Hiro Protagonist II

Well when you have dead gods as one of the central themes of the story, it's fair to say religion will probably play a part in it. Trying to "take out religion, because some people don't view it as important" as you suggested earlier would seem to goes against that theme. It's not like Obsidian can do a $250K stretch goal for 'Religion' and if the stretch goal is reached, then religion will be added. It sounds rather silly to have those type of themes and story concepts as stretch goals. It comes across as Obsidian has no idea on what the story is about. No. There are lots of topics where people have stated they don't want something particular in the game. Or they do want something and it gets shot down in flames by other posters. What we don't see is those people creating topic after topic wanting to see that particular thing in the game. They move on. As opposed to the promancers who create topic after topic and beating a dead horse.

Adding onto this. I think making romance a stretch goal may be counter-productive to the story of the game if the story didn't intend to have romances in the first place. It would be shoe-horning a romance in via stretch goal and that seems like a bad idea. If the dev's already have a theme and story worked out in pre-development and no romances are in, then going to a KS and adding it in later with stretch goals may hurt the story. I could see people seeing Obsidian as 'selling out' to the lowest common denominator to get more money, when they never intended to have romances in the first place. I'm glad we never saw such nonsense as romance stretch goals in the Kickstarter.

No idea what you mean by religion in the context of a romance thread. And it seems from the updates, things like religion will be part of the story. So kind of hard to exclude it when the dev's have confirmed it will be in the game. Also, I thought you gave me three strikes and weren't going to indulge me any further. Looks like you can't keep away from me and you're back for more punishment.

Again it may be how you view relationships. Other people may not. And I find it a very simplistic and short range view of it. And just because you haven't experienced other types of relationships doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't deeper or more meaningful.

How very simplistic to only see relationships in such a short range. And while romance may be deep for you, someone else may see a different type of relationship as being deeper than romance.

No. You can have deep and meaningful relationships without having them be romances. The mentor and student is one. The parent and child is another. And there may be instances (eg. vocation) where a person can't have a romance but still experience deep and meaningful relationships.

There was the PCgames.de preview which suggested you could do some things different ways. Granted it was the starting dungeon but I wouldn't be surprised if some quests could be solved multiple ways including non-combat. We'll have to see if soloing is easier or harder than some of us imagine. I'd have to agree Stun that my gut feeling is it may be easier if there are non-combat solutions to quests.

That goes without saying. There are games I wouldn't buy on release day due to price and will wait until it's in the $2 bin. And there are many people who do just that. The market reacts and people will buy games at a price they are comfortable with.

Market dictates the price regardless if it's digital or physical. Just because the digital copy might be the same price as the physical copy means there's more demand for digital and the market will react to that in the form of its price. When demand slows down, price will change. You can't blame the developer because the market has a price that you don't like.

Ah Lephys, I do. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're not being constructive. The fact that you brought up casting an illusion spell on yourself, the fact that you suggested you could 'romance' the betrothed that's already with another person to gain access to 'other stuff', the fact that I pointed out that it's just a game of deception and there are various ways to deceive someone by casting an illusion spell as someone else (parents, brother, sister, servant, travelling dignitary, etc) to deceive that person and you don't need to 'romance' them, and now you turn around and say - "I never said anything about romancing them". LMAO. If you want romances in a video game, then it doesn't help your argument when you suggest something like romancing someone's betrothed to gain access to 'other stuff' and then turn around and say "I never said anything about romancing them". There are many NPC interactions you can have that are deep and meaningful and can be explored without having to resort to romance.

LOL. I wasn't taking it out of context. It was a quote I recall which was something similar and took all of 2 seconds to find? You actually said in this thread: "That would be "romance," but wouldn't actually be "a romance," - Lephys in this Thread So you still tried to say it was 'romance' and what now you're saying you don't 'romance them'? Which is it? Are you romancing them or not? And there are various ways to deceive that person. You pick the one that 'romances' them. All it is, is a fake deceptive 'romance' at best. It's sole intention is to deceive the person and nothing else. And countering your points is being constructive.

