Jump to content

Loranc

Members
  • Content Count

    561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Loranc

  1. Thanks guys, that's what I get for not coming to the forums and seeing what was going on with the development of the game. Life's just been busy!
  2. That would explain it then lol. Haven't been on the forums in forever, so didn't know. Thanks!
  3. Signed Retail Collector's Edition This tier includes: Signed Collector's Box Version of Pillars of Eternity, DRM free for Windows, Mac, or Linux, with DVD and printed manual. Cloth Map of the World. Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Backer Cloth Patch. Pillars of Eternity Mouse Pad. Hardcover full color Pillars of Eternity Collector's Book Early Access Beta Key. Pillars of Eternity T-Shirt. Special Thanks in-game credits. Thank you postcard from the development team. VIP Forum Badge. Digital Strategy Guide. Digital Novella by Chris Avellone. Digital Campaign Almanac. Digital download of the Cooking with Tim Cookbook – An RPG-themed e-Cookbook. Digital Download of the making of Pillars of Eternity Documentary. Digital download of Wasteland 2 DRM free. Digital download of Pillars of Eternity's first expansion pack. Kickstarter Exclusive In-Game Pet. Digital High-Res Game Map. Digital High-Res Concept Art Pieces. Wallpapers for Multiple Monitors. Pillars of Eternity Themed Ringtones. Digital Downloadable Soundtrack in MP3 and FLAC. Digital Collector's Book. Digital Downloadable Copy of Pillars of Eternity, DRM free for Windows, Mac, or Linux. Kickstarter only in-game achievement and item. I've checked my box like 3 times, thinking I'm overlooking it, but there's no physical dvd that came with it, when there should be. I got the manual and everything else, but no physical dvd of the game, how the heck did that get overlooked? Especially after paying 250 dollars lol.
  4. I was going to reply to Merin's posts, but seeing as they have nothing to do with romance, i'll stick to Tigranes point. I'm almost tempted to say it's not worth trying another time Tigranes. I think enough has been said about this topic.
  5. I fail to see how this applies to this discussion at all. Yes, if you're roleplaying then you're making the decisions your character would make, given his personality. No one is disputing this. The issue is whether that personality should be created entirely by the player, or whether it should be handed to the player by the writers. I insist that the player needs to be the one to create that personality, because that's the only way for the player to know what his character should do in any given circumstance. It simply isn't possible for the writers to provide the player with sufficient information on which to base his roleplaying decisions if the player isn't allowed to invent that information himself. Only when the mind of the character is populated by the player can the player be familiar enough with the contents of that mind to make decisions on its behalf while still maintaining character coherence. My whole post and argument was responding to Merin's.(I quoted his post below.) Stating that the player character shouldn't have any motivations of his own, except for the one's that the player chooses for him. And I was explaining as to why this would never work. The player character should and will always have underlying motivations of his own, and since we are talking about a crpg, I don't see how my statement doesn't apply to the discussion. I think you're really grasping at straws if you believe that the entire personality of the character should be completely up to the person playing that character to decide, because that's just not possible. Not just budget wise or time wise, but physically to implement such a system into a game, isn't possible. There are an 'unlimited' amount of personalities, motivations, goals, etc that a character can have. To write an infinite amount of dialogue so that each person playing the game could play the character in a way that matched their personality, just wouldn't be possible. Sure, the player needs to be given options so that they can choose which path best suits the way they are playing their character, but to have a complete independent system that allows the player to have complete control over all the characters motivations, the amount of time it would take to create that game would be abysmal. That's why the writers put in an underlying personality to the characters that they make, subtle motivations that are there whether we wish them to be or not. To say that the writers/developers should have no say at all, in what the characters underlying motivations are is just crazy. They can't make a game without having the underlying motivations mapped out for the character. Have you ever tried writing a blank character? I mean sure we could play it like D&D and make our characters our own way, but this game has to be 'pre made' for us to play it. We can't play as we go, so therefore the choices and motivations that are there for us to pick from, absolutely have to be pre implemented into the game. There's no way of getting around the fact that your character will never have complete freedom. Unless you want to get rid of all the quests, dialogue, beginning, ending, middle, and yeah.. pretty much the whole game. Think about it logically, the text, choices, paths the character can choose, all of it has to be pre planned and