be warriors, and while Sagani is showing skin, it's clearly not done in a gratuitous or objectifying way.

 

I feel, OP, that Obsidian is on the ball with this and we need not worry too much.

 

Jumping to conclusions is never a good thing, jarpie. I was just responding to Gyor's comment on Austin Powers in a bikini.

 

Ah my bad...

 

and by the way it's Joukahainen if you took your name from Kalevala.

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2]

There always have been cRPGs which are story-based and with recruitable companions, such as Ultimas 4-7 and for example also Ambermoon and Amberstar had recruitable companions. Did you ever play Goldbox-games? They were also pretty storydriven so it's not just something what Fallout and IE-games brought.

 

I love the Gold Box engine and most of SSI's cRPG's! Wizard's Crown is a favorite of mine. I usually list either Pool of Radiance or Pools of Darkness (to represent the entire series) as one of my favorite cRPG's, if not games, of all time.

 

They had a plot in the background, and some of the later entries (specifically thinking of the Savage Frontiers duo) made strides to incorporating story into the gameplay...

but the Gold Box games were tactical turn-based combat first, second and third... with the background story adding color to the combats you were having.

 

I'm not knocking them... without that story I'd probably not have replayed the games so many times. A less story-focused game, like Phantasie or Bard's Tale, it is harder to motivate me through the endless random encounters. So SSI does shine a bit brighter than others at it's time.

 

But you can't compare integrated story of Baldur's Gate or PS:T to what counted as "story" back in the Gold Box era. I mean, it took Wasteland to finally REALLY show what story in a cRPG could be.

 

You conviniently ignored Ultima-games, tell me, has any game really tackled on subjects such as becoming paragon of virtue, moral absolutism, corruption of men, racist prejudice and peaceful co-existance since then?

 

Tell me also any another crpg which does not have big bad or main antagonist other than Ultima 4?

 

And what else Ultima-games doesnt have...oh yeah, romances with your companions.

[[Merged] Women, Feminism, etc. in PE]

Just had a thought anyone else thinking about,Austin Powers 2 where Powers gets out of the water in a bikini in a Prodidy of Heather Graham. Who says only girls get to wear the Chainmail bikini?

 

Indeed, I'm fine with chainmail bikinis for the ladies, if you have equal parts chainmail mankinis for the gents.

 

Is Obsidian known for writing unrealistic female characters and making sexist characters?

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2]

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.

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.

 

If you truly want to roleplay, you should check out RP servers from MMOs or especially from NWN 1 or NWN 2.

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2]

Wait, didn't even LotR have a few romances in it?

 

Samwise and Frodo at least...

 

I kid, I kid...

 

You kid? You mean it's not an epic saga of two men's love for one another transcending the world they live in and sailing off into the sunset together?

 

They are totally bros of bros! brothers in arms and all. :D

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2]

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.

 

Oh I understand, I just kind of worried the discussion is getting a bit heated and trying to be fair to all sides. Actually there were several good pages in the back of the last thread where some good discussions were going on I thought and too often I think we all get caught up in storming the hill and start going off on the other poster and not just what they're saying.

 

Or something. And to be fair (again, because I can't help myself) one person's reason may not meet the justification threshold of another.

 

That said I haven't seen a sign of the anti-crown being disrespected; I know Monte Carlo got some posts cut but not having seen the content I certainly can't speak to the justification of such actions.

 

What about this: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61676-the-unofficial-pe-relationshipromance-thread/page__st__100?do=findComment&comment=1248851

 

The cold-hearted trolls managed to taint this topic too.

 

Why they are still claiming that there's people demanding NPCs to have sex with is beyond me.

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I dont think higher fantasy was exactly very high regarded back in the 1950s.

It's well regarded now?!

 

No, not really

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2]

I'm implying that if you like the movies and not Tolkien's books, you may not understand what good writing is.

 

[THE LORD OF THE RINGS] is essentially a children's book - a children's book which has somehow got out of hand, since, instead of directing it at the juvenile market, the author has indulged himself in developing the fantasy for its own sake; and it ought to be said at this point, before emphasizing its inadequacies as literature, that Dr. Tolkien makes few claims for his fairy romance. In a statement prepared for his publishers, he has explained that he began it to amuse himself, as a philological game: the invention of languages is the foundation. The 'stories' were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse. I should have preferred to write in 'Elvish'. He has omitted, he says, in the printed book, a good deal of the philological part; but there is a great deal of linguistic matter... included or mythologically expressed in the book. It is to me, anyway, largely an essay in 'linguistic esthetic,' as I sometimes say to people who ask me 'what it is all about.'... It is not 'about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions, general, particular or topical, moral, religious or political. An overgrown fairy story, a philological curiosity - that is, then, what The Lord of The Rings really is. The pretentiousness is all on the part of Dr. Tolkien's infatuated admirers, and it is these pretensions that I would here assail.