You could just cast an illusion spell as a servant or any other possible person like their *gasp* parents. No need to cast an illusion spell as a betrothed and then romance that person to get something. That's just an unnecessary convoluted mess. Also, what you're suggesting is a game of deception. Casts illusion spell on your self, deceive the other party with niceties, get the thing you're after (eg. key to the treasury) and escape. All within a short period of time. That's not romance at all. The things people will come up with to romance someone in a video game. Seriously. I've always wondered why people will come up with some ludicrous scenario to romance someone in a game, but they never ask for the many other types of NPC's interactions that they could explore like human psychology, motivations and ethics.

Casting an illusion spell is one thing. That's just a spell. eg. BG2 and being turned into Drow. You didn't say that. Although one has to wonder when reading your whole quote, casting an illusion spell to look like a betrothed and act out that romance because you even said, two NPCs are in love with one another, in a romance thread to get access to other things is something else together. Very little effort at all.

We already know your thought process on this. Casting an illusion spell on yourself to look like someone else so you can romance that person's betrothed and they have no idea you're taking advantage of them. That's some weird creepy fantasy right there. Okay the creep factor just went off the scale.

I don't see how your companions will just be bots. There's a lot of creative talent at Obsidian. If you knew this, you wouldn't expect Obsidian to take the mundane approach of doing something mundane to something mundane, which romances tend to be. And the writers at Obsidian like Avellone can use abstraction to build a dungeon that sucks people like me in and to make an original story. Not to mention a thousand different subplots that opens up with an NPC's experimentation that explore human psychology, motivations and ethics. There has already been enough shallow, cliché, cookie cutter romances in gaming. Only this creative mindset from obsidian, the likes of Avellone, will set things apart and give the story depth. No, rest assured, we won't see bots, We'll likely see the opposite and have memorable characters, dialogue, interaction, creative storytelling, and most likely see things turned on their head I would be very surprised if we don't see any romances in any Obsidian Kickstarter games. Unless the game is a dating sim or the major theme or plot of the game is about romance. It's already been explained that they don't believe they have the time and other resources to implement them well and execute at a high level of quality. I can't see this being implemented in the scope and budget of a Kickstarter game, unless it's the aforementioned dating sim. It's already been confirmed, It would cost more in time and money - by quite a bit. Writing a good romance is not as simple as you think. Also, you are overestimating the ease of hiring a narrative designer that is a great writer, understands RPGs, and is technical enough to use the tools and scripting that is required. Also, writing in a traditional form is very different than game writing - especially when you take into account branching dialogues. There are lots of constraints placed on our narrative designers. Note: lots of constraints placed on our narrative designers. That tells me when you have a lot of constraints, you already have limitations or restrictions. I seriously have to question why anyone would have concerns of the overall level of writing with the companions in Pillars of Eternity and also by Obsidian when they use romances as a standard of writing ability for 'depth' to character relationships for those writers to be measured and judged by.

I take it you either don't run a business or not in any position in management or authority overseeing the day to day running (of their area in) a business.

It's interesting that Bruce likes your suggestion with you bringing up this random response type scenario, because I already brought something like this up in one of the old romance threads.

I care.

I'm hoping it's not going to be a swap-weapon click fest for every battle either. And having four different types of weapons sets (ala IWD2) all loaded up just to get through the game. That would be terrible design.

A question to the OP. Is this what you want? A manual, tooltips, tutorial, etc that explains all this?

So the OP wants a manual with the game that explains all this. Okay.

TBH, I don't really understand what the OP is saying. Would it be that you want the game to be intuitive (and enjoyable to work out) but not dumbed down?

Ask Chris why he doesn't post on the forums like he used to do in the BIS days.

Interesting points Karkarov. My only experience with 3.x was IWD2, NWN and TToE. I never played pnp so I can't comment on that aspect. Looking forward to proponents of 3.x and what their views are, or if they're just min-maxing powergamers.

So you agree with Lephys that you were exaggerating. tsk tsk. If you're exaggerating, how about you mention it. Otherwise it comes across as something you're serious and stand by. How can people on this board take you seriously if you make what appears to be a serious post but then turn around and say, 'oh, but I was exaggerating.' Leaving aside games like IWD where your companions are generated by yourself. Lets talk about rpgs with companions that are already in the game. Do you stand by your position that no one on this board has convinced you of the validity of not having romances in rpgs, having given every possible reason that they could come up with why they feel romances shouldn't be in the game? Also, could anyone convince you with a valid reason you would accept that a rpg with companions already in the game would benefit without romances?