pre implemented into the game before it ships. It's literally impossible to implement these things in a meaningful way, to have a rich story, world, dialogue, without having an underlying sense of who or what the character is. Thus, the writers will have to implement their own thoughts, for the underlying motivations for the character. I'm sorry, but unless you want to play a game where all the dialogue options and choices are the exact same no matter how you build your character, so that way you can just 'imagine' in your head that you're playing the way you want to play, this type of implementation is just non existant. It's the reason most games have three options, the evil choice, the good choice, and the neutral or indecisive choice. I'm glad that PE is getting rid of the stereotypical good vs evil theme. If you can, I'd love for you to explain to me how the writers could implement a system into the game that would make the character completely fit the needs of each and every person playing, so that the motivations would fit exactly the person playing the game. How they would go about making the choices and dialogue so that the character always feels like he/she is doing exactly what you want them to do, and how to completely ignore any conflict of this within the game's world itself. Because, I personally don't see how this can be accomplished.
  6. I have to say I agree with jarpie on this. It would make no sense for the characters own self motivations not to factor into the game world at all. In the end, whether you're playing Baldurs Gate or Planescape Torment, your character had their own self motivations that probably completely differed from the person playing that character. Especially in Torment, the Nameless one had several motivations that I could of given a crap less about, but they were interwoven into the character. Even though through dialogue, the player is given choices to choose from, there is still a very underlying concept of the character that is built into the game from the start. We play the role of the character as the developers have portrayed him/her to us. Though we have many options of dialogue to pick from there is not an infinite number of choices to be made, which means we inevitably are forced to choose one of the paths that the developers have written, total free play-ability, or sovereignty in this case of a character, just cannot work in a game such as this. In order for a game to be created where the actual character's motivations were non existent, they'd have to ship us a blank game. Even in NwN if you were playing on a role-playing server, if you ignored your characters own self motivations and purely played the character based upon your own self motivations, then you were not properly role-playing Any true role-player will tell you this. Now as blunt and bold as that statement is, it's true down to its core. That is the very fundamental of role playing, you assume the role of a character. Saying that motivations should be based on what 'you' the player have stated that characters motivations to be, isn't truly rping that character. Being a DM on a NwN server, we encountered this problem many a times. It's very hard to move away from something that you want your character to do, but know in your mind that your character wouldn't truly do that, so you're then forced to properly role-play that choice, by choosing the path that your character would take, or you can choose to not role-play that choice and do whatever you want. Thus destroying the whole point and meaning behind the words role-play Now speaking specifically about PE, we are now taking on the role of a character in the vision of the writers. So, yes we should be forced to have underlying motivations and goals that the character has, whether we chose them or not. Why? Because, otherwise you wouldn't have a game to play at all. Though you have control over the choices and paths the character takes, the underlying ones will always remain. It's what leads you from the start of the game to the end, many choices and paths in between. Otherwise why even bother going to find Sarevok in BG? The underlying motivation for the character was to find his father's killer, whether you agreed with that or not, or no matter what options or paths you chose, whatever you did would eventually lead you to Sarevok. Unless you decided to just not beat the game. So to say that the player character's motivations shouldn't enter into the design of the game at all, really makes no sense to me. I cannot fathom how you could play any sort of role-playing game, including NwN where you are playing your own character, without having an underlying sense of the character. Especially in NwN, your character will always have his/her own motivations, it's just with PE we are now working with the developers/writers characters motivations, which is what gives us our choices and paths we can choose from in the first place.
  7. More buggy than ME2? Can't say I agree with that at all. I bought the CE of ME2 when it came out and I never experienced any bugs with that game, and I've played through it a good 4 or 5 times now. Alpha protocol on the other hand I've had several clipping issues, but my main grievance with that game was just that it was too darn easy. Otherwise it wasn't bad. Wish they'd make a new fallout game, not sure how well New Vegas did sales wise, but I loved that game.