 

...

 

Now, how is it that these long-winded volumes of what looks to this reviewer like balderdash have elicited such tributes as those above? The answer is, I believe, that certain people - especially, perhaps, in Britain - have a lifelong appetite for juvenile trash. They would not accept adult trash, but, confronted with the pre-teen-age article, they revert to the mental phase which delighted in Elsie Dinsmore and Little Lord Fauntleroy and which seems to have made of Billy Bunter, in England, almost a national figure. You can see it in the tone they fall into when they talk about Tolkien in print: they bubble, they squeal, they coo; they go on about Malory and Spenser - both of whom have a charm and a distinction that Tolkien has never touched.

 

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).

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I dont think higher fantasy was exactly very high regarded back in the 1950s.

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2]

Is there any way to check if I'm being ignored by someone?

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2]

The 'problem' I have with her comment is that it is indicative of the problem in general with Bioware games: the parts of the game seem to be unconnected with each other. RPGs really need to have each part of the game influence each other, the dialogue needs to influence the combat and both need to be influenced by the same stats for instance. Bioware games have increasingly segregated the dialogue and combat to the point that you can be using blood magic in front of an entire city and no one seems to mention it in conversation. The writers should be working with the designers and those implementing the combat mechanics to make sure everything works and makes sense in the world they are building, for instance TNO's ability to switch classes was written into Planescape's story as his using his 'forgetfulness' and even justified questlines and the like. If you are able to skip combat to get straight to the dialogue or vice versa with no impact then something is wrong with the RPG you're supposed to be making.

 

That's my opinion anyway, take from it what you will.

 

Okay, I can agree with most of that. With at least the minor caveat that most games allow you to easily skip dialog and cut scenes to get right back to fighting.

 

I don't think a "skip combat" button would be bad in certain games (wouldn't many here want a "skip romance" button?) but it would have to be a feature that takes into consideration many factors, and for some games it would be more hassle than it's worth.

 

Let me give you a good example of this, however -

 

Medieval Total War. A combo turn-based and real-time strategy game series. Those games you can choose to just play the big strategy and not the battle tactics. Every time a combat happens you can let the computer resolve it by the click of a button.

 

Another example, part way at least. Dawn of War: Dark Crusade and Dawn of War: Soulstorm. They are RTS's. When enemies attack your territories you control you can have the computer auto-resolve the battle.

 

Now those aren't cRPG's, yes, but the concept can be the same. In reaching a broader audience (and a different section than what overlaps the FPS crowd) role-playing games have attracted players who are more interested in story and dialog than in fighting. You have to acknowledge it, even if you won't "accept" it (though you should accept it.) And with that crowd come people who want the interactive story and the creation of their character but NOT the endless waves of combat encounters.

 

It's a valid viewpoint. A bit different than traditional, perhaps...

but game genres evolve over time.

 

cRPG's used to be text-based, build your entire party, dungeon crawls. There didn't used to be recruitable companions, and story didn't use to be a focus. Choice depended on what classes, spells and weapons you chose and that was it. And combat was turn-based.

There was resistance to the inclusion of pre-made characters. There was resistance to story-focus, dialog options, and choices in the game for different results. You got real time (with pause option) combat.

But most people here love IE games. And almost all those changes are key to IE games.

But there are still people who'd prefer turn-based. Dungeon crawling. Making your own party. Less story and more combat and dungeon crawling.

 

And now there are cRPG players who want LESS combat and MORE story.

 

Different strokes.

 

There always have been cRPGs which are story-based and with recruitable companions, such as Ultimas 4-7 and for example also Ambermoon and Amberstar had recruitable companions. Did you ever play Goldbox-games? They were also pretty storydriven so it's not just something what Fallout and IE-games brought.

[[Merged] Women, Feminism, etc. in PE]

I don't even understand why there is even discussion like this in Obsidian's forum, are they known for writing poorly done female characters? No, didn't think so.

 

Also, this game is isometric so it's not like we would even see details of the characters.

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2]

I'll toss this back up, if nothing else than as something for anyone new to the thread to read and consider if they so wish.

