Hiro Protagonist II

Funny how you say you don't discriminate and see unreasonable people, and reasonable people, on whichever side. But then your next sentence is targeting the people who refer to promancers. Your sentence could equally be the same for the people who put up reasonable points against romances and the promancers who bestow some unreasonable argument on them.

Actually change mine to Hell Hound for my Death Godlike Ranger. A dog of death and decay, swirling misting darkness that shrouds their visage. And when it attacks, it sucks the living soul out of its enemies.

Lurky is correct. Your OP is half-arsed and slanted towards having romances. Heck, even the thread title shows the bias. Your 'for' argument lists a whole raft of body chemicals and why it's good and you turn to so called science. And yet, your 'against' argument lists no body chemicals at all. No science. Instead your 'against' argument is Obsidian's explanation why they're not putting it in. So let me get this straight. For argument = Science. Against Argument = Science Obsidians reasons. You conveniently avoid using science for the 'against' argument. Why bother using so called science if you're only going to use it with the 'for' argument and not for the 'against' argument? You need to show the against arguments with your science as well.

A Boar. Extra damage for the tusks.

I obviously am since you responded.

Gloria Estefan's They Can't Take That Away From Me has a better love story. And it's funny because a lot of the lyrics would transfer well to one of Bioware's setting. It seems the Rogue gets a mention at 1.45. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgs-pNp787k

Are these some sort of sexual metaphors?

You couldn't be more wrong. I have even posted that I don't care that romances aren't in. I just don't like the overwhelming troll attitude of those who are staunchly against romance or the over all explanation from Obsidian as to why it isn't there. I am also tired of the constant Bioware trolling from people who clearly either never played those games or blow a tiny miniscule issues out of proportion or think that for romance to be good it has to be half the games plot apparently. Karranthain, made a great post explaining all this to you with Obsidian's explanation. Perhaps you could have read it considering it was two posts below mine. I can understand if you're having problems with comprehension If English isn't your first language. If English is your first language, then I don't know what to say. Maybe you could have someone in real life sit down with you, hold your hand and comfort you as you go through all the points that Karranthain addressed.

A concise explanation of quantum mechanics still isn't going to be "brief." Really? I attended the Professor's presentation with his concise explanation of quantum mechanics which was quite "brief." My last off-topic comment on this as well. Just trying to help someone put their posts across a lot clearer.

Brevity and concision isn't being vague when you get to the point and know what you're talking about. Brevity and concision can get to the specifics. For some reason you think brevity and concision is being vague which truly baffles me. And now it seems you're intentionally going to be vague with brief posts just to prove that brief posts = vague, with this little experiment you have in mind. Okay Lephys. You play your little experiments. And you wonder why people get frustrated with what you post.

Brevity and concision would help. Here's a link to Wikipedia on it and gives an example which is very much like how you post. Also, no need to talk in circles. First, you need to cut out the superfluous words: At this moment, I fail to comprehend exactly how I'm supposed to approach a discussion without frustrating people by not typing posts exactly as others wish me to. so you end up with this: I fail to comprehend how I'm supposed to approach a discussion without frustrating people That would be a start.

heh. I recall that thread but I left soon after it was opened. The last couple of pages really devolved into... dafuq did I just read? And Metiman's posts were eye openers, ending in Bird Cages.

For someone who is accusing others of nitpicking, you seem to be doing the same and taking quotes out of context. I get the impression that even if you had Obsidian do what you're asking, it still wouldn't be enough and you would find fault with them. I call it the sliding scale of explanation and butthurt. The more one explains or apologises, the other person becomes more butthurt.

Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game. http://www.forgottenfutures.com/ The internet is now complete.

You'll probably find a lot of people (especially the old regulars from the BIS days) have a lot of respect for the staff at Obsidian. A lot of creative talent. Some even claim that Avellone is a mad genius. His mind and imagination are somewhere far out in space. If you knew this, you wouldn't expect him to take the mundane approach of doing something mundane to something mundane, which romances tend to be. We'll be much better off if Chris can do what Chris does best. You'll also have others saying, If they knew nothing else about this game they'd have pledged just reading his responses on romances. And everyone here whose raving that he's somehow immature or condescending or he's got it wrong have got it backwards. You're the one's asking for a virtual romance. Avellone is using 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, and the likes of Avellone, will set things apart and give the story depth. The guy is a genius. And some like myself will say, the issue is that as far as rpg romances are concerned, there is little to no innovation over the past decade. Every single instance of it is pretty much based on BG2's approach. There is no innovation in storytelling or mechanism, at all, since the days of BG2. When BG2 did it, it was great. A pretty interesting innovation. Then it stood in place for 10+ years. I'd like to see a return to creative storytelling, turning things on their head. And perhaps in PoE 2, we may see romances. Just not what we expect.

Welcome to the internet. Enjoy your stay.

No, Obsidian is neither the BSN or the Codex. It's somewhere between the two extremes. Both come and visit and soon realise it's not what they're used to and will usually go running back to their respective homes.

A starving person isn't going to knock back a meal despite the ingredients being all mixed up.

No, we're not selfish. We don't want something half-arsed thrown in to cater for a minority who want a half-arsed romance. And that's what I'm seeing a lot of in these types of threads. Some people want romances no matter what. There are also people who don't mind romances, but we don't want it in if Obsidian don't have the time and resources to put it in properly.

Nice strawman, but no. Moving in general is not the same. I can decide to go in this tavern or not. I can do this side quest or not. I can still finish the game without having to do most of the side quests. I can royally stuff up a quest and take a rep hit and it's not the end of the game. I can skip a lot of stuff and get to the end of the game. With the romance dialogue tree, I can't decide to stop following the dialogue tree and expect to skip to the end of the romance. Otherwise, why bother having a dialogue tree when you have an option to skip to the end? It defeats the purpose of romancing the character if there's always an option that says (d) Skip to the end of romance. As I said, it's pre-determined along the dialogue tree and you can't deviate from the path. One wrong choice and it's usually over. You don't have the same freedom of movement in a dialogue tree as you do with moving your character around in the game world. I'm not anti-romance. I don't mind romance in games. I liked the BG2 romances. I just don't see it as an issue if they're excluded from games.

Poison sounds like corrode. Curse could be determined on what type of curse it is. From Wikipedia, The word 'corrosion' is derived from the Latin verb corrodere, which means 'to gnaw', indicating how these substances seem to 'gnaw' their way through the flesh. Doubt if our characters will get hungry. Be good to get a confirmation on these.

There's little realism to them. It's a fantasy idealised relationship that's quite far removed from reality. As kirottu said, "You put "niceness coins" in until you get rewarded with sex." pretty much sums it up. It's a pre-determined choose your own adventure dialogue tree where you go on a certain path and get rewarded at the end. And that is not how it is in real life, because life is all random and one thing you could do today might seem nice but after 50 times, it may get annoying. I wonder what a romance would be like if there was no pre-determined dialogue tree and the game just selected random dialogue options. Would you get annoyed if the npc you're romancing said the same thing 50 times and it comes across as nagging?

On looking at this model, there's a disconnect for me with the bottom half of the model looking more like a dog than a cat. Especially with the feet and most of its feet off the ground. I was looking at some pictures on google with cats standing on their hind legs and their legs don't look like that. I made the below pic with the feet smaller. Oh yeah. I got carried away and couldn't help but put some boobs on my model.