  8. No, they don't. They champion the illusion of choice. Most of their choices have no consequence. Later games from them are limiting choice due to their focus on cinematic presentation and full VO. To be honest though, I don't understand you desire for romance. When you claim you can imagine party members on the one hand, and prefer that to dev designed companion. Then on the other championing dev developed romances. Surely you could just imagine the romance, right? I think ME3's ending had the best champion of choice options ever. Made me laugh so hard when I reloaded to see what the other two options did. Someone said it best on youtube. On a more serious note, you could just imagine the whole game. But, that would suck and be pointless. Some people want combat, others want dialogue, exploration, lore, companions, dungeons, pirates, you know the list goes on forever. Asking someone to imagine romance because it's something they'd like to see in the game is a bit silly. I'm sure there are several things you'd like to see in the game that we'd love to tell you to just go imagine them instead.
  9. no problem with it so long as it fits game, character, etc. Some of the jRPGs have dealt with this idea - Namco's TALES OF GRACES f for example; more or less with 4 main characters Asbel, Sophie, Cheria and Hubert all as kids where they have an adventure (that goes wrong) and then later as adults who end up coming together to deal with some further issues that tie into that original ill-fated adventure. Great...jRPGs... next thing you know folks will demanding that we be able to make heros that look like effiminant teenage girlish boys (with bare midriffs and low cut pants) with blue/pink/yellow spikey hair and carry swordguns. They can have a romance in game with their childhood friend. You will have to deal with an evil imperialistic power. In the end, the government of said power will be ruled by an evil church or a cabal of rich jerks or both. You will travel about till you get a boat and finally an AIRSHIP! You will use the airship to go to a large flyng castle where you will rescue your childhood friend/hopefully future wife from the big bad evil guy with long hair. He will kill her but your righteous rage will fuel our powerful revenge in righting all wrongs before you awake and realize it was all a dream... or was it? Ya... I love where this thread is going.... Obsidian... ignore these people. Romances are a very bad idea. Most of the relationship ideas have been abyssmal. I love how you read the words jRPG and freaked out without reading anything else. Here i'll highlight the important parts to make it easier for you. So... you quoted people talking about non-romance situations being better than having romance in the game... then went on to complain to obsidian to ignore these romance and relationship ideas... when the ideas had nothing to do with romance or relationships in the first place. They were alternatives to relationships and romance, known as brother in arms, or friendship, etc etc. Not to mention your lack of jRPG knowledge is abysmal in of itself. That's like saying all crpgs are based on bio ware games. Which some people probably actually believe that, but most of us who actually enjoy crpgs knows that there's a lot more producers of said rpgs than just bio ware. All of your complaints about what you would call a typical jRPG are a common theme in typical crpgs as well. Though at least with jRPGS you don't have to worry about some perv creating a nudity mod that thousands of people download. But that being beside the point NOBODY was even stating anything about wanting PE to be like a jRPG they were only mentioning a brother in arms theme that a game had, and how it could work well in PE.