 

It basically appears people want character growth and development amoung the party that can include rivalry, sword-brother/sister, best friends, platonic loves, or straight up lovers. Having a believable evolution of interactions between a diverse group of people who are traveling for great lengths of time together through various situations that binds them together in equally diverse ways. It just is insane to me that people want character interactive growth in every way except romance... because romance is somehow eeeeeeeeeebil. But two people who have wildly different moral stances can learn to despise each other and one eventually betray the PC and/or leave the party is A-OK, right? There is literally no difference between the two when both are written well in the sense that both are showing a growth and changing of feelings between two characters dependent upon the choices that are made throughout the story. When handled by an experienced and creative writer, like the ones we have at the helm here, both are equal.

 

What I have just pointed out is a compromise in that I have said what people here want: A solid well written story with characters that matter. You can't section off one way people interact, especially when they're with a small group of people for a very long time and facing various situations, but say that all of the others are fine. The whole point is that we are all, every single person here, expecting the writers to be up to the task of crafting a powerful engaging story. With realistically understandable characters. I don't want one-dimensional card-board cutouts.... this means I want them to run a realistic gambit of emotions: hate, joy, disgust, envy, revenge, heroism, villainy, love, despair.... It is all there, it all matters.

 

I am not saying 'it should be like X game!' and I don't expect it to be. I want it to be the game that the creative staff at Obsidian envisioned when they first started this project. They don't HAVE an enforced time-line. They don't HAVE a Triple-A Tyranical Over-Company demanding they meet pointless milestones, deadlines, or pandering. What I DO expect is for it to be well written.

 

As I have said before I wouldn't have problem with romances done like in previous Obsidian games or PS:T, I'd prefer game not to have romances at all but if Obsidian decides to put some in, I trust them to do them well and not the Bioware-style, but my problem is with the people who demands/wants romances in even if they wouldn't fit the story and/or characters. Adding romances in game just for the sake of it shouldn't be done, as with anything.

 

As I said in the previous topic there are lot of examples in fiction (yes, even with games) what doesnt have romances at all, and asked why this game specifically should have romances if Obsidian decides to write a game which wouldn't support it well.

 

I wouldn't want romances in because it tends to bring that certain type of people into the forums and start demanding that all companions should be romanceable, and every possible gender-combination put in, and certain style of romances.

[The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread]

Here's the biggest issue with an out of party romance;

 

If you do an out of party romance, but still want it to have a deep and engaging story you have to do -a lot- more writing than if you have a character in your party. The reason being is the amount of dialogue required to facilitate interacting with a character in a way that you explain what you've been doing, where you went, learn what they were doing, where they went (Unless they are a stick figure, which again, ruins it). Basically, you can't have your love interest be inanimate while you are gone.

 

While there will be more dialogue written for in party romances, you don't have to explain that you fought a mighty dragon and uncovered vast amounts of wealth and legendary artifacts before your friend double crossed you and you had to kill him. Because they were there the whole time, don't have to do that whole 'catching up' dialogue for every quest option that you can return home during. Of course, the in party companion might not -always- be there, but it can be assumed they will be there a lot.

 

That being said, I personally wouldn't mind if a super flushed out romance with someone who isn't in party happened. But almost all the anti-romance people have at one time or another already complained that a romance eats up, 'valuable resources'.

 

You are making things uglier than they are.

Writing and text implementation are some of the least time consuming tasks that you have to perform to develop a game. As long as you don't have to do full voice overs and cutscenes adding a romance plot (which doesn't even require specific dungeons or locations like a normal quest) is a piece of cake.

 

Feargus said that it takes Avellone to write a single companion 2-3 months, and since there are 8 companions, and Ziest will probably half of them, it takes them 8-12 months to write them, not to mention the rest of the dialogue which isn't for companions, lore, the story, descriptions etc. and how that exactly wouldn't take lot of time?

[The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread]

The Hobbit didn't have lovestory as far as I remember, neither did Ultima-games what I mentioned before...what they were about...oh yeah, Ultima 5 was about oppression, moral absolutes and corruption of men...and what was Ultima 6 about...racist prejudices and consequenes of the actions the player has taken in previous games.

 

There are pretty much no novels about evil characters. Why then giving the player the chance to perform an evil playthourgh has become one of the core features of nowadays RPGs?

 

There's no serious fantasy novel which has a love story as its main focus. But novels don't need to be about love to have a romantic subplot inside them. Project eternity doesn't need to focus on love, but it would be great if allowed the player to live a love story (if he wanted to obviously, I'm all for player freedom).

 

What about A Song of Ice and Fire? Those have lot of evil characters.

The Hobbit didn't have lovestory as far as I remember, neither did Ultima-games what I mentioned before...what they were about...oh yeah, Ultima 5 was about oppression, moral absolutes and corruption of men...and what was Ultima 6 about...racist prejudices and consequenes of the actions the player has taken in previous games.

 

There are pretty much no novels about evil characters. Why then giving the player the chance to perform an evil playthourgh has become one of the core features of nowadays RPGs?

 

There's no serious fantasy novel which has a love story as its main focus. But novels don't need to be about love to have a romantic subplot inside them. Project eternity doesn't need to focus on love, but it would be great if allowed the player to live a love story (if he wanted to obviously, I'm all for player freedom).

 

Let me quote you: "And let's say that pretty much every fantasy story contains a love story too."

 

So now you're saying there are no fantasy books with romance in major part?

[The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread]

My point still very much stands that NOT EVERY FILM, BOOK OR GAME HAVE ROMANCES SO WHY SHOULD THIS HAVE.

 

We dont even know what the story will be, and I trust Obsidian's devs enough to let them make game they want, and not to include "Bioawre-romances", my problem is with the crowd who demands that they include romances no matter what.

 

What if they make a story which doesn't support romance at all? should they just throw romances into it just because SOME people demands it even if it doesnt suit the main character?

 

Because this is not a book.

I'm sick of railroaded stories in videogames. If Project Eternity is going to be like that then the developers should warn us. At least I would stop worrying about this game and I'd look somewhere else for a real role playing experience.

Since this is an RPG I want to be in charge of what my character does and feels. I want to be able to decide if a love story fits the character I'm playing or not, exactly like I want to be able to decide if I'm good or bad, chaotic or lawful, altruistic or individualist etc.

 

Let's say that in the beginning of the story my character is happily married. The plt starts and after a painful event my wife gets killed. I want to have the chance to decide if my character finds the strength to move on (and finds another one to love) or keeps mourning his true love forever. This is roleplaying, not some ready-made experience you have to swallow as it is or screw off.

 

You know, I find this hilarious and indicative of this thread: Jarpie actually started off claiming that there are books without romance in because proromancers were saying all good stories had romance in them, now we are at the stage that its reversed and people are arguing that just because some books don't have romance in doesn't mean it can't and that its a game not a book and so shouldn't be compared. This argument truly has come full circle, hilarious really...

 

Let me put an end to this circling around then.

 

CRPGs are not P&P RPGs. They don't have the luxury of a master that can interact with the players in real time and adapt the story taking every action into account. If I'm playing D&D and I say: now my character goes to a tavern and tryes to pick up some chick at the bar. The master can make up something on the spot or tell me: "Just wait until the next session, I'll prepare something". He doesn't need to make me find the love of my life (or even someone to have sex with) at the first try, but as long as I keep up looking for love someway somehow he must make something happen, just like it would happen in real life.

 

As we said CRPGs don't have a master. The developers might try to give the player as much freedom as they can but they obviously can't cover everything. They have to make choices, which have to comply with the available development time. Some examples:

Should the player be able to become a nobleman and rule a country?

Should the player have the chance to play a musical instrument and become a famous bard?

Can we afford to spend time in developing a full blown naval and underwater combat system to let the player explore the oceans?

Do we need a stealth system to let the player be sneaky and avoid combat when he wants to?

Do we need to give the player the chance to play the game as an evil character? (it means at least one more branch for every quest)

Can we afford to spend time writing the senes and the plot of one or more love stories?

 

Obviously each and every feature would enhance player freedom and would add at least one roleplay option. But the developers have a limited amount of time and resources so they have to make choices. Now the question is: what is important and what it's not? To me romances are a great roleplaying tool and are one of the main feature that a true roleplaying adventure should add. They aren't the most time and resource intensive feature to add too. Strongholds, Stealth system, and evil storylines are much more expansive. And let's say that pretty much every fantasy story contains a love story too.

 

The Hobbit didn't have lovestory as far as I remember, neither did Ultima-games what I mentioned before...what they were about...oh yeah, Ultima 5 was about oppression, moral absolutes and corruption of men...and what was Ultima 6 about...racist prejudices and consequenes of the actions the player has taken in previous games.

[The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread]

Books, films, and games to some extent are mostly vicarious entertainment to me. They allow me to experience something I otherwise could NOT.

That's the main reason why I am not overly partial to romances in my content. It seems redundant in a way. (At the same time I see how others are fond of them of course.)