  10. Raise your hand, everyone who wants angsty teen conceptions of love. C'mon, show of hands. *waits with hand firmly not raised* Well, see it kind of depends on the story. If the characters were modern teens, it'd be fitting to have angsty teen luv. For this game, it doesn't seem to involve traditional modern conceptions of teens or teen life as its story focus (from what little we know) so wouldn't fit the story being told. Again the story being told should dictate the elements in the story. I'm still in favor for some dark romance. Not sure why all the rpgs these days, have this bright cheery theme to them when it comes to romance. I have no doubt that if romance is added into the game it will be extremely mature and well done. We're not talking teen romance here. He could do an awesome theme that doesn't even involve romance per say. One of my favorite flicks is Man on Fire with Denzel. It really reached into the depth of character and asked the question 'what are you willing to sacrifice to save someone, and what lines are you willing to cross.' Just looking purely at the theme of the movie, I would love for Avellone to break the trend of normal rpgs. Why does the game have to end with the hero being victorious? Maybe he accomplishes what he set out to do, but there doesn't need to be the traditional happily ever after. I guess what i'm saying is that I hope if we do see romances in this game, they do not follow the normal trend. But, I'm perfectly fine with not seeing them as well. I'm looking forward to the traditional trends that Avellone is going to break. I want to get pissed off at my adversaries, to have enemies actually have story and meaning behind them once again. Romance to be a curse and not a blessing, not easily obtainable, and no god forsaken sex cut scenes. Here's to hoping that this game can deliver real emotion to the player, make me care about the main character, my companions. Make me hate with a burning rage those that are my enemy. It's been a long time since there's been a truly hate-able character in a crpg, or even a main character that I gave a crap about.
  11. People are the real monsters, I think we need to see some more politicians in this rpg.
  12. I get it, don't add anything onto the armor. Armor is armor for the sake of being armor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jsp1Nh0Cc8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk
  13. I can't find, it's buried somewhere beneath all the rubble on the forum. I know I read it and wish I could find it again. He was saying something a long the lines of the main character suffering and will continue to suffer throughout the story, having no real options to be in a romance with someone. I just wish for the life of me that I could find that quote, if I had a better memory... or maybe someone else remembers reading it on the forum and knows where it was.
  14. Because I am sure someone would have rubbed that in my face pages ago :D @Jarpie No I did say if you take your "ressources"-argument seriously, then you would shoot against other features than romances, like for example the low-int-dialogues. My diagram would look like this, so for me both reactions are with emotions to what you did. For me romances can be exactly that. Minsc: Hamster in microwave yes --> Friendship reaction angry --> dialogue accordingly Hamster in microwave no --> Friendship reaction happy --> dialogue accordingly NPC2: Comfort when sad yes --> Friendship reaction affection --> dialogue accordingly (possible romance much later) Comfort when sad no --> Friendship reaction distant --> dialogue accordingly I know I read it... and I will find it, it may take me a while but i'm looking. Though i'm unsure now as to if it was Avellone or Sawyer who stated that the romance wouldn't fit the main character. Avellone also tried to get the romance removed from other games such as Alpha Protocol. Which tells me he is not in favor of them. But, let me try and find that quote, I'll find it eventually.
  15. First of all nobody said they hate writing romances. Secondly if ressorces really are your argument there is no way you can support something that takes this much more ressources than romances and is clearly optional as well even if they like writing it.. If you do not shoot against it, then it shows that your argument of ressources isn't that important to you. Then what were you trying to say with this? "If you really worry about ressources in optional features go where a lot of ressources are needed - for example redoing whole dialog for low int or low charisma. probably 50 times more dialog affected, right?" Low-intelligence dialogue actually adds to the whole game-experience from start to finish with all characters, story and the quests - unlike romances which only adds for the said companions if they are meant to be completely optional (it doesn't take anything else off from the game, such as anything from the quests, the story, the substories/-plots, interaction with other characters, interaction with other npcs etc. and wouldn't take any extra resources - the point which has been recountered before). Besides, people have asked low-intelligence dialogue a lot, and that's something what devs have said they love to do, devs also have said that they dislike to write romances. Those were the points we have argued against romances and how they would take the unnecessary amount of the extra resources. I actually hate the idea of low intelligence writing, even though I believe it should be in the game for the sake of making sense rp wise. The reason I hate it, is because I will never use it. I have never in my life and history of playing an rpg, made a character with under 10 intelligence. You get to thinking about the wasted hours it takes to implement this, the things they could of added instead. And I