Though even so I like to write romantic stories in my pastime and I have made a point of the emotional factor and the developing relationship to be a focal point of the narrative rather than plain cliffnotes, and give them months or even years to spark, flower and blossom before thriving - or withering and dying. Love on first sight is quite implausible in my experience, at least when you look at how long it takes for those relationships to break up again; and gets real old real fast. (Congrats to those who did manage to make it work, of course.)

 

Yet how many games, be they deep story-driven RPGs or casual action flicks, take place over the course of several years (ingame time of course)? Most of those romances I see are developed over the course of less than three dates.. and you know what is being said if you give in before the third one. And then you get a meaningless one-night-stand. Well done to me would mean that they have some relevance to the overall story arc. Though what most here want seems to be as aptly described just that - a minigame.

Inter-human relationships deserve better than that. At least in a 'perfect' world. Some even suggested to have them entirely detached from the actual plot as in Mass Effect when the story (what little there was) would constantly grind to a halt so you can muck around with your potential love interests on the ship. Or not. It's your choice! (But no consequences.)

 

And after everything is over? No further mention. Doesn't that help to make them seem even more vapid and empty. Especially if you switch partners in the sequels without anyone even caring to comment on that.

 

An anti-example might be Vampire - The Masquerade REDEMPTION. Yeah, nobody remembers that one, do they? It wasn't great, it could have done a lot better, but at the core of it, it is a story about love that seems doomed from the start, yet endures hardships, countless centuries, and in effect even death itself. Every action is motivated by it.

 

So if you're having these kinds of events/activities, make them.. hard to get.. realistic. Why not even platonic, for a change? Meaningful. Lasting. Until you aren't ready to put up with that.. you.. well.. I don't know.

 

But even that was probably brought forth in previous ramblings that I can't read due to my ADD, so how about closure if we just all agree that Christopher Walken is awesome?

 

Bravo, great posting.

[The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread]

I actually have roleplayed in NWN server for 3-4 years and it was helluva lot of fun coming up different kind of characters with different kind of personalities and backgrounds. It's a whole different experience than playing a set character written by a professional writer but not superior per se.

[The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread]

My point still very much stands that NOT EVERY FILM, BOOK OR GAME HAVE ROMANCES SO WHY SHOULD THIS HAVE.

 

We dont even know what the story will be, and I trust Obsidian's devs enough to let them make game they want, and not to include "Bioawre-romances", my problem is with the crowd who demands that they include romances no matter what.

 

What if they make a story which doesn't support romance at all? should they just throw romances into it just because SOME people demands it even if it doesnt suit the main character?

 

Because this is not a book.

I'm sick of railroaded stories in videogames. If Project Eternity is going to be like that then the developers should warn us. At least I would stop worrying about this game and I'd look somewhere else for a real role playing experience.

Since this is an RPG I want to be in charge of what my character does and feels. I want to be able to decide if a love story fits the character I'm playing or not, exactly like I want to be able to decide if I'm good or bad, chaotic or lawful, altruistic or individualist etc.

 

Let's say that in the beginning of the story my character is happily married. The plt starts and after a painful event my wife gets killed. I want to have the chance to decide if my character finds the strength to move on (and finds another one to love) or keeps mourning his true love forever. This is roleplaying, not some ready-made experience you have to swallow as it is or screw off.

 

If you truly want to roleplay a role, you should look into RP servers in MMOs or for example, in Neverwinter Nights which has lot of such a servers where you can actually roleplay the character you want and have created.

 

The main character in singleplayer games is still character created by the writers and not a character you have created. If writer doesn't want it to have romances, there the game wont have them.

[The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread]

Relationships are at the heart of the human psyche and all fiction, including narrative driven rpgs, deal with the subject on one level or another - Even (and Especially) Planescape: Torment. This doesn't take resources/writing way from the rest of the game, because, from the narrative point of view, it IS the game. Now, not every relationship needs to be romantic, but romances are a type of relationship. And since a huge chunk of our psyche is devoted to attracting a suitable mate, it can be a powerful emotive draw; If it's handled well, a romance can keep the reader, viewer or (dare I say it) gamer on the edge of their seats. If this wasn't the case, Romeo and Juliet would had vanished into obscurity long ago. From a dramatic point of view, romances are a gold mine for creating obstacles, challenges and rationales for characters - Everything that a good (or even great) role-playing game would seek to create. Or are the vocal people on this board simply interested in the grinding of leveling and combat? In which case, why play a narrative driven rpg in the first place?

 

As for diversity and equality: Why should romance options only be available to straight people? Believe it, or not, plenty of players aren't actually straight. Or do you believe (this is an open question, not aimed anyone specific), that THEY should get THEIR own game and stop spoiling OURS? If so, welcome to being prejudiced.

 

Why should every game have romances? Does every film or book have romances? would film like The Treasure of Sierra Madre get any better if we would add romances into it? What about 2001: A Space Odyssey (both book and film), and what about The Thing by John Carpenter?

 

Would it make games like Ultima 4-7 any better if companions of Avatar would be romanceable? Would it add anything to the story of Ultima 5 which is about oppression, moral absolutes and corruption of men (and women)? or Ultima 6 which is about racist prejudices and co-existance, and consequences of what you have done in the previous games?

 

Does your whole life revolve around romantic relationships? if not, why should it in games?

 

There are so many potential stories what are possible in Project Eternity without including romances.

 

Did you read the lines:

 

Now, not every relationship needs to be romantic, but romances are a type of relationship. And since a huge chunk of our psyche is devoted to attracting a suitable mate, it can be a powerful emotive draw; If it's handled well, a romance can keep the reader, viewer or (dare I say it) gamer on the edge of their seats. ... From a dramatic point of view, romances are a gold mine for creating obstacles, challenges and rationales for characters - Everything that a good (or even great) role-playing game would seek to create.

 

The examples I gave didn't have anykind romance at all, and all of those are -very- highly regarded as films and/or books. 2001: A Space Odyssey was sixth in the Sight & Sound poll, which is held every ten years for film makers and film critics.

 

My point was that not every RPG should have romances, so why this specific game should?

 

Very few (no one) is saying that this game -has- to have romances to be good. They are saying stop going, 'It must not have romances to be good'.

 

So to reiterate, we (meaning the people of similar opinion to me, which isn't necessarily everyone but quite a few if not most of the people who enjoy romance options) are saying stop stonewalling it and leave it for the developers to decide.

 

If they have well written, homosexual romances only, great! If they focus on an epic bromance instead, great! If they make me have sex with a dragonand produce half dragon, half man, half awesome hybrids, great! But stop saying they have to not have it. I think I've been pretty open that I don't think they have to have it, and I really mean it, but I think they should use their judgement. (And if I've said otherwise it's likely been me responding to just as extreme comments with the opposite opinion, which I apologize for).

 

Why people keep bringing it up then and opening topics with "Plz include romances!", and not leave the topic alone? CrazyPea's first posting to this thread was clearly written with the mindset that Project Eternity has romances by-default even though devs haven't said will it or wont it.

[The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread]

Relationships are at the heart of the human psyche and all fiction, including narrative driven rpgs, deal with the subject on one level or another - Even (and Especially) Planescape: Torment. This doesn't take resources/writing way from the rest of the game, because, from the narrative point of view, it IS the game. Now, not every relationship needs to be romantic, but romances are a type of relationship. And since a huge chunk of our psyche is devoted to attracting a suitable mate, it can be a powerful emotive draw; If it's handled well, a romance can keep the reader, viewer or (dare I say it) gamer on the edge of their seats. If this wasn't the case, Romeo and Juliet would had vanished into obscurity long ago. From a dramatic point of view, romances are a gold mine for creating obstacles, challenges and rationales for characters - Everything that a good (or even great) role-playing game would seek to create. Or are the vocal people on this board simply interested in the grinding of leveling and combat? In which case, why play a narrative driven rpg in the first place?

 

As for diversity and equality: Why should romance options only be available to straight people? Believe it, or not, plenty of players aren't actually straight. Or do you believe (this is an open question, not aimed anyone specific), that THEY should get THEIR own game and stop spoiling OURS? If so, welcome to being prejudiced.

 

Why should every game have romances? Does every film or book have romances? would film like The Treasure of Sierra Madre get any better if we would add romances into it? What about 2001: A Space Odyssey (both book and film), and what about The Thing by John Carpenter?

 

Would it make games like Ultima 4-7 any better if companions of Avatar would be romanceable? Would it add anything to the story of Ultima 5 which is about oppression, moral absolutes and corruption of men (and women)? or Ultima 6 which is about racist prejudices and co-existance, and consequences of what you have done in the previous games?

 

Does your whole life revolve around romantic relationships? if not, why should it in games?

 

There are so many potential stories what are possible in Project Eternity without including romances.

 

Did you read the lines:

 

Now, not every relationship needs to be romantic, but romances are a type of relationship. And since a huge chunk of our psyche is devoted to attracting a suitable mate, it can be a powerful emotive draw; If it's handled well, a romance can keep the reader, viewer or (dare I say it) gamer on the edge of their seats. ... From a dramatic point of view, romances are a gold mine for creating obstacles, challenges and rationales for characters - Everything that a good (or even great) role-playing game would seek to create.