start to understand why people are so against adding romance into the game. Coupled with the fact that it probably has never truly been handled well in the history of crpgs. (this statement was about romance and not low intelligence writing.) So you're in favor of censorship due to people having strong opinions about a subject? Banning a topic just for the sake of not 'feeling' like dealing with it, is a bit childish to say the least. Obsidian needs to man up on this topic already, to assume at this point that they don't know if they have the 'budget' for it or not is ludicrous. They either need to say no or yes, and then this whole thread becomes less important. I expect at the Obsidian office Chris is banging his head against the wall , there's probably even an indent by now. As I'm sure I read somewhere that he hates romances. It's also been stated that it won't fit the main pc, not the vision that Chris has of him anyway. So, if it won't fit the main pc all this talk about more dialogue and all this extra writing is pretty moot. Unless what we're arguing is this 'Chris Avellone's vision of the Main Character is wrong and he should have 'my' vision instead', as harsh as that sounds, it is what it is. He specifically stated that the main PC would not be fit for a romance. Unless you're stating that it should be 'forced' into the game, most of these arguments and 'points' so to speak, are a waste of finger wiggling. I'm all for romance, but it has to fit the story, and it must make sense. Seeing as the option for the main pc having a romance is out the door, are we really saying that we want it forced into the game? All these folks arguing for romance, is that where we're at now, that it should be forced into the game even though Chris stated that it doesn't fit the main PC and that he doesn't enjoy writing romance in general? Of course it doesn't have to be the main PC, i'm all for side quest romance. Romance being a broad term and all, there's plenty of ways to implement it into the game. The most difficult way is to add it via the main pc, that does in fact require the most amount of work. Are we starting a new topic? If so, please let me know. We'll call it the 'Chris Avellone's vision sucks, and we want him to envision us a new main pc.' Then we can get to debating that topic, which should be slightly more interesting than the current topic.
  16. Don't get me wrong I loved the dialogue between your main PC and Aerie, up till the end. If you look at the dialogue options under my spoiler above and remove the last 4 or even the last 6 lines of text, you wouldn't really miss anything. Especially the last 4 lines, also the romance abruptly ends if you sleep with her, and you have no way of knowing this! After the sex dialogue option, there's one more line of text and that's it! No more romance or anything until the expansion. There are so many things they could have done better. Made the romance last through the game, instead of having it be time stamped. You could play the game and finish the romance in the first half of your play through, it just felt kind of pointless. It's probably why the guys at PE said that the only way they would do a romance is if they could afford to do it the right way. I think it goes without saying that, if they decide to do a romance in PE, it will put the rest of the games to shame.
  17. I read his post, it just had wrong data. There's a big different between 60 lines of text and 30. I didn't feel that the bg2 romance really built up in a realistic way. I'm not saying I hated it, just saying that it lacked a feeling of depth to it. But, perhaps I'm one of the few that share that opinion. I just felt that the story wasn't really woven into it, and it felt more fan service than anything else. I didn't originally think this way but when someone mentioned it, I took a moment and thought about it. It added nothing to the game whatsoever. It's funny because I'm stuck in the middle between the 'no romance' and the 'romance' crowd. If you read my posts you'll see that I'm really on both sides of the fence for this. I agree with both parties, both have valid points from time to time, which makes it difficult to pick a side. The problem with Bg2's romance was several things. The events could spawn anywhere, and that could easily ruin the RP experience. All of them ended in sex with a black out cut scene, though you had the options of not sleeping with them (which was the better choice in certain cases.) Though I'm unsure of the female romance, I never played a female char in Bg2. Lack of depth, you learned everything about her from her friendship dialogues, all the romance dialogues were silly.... six dialogue choices after you're considered boyfriend/girlfriend. I just don't feel that the writing was well done or that the depth was there. Just my opinion.
  18. Don't think anyone really needed to make that point as I'm pretty sure it was well understood that if the PC had a romance option that they'd have to add in dialogue for it. I have to agree that the romance was quite lacking in depth with this one. 1. Aerie's romance not deep ? I have to disagree. Just to get things right: Aerie has (ToB included) about 60!!! so called "love talks". I builds up slowly and is deep for that very reason. Additionally, you can end the romance at various points with the wrong decisions. In comparison: Bastila in KOTOR has about 10 such dialogues. 2. It's pointless to discuss percentages. 10%, 20% or 25%... that's no what really matters. What matters is: Friendship comes before romance. That's why it's important for the romance to build up SLOWLY to be realistic. More like 14 lines from when the flirtation starts, and about 33 lines all together, which most would be considered friend dialogue. Not sure where you're getting the 60 from, it's barley half that.