 

I'm not saying every relationshi[ in the game has to be romantic. What I am saying is that relationships drive the narrative and that romantic relationships have can drive the the narrative too. You mentioned 3 movies in your post - for those three, I gave you thousands that do include romantic relationships and are better for it - everything from Casablanca, the 39 steps (hitch**** original), to The Empire strikes back (... well,,, apart from the whole brother/sister kiss - ewww), The dark Knight (the dilema of bats chosing between his love and Harvey dent). I could list many more...

 

My point still very much stands that NOT EVERY FILM, BOOK OR GAME HAVE ROMANCES SO WHY SHOULD THIS HAVE.

 

We dont even know what the story will be, and I trust Obsidian's devs enough to let them make game they want, and not to include "Bioawre-romances", my problem is with the crowd who demands that they include romances no matter what.

 

What if they make a story which doesn't support romance at all? should they just throw romances into it just because SOME people demands it even if it doesnt suit the main character?

[The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread]

Relationships are at the heart of the human psyche and all fiction, including narrative driven rpgs, deal with the subject on one level or another - Even (and Especially) Planescape: Torment. This doesn't take resources/writing way from the rest of the game, because, from the narrative point of view, it IS the game. Now, not every relationship needs to be romantic, but romances are a type of relationship. And since a huge chunk of our psyche is devoted to attracting a suitable mate, it can be a powerful emotive draw; If it's handled well, a romance can keep the reader, viewer or (dare I say it) gamer on the edge of their seats. If this wasn't the case, Romeo and Juliet would had vanished into obscurity long ago. From a dramatic point of view, romances are a gold mine for creating obstacles, challenges and rationales for characters - Everything that a good (or even great) role-playing game would seek to create. Or are the vocal people on this board simply interested in the grinding of leveling and combat? In which case, why play a narrative driven rpg in the first place?

 

As for diversity and equality: Why should romance options only be available to straight people? Believe it, or not, plenty of players aren't actually straight. Or do you believe (this is an open question, not aimed anyone specific), that THEY should get THEIR own game and stop spoiling OURS? If so, welcome to being prejudiced.

 

Why should every game have romances? Does every film or book have romances? would film like The Treasure of Sierra Madre get any better if we would add romances into it? What about 2001: A Space Odyssey (both book and film), and what about The Thing by John Carpenter?

 

Would it make games like Ultima 4-7 any better if companions of Avatar would be romanceable? Would it add anything to the story of Ultima 5 which is about oppression, moral absolutes and corruption of men (and women)? or Ultima 6 which is about racist prejudices and co-existance, and consequences of what you have done in the previous games?

 

Does your whole life revolve around romantic relationships? if not, why should it in games?

 

There are so many potential stories what are possible in Project Eternity without including romances.

 

Did you read the lines:

 

Now, not every relationship needs to be romantic, but romances are a type of relationship. And since a huge chunk of our psyche is devoted to attracting a suitable mate, it can be a powerful emotive draw; If it's handled well, a romance can keep the reader, viewer or (dare I say it) gamer on the edge of their seats. ... From a dramatic point of view, romances are a gold mine for creating obstacles, challenges and rationales for characters - Everything that a good (or even great) role-playing game would seek to create.

 

The examples I gave didn't have anykind romance at all, and all of those are -very- highly regarded as films and/or books. 2001: A Space Odyssey was sixth in the Sight & Sound poll, which is held every ten years for film makers and film critics.

 

My point was that not every RPG should have romances, so why this specific game should?

[The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread]

Relationships are at the heart of the human psyche and all fiction, including narrative driven rpgs, deal with the subject on one level or another - Even (and Especially) Planescape: Torment. This doesn't take resources/writing way from the rest of the game, because, from the narrative point of view, it IS the game. Now, not every relationship needs to be romantic, but romances are a type of relationship. And since a huge chunk of our psyche is devoted to attracting a suitable mate, it can be a powerful emotive draw; If it's handled well, a romance can keep the reader, viewer or (dare I say it) gamer on the edge of their seats. If this wasn't the case, Romeo and Juliet would had vanished into obscurity long ago. From a dramatic point of view, romances are a gold mine for creating obstacles, challenges and rationales for characters - Everything that a good (or even great) role-playing game would seek to create. Or are the vocal people on this board simply interested in the grinding of leveling and combat? In which case, why play a narrative driven rpg in the first place?