  19. I felt as though no one was ever going to tackle this and though it wasn't directed at me but at another poster, I figured I'd add my 2 cents into your comments and questions towards the other person. I have to agree that the romance was quite lacking in depth with this one. Actually loot can take quite a long time, depending on how they tackle it. If you want to talk about different variations of the same weapon/armor, different textures, etc etc. I think you'd be surprised with the amount of time it can actually take to make items, unlike the massive trash Diablo 3 threw at us. I'm expecting a more refined approach from Obsidian. Depending on the quests.... I'm just hoping PE can make them interesting again. Of course main quests normally always are, but as of late, side quests seem to be nothing but a way to gather exp, and add absolutely nothing to the game itself. Keeping in mind that once again we have no idea how much of that money went where. Seeing as it was published by interplay and black isle studios who knows what 'stupid' demands they made for the game. A lot of that money could have went towards advertising, or anything else. (Fun fact; black isle studios just recently revived itself after being shut down for 9 years, Chris Taylor is now head of the team. Being one of the two remaining members from the past.) I have to agree that the polls on this forum really do account for nothing. You figure at least 50% of the people who play and buy this type of game will never visit a forum. And 50% is a very minimum number. There are about 20 members on each page, 1,828 pages, totals out to 36,560. Now if you take out multiple accounts, people who didn't actually back the project, etc etc. You get an idea of how many people actually post on a forum. Far less than half who paid for the game. I have to agree with this as well. T&A Hollywood/Bioware style. You see it a lot in tv shows as well, random sex scenes for nothing other than eye candy enjoyment. Though I will admit it doesn't bother me while watching a movie or tv series, to see the random flash of T&A. With that being said, I'd prefer they kept that filth out of my rpgs, and leave it on the big screen. There's always a possibility that it wouldn't cut anything from the main game either. They already stated several times it won't be added if it's not in the budget. Looking past the main game and the amount of money that's left, it would depend on what they'd decide not do to add it in. Of course we'll never know, because that decision is up to them. It would be interesting if they did post something like 'after the main game is completed we have budget left over to do a few other things, would you guys prefer x, y, or z.' Once again I don't think any of the main game will be disregarded, I believe that if it's added into the game it will take place of things that would have been added after the main game was completed. But to answer the question anyways, no it shouldn't be disregarded.
  20. I agree, one of my favorite romances was FF7, with Cloud and Aeris. It was interwoven into the story and the interpretation of the whole theme was left up to the player. (Some people say there was nothing between them, others say there was.) They already plan on doing so much with companions, and there was a statement sometime back where I believe Chris said that romance just wouldn't fit the main character. Now while I'm all for a PS:T style romance, I honestly get the feeling that if it's added into this game, it will be due to pressure from backers and not something that they wanted in the game. But, we'll just have to wait and see.
  21. You really like the 'wait a bit and repeat arguments that already received a counter point',eh? Player choice is not an excuse to put in whatever you want.It's still the designer who has to choose what gets in and he should choose what makes sense. Even if it was half/ a third of 2-3 months just for the romance path for it'still quite a bit.And we are also talking about 'a pretty quick writer' here,eh. This is true, but i'm still and have always been on the stance that romance should be added in the format of PS:T. If it makes sense and is true to the story put it in, otherwise it'll look forced and will annoy me. My main reason for posting was just to let people know that it's not going to take 2 or 3 whole months just to write a romance. I just felt like people were getting the wrong impression of the length of time it would take.