 

As for diversity and equality: Why should romance options only be available to straight people? Believe it, or not, plenty of players aren't actually straight. Or do you believe (this is an open question, not aimed anyone specific), that THEY should get THEIR own game and stop spoiling OURS? If so, welcome to being prejudiced.

 

Why should every game have romances? Does every film or book have romances? would film like The Treasure of Sierra Madre get any better if we would add romances into it? What about 2001: A Space Odyssey (both book and film), and what about The Thing by John Carpenter?

 

Would it make games like Ultima 4-7 any better if companions of Avatar would be romanceable? Would it add anything to the story of Ultima 5 which is about oppression, moral absolutes and corruption of men (and women)? or Ultima 6 which is about racist prejudices and co-existance, and consequences of what you have done in the previous games?

 

Does your whole life revolve around romantic relationships? if not, why should it in games?

 

There are so many potential stories what are possible in Project Eternity without including romances.

[The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread]

No, this is fallacious and I'm kind of sick of seeing this argument. It's like saying, "You can recruit this character, but you can't recruit this one? You need to be able to recruit everyone!"

 

You are mixing issues. No one is arguing for or against character recruitment and the analogy you make is deeply flawed.

 

1) My argument is such: Games with romancable NPCs typically must have more than one romancable npcs to react to player sex choice and sexual reference choice (the one exception to this is games where they make the PC for you - like Torment). This leads to a significant perspective shift into how the player then views the party. The player soon makes a mental note of npcs as "sexable" and "nonsexable." This has little to do with people crying over why you couldn't recruit Drizzt.

 

2) If anything, NPC availability is reflective of developer intent to accomodate PC creation. In other words, devs tend to make enough npcs of varying classes to accomodate player's of any class. If romances are included, then the same philosophy leads to the issue described above.

 

Or..." You have low Int/Cha dialogue here? It should be an option as a response in literally every statement made my the PC."

 

Umm, I don't quite know what you are saying there. But, Cain said thats how he wants low int to work EXTENSIVELY so...

 

No, you don't have to have every Half-Elven/Half-Human with purple eyes and white hair fantasy that people want for NPC's that can be romanced. That isn't a good reason to leave romance out, stop using it.

 

 

Give me a real argument and I might.

 

In fact, the very same thing could even be said about friendships if you want to go down that route.

 

Actually, no. Building friendships and rivalries is NOT the same as trying to find your next hot date. One could argue that one would NEED to build trust between party members to triumph. One cannot argue that you must attempt to bed every female in your party in order to defeat the dragon in the next room.

 

You say I'm mixing issues, I'm not. You just can't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll put it in much -simpler- terms for you: The playerbase who enjoys Cowtipping and at least wants it as a potential option to pursue is large enough that it is a worthwhile time and monetary investment.

 

Saying, 'you can't the absolute perfect cow for everyone' is not a valid reason to not have Cowtipping.

 

Here's an anology for you, I'll reiterate this, it's like saying that companions shouldn't be in the game because not everyone is going to enjoy the companions that are in there. I'm doing what's called, 'drawing a parellel' in this example.

 

You also, again, clearly don't understand the friendship example. The point I was making, was again, that everyone may not like the Cowtipping presented to them, that doesn't all of a sudden mean you cut out the feature.

 

It's unfortunate that I have to be so redundant but you are doing the exact same thing.. so there you go.

 

With same arguments one could easily claim that they should add Cowtipping to the game.

 

Like I said earlier, not every fiction has to have romances.

 

No, not really. cow tipping isn't something that can be used to complement or develop a compelling story (if you disagree, please site me this mighty novel or game that has a focus on cow tipping).

 

Not every fiction has to have romance, but that doesn't mean that there's a reason to explcitely leave it out, either. If you want to disagree with that, then expect me to try and gather counter points to refute it. This isn't a, 'you get to say what you want that's anti-romance while I sit here quietly thread'. It's meant to be, at least in part a debate of the value and the potential incorperation of romance.

 

What about..necrophilia then? Apparently Wikipedia has a list ready: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia_in_popular_culture and we can use exactly the same arguments you have.

 

At least what gets me and probably some others up in arms is that some of the "pro-romance" crowd thinks that romances should be in every RPG by-default which is probably because they do not have imagination to imagine game without one, as they are so used to having romances.

 

You can't deny the fact that if Obsidian would come out and say, yes there will be romances, there would be that certain obsessive crowd swallowing the forum with demands that every possible gender combination should presented, oh and every possible race.