  22. Where did they say this? Link or it didn't happen. You do exactly the same by asking to sacrifice romances for spells and side quests. You are no better. Here: Nick K: “Romances, are you planning on developing them in Project: Eternity as well?” Feargus Urquhart: “Romances take a lot of effort, and I don’t want to be cagey on romances at all. We don’t want to make them a stretch goal, it’s just a question of if we feel comfortable with the funding. We have to do them right. Some people were giving us flak about, you know, the goal to get to the first companion, class, race, and things like that. They weren’t completely wrong in their criticism, but we don’t have nefarious reasons behind it. If it’s a pretty in depth companion Chris Avellone, who is a pretty quick writer, is looking at 2 or 3 months just for writing it up.” Spells and side quests add something. Spells add to gameplay, defining the character and level up options, side quests add to definition of character(s), world and gameplay + hours. Romances don't need to be added to make anyone deep. And making them into minigames just makes them into romance simulators, they don't add anything. Hate to say it but that 2-3 months bit is about writing up a new companion not about writing a romance. This is a sentence completely within itself "Some people were giving us flak about, you know, the goal to get to the first companion, class, race, and things like that. They weren’t completely wrong in their criticism, but we don’t have nefarious reasons behind it. If it’s a pretty in depth companion Chris Avellone, who is a pretty quick writer, is looking at 2 or 3 months just for writing it up.” See jarpie's post and my previous one. Don't separate arguments to make them fit your logic. Every way a character is written is an entirely different character. You have the romance choice and all the sub trees that brings, and the rival choice and its sub choices, and the friendship choice and whatever choices that brings etc etc. You have to change the character according to what path the player chooses. Unless you want a darling at the end. I wasn't separating anything to fit my logic. I was just reading what was said and objectively understanding that they were essentially talking about two different things in their statement. I have no idea how long it would take to write a romance, but if you actually take a moment to read that quoted sentence you can understand that the 2-3 months that was mentioned was about creating a new companion in general, not just one aspect of that companion. They were pretty annoyed from the sounds of it at the amount of flak they were getting. Until we get an official word, there's really no way of telling. But, you can't honestly get the idea that it would take 2-3 months just for the 'romance' part by reading that statement. If that were the case a companion would never get written, because then you'd be talking 2-3 months for the friendship route, 2-3 months for the... etc etc. 2-3 months is a general term used for the entirety of a companion, how much of that time specifically would be allocated to romance? I have no idea, but not the entire 2-3 months.
  23. Where did they say this? Link or it didn't happen. You do exactly the same by asking to sacrifice romances for spells and side quests. You are no better. Here: Nick K: “Romances, are you planning on developing them in Project: Eternity as well?” Feargus Urquhart: “Romances take a lot of effort, and I don’t want to be cagey on romances at all. We don’t want to make them a stretch goal, it’s just a question of if we feel comfortable with the funding. We have to do them right. Some people were giving us flak about, you know, the goal to get to the first companion, class, race, and things like that. They weren’t completely wrong in their criticism, but we don’t have nefarious reasons behind it. If it’s a pretty in depth companion Chris Avellone, who is a pretty quick writer, is looking at 2 or 3 months just for writing it up.” Spells and side quests add something. Spells add to gameplay, defining the character and level up options, side quests add to definition of character(s), world and gameplay + hours. Romances don't need to be added to make anyone deep. And making them into minigames just makes them into romance simulators, they don't add anything. Hate to say it but that 2-3 months bit is about writing up a new companion not about writing a romance. This is a sentence completely within itself "Some people were giving us flak about, you know, the goal to get to the first companion, class, race, and things like that. They weren’t completely wrong in their criticism, but we don’t have nefarious reasons behind it. If it’s a pretty in depth companion Chris Avellone, who is a pretty quick writer, is looking at 2 or 3 months just for writing it up.”
  24. They re-released it on the pc with a lot of enhancements to the game, just this year. And I wouldn't save any of them. I don't think I've come across that one rpg that pretty much tells me there's nothing left to look forward to in rpgs anymore. And until I do play that 'one'... I'll just keep on hoping it gets made sometime in my life time.
  25. Want to know where most of the money goes for triple A games, then check this out.
×
×
  • Create New...