PK htiw klaw eriF

I like romance in RPGs. It can provide different ways for the PC to interact with companions and can allow more role-playing opportunities, just like every relationship(like rivalry, respected enemy, or friendship) can. Most of the time I am quite cynical about it though. It usually ends up being pretty one-dimensional and blatant fanservice. Bioware games especially have this problem and it seems that other than cinematics and 'splosionz, all they focus on are creating characters(if you can call their one-line cardboard cutouts that) who scream "I'm an LI, have sex with me!". I don't like that at all. However this is Obsidian. If there is romance, I'm sure that it will be different from the sappy fanservice that usually occurs, will have a thematic purpose, and most importantly be built around a character that is interesting first and a romance second. Here is a list of suggestions on how to them right. Make sure that they are a well-developed character first, and that a romance plot makes sense with the existing character. Don't just craft a NPC for the sake of romance and don't slap romance on a character who it would be awkward for. Don't tie a large chunk of character development solely to romance. Someone stated that this is usually a problem and I agree. Character development should occur in all types of relationships, not just one type. Have friction occur between party members (also should happen between all types of relationships). If a party member thinks you "stole" a character they were interested in, then they should be pissed off, not just smile and act all happy. TL;DR version; I like romance in RPGs, although I'm usually apprehensive about them in most games. This is Obsidian though, if they do it, it will be well done ans serve a thematic purpose instead of just being blatant fanservice.

There wasn't one in DAO....... In fact, DAO actually had a good dialogue system.

I don't mind a marker indicating a location of some kind(like a cave or town), but I dislike a floating arrow above an objective.

Share the link. Im serious. I just reinstalled DA2 30 minutes ago. Ran through the tutorial. Fraps'd it. It's taking up 25 GB. My second drive is almost full so I'm going to have to play the game in small spurts and convert them as I go. So there's no link yet and I doubt I'll have any substantial produced until a week from now. But I'm gonna do it. I'll assuredly post the link here when I get the first video done. I feel sorry for you. I wouldn't replay DA2 if you paid me. I especially disliked the dialogue system, which made my playstyle impossible.

Mechanics that function well and compliment other mechanics Interesting and well executed concepts Functions well for it's purpose. A RPG should at least allow role-playing, for example. Replayability Content that doesn't scream "filler", and a good amount of good content(I like at least 20 hours)

I don't mind showing the player a meter or some other form of reference for how a companion feels about the PC. It just seems to be an easy way to keep track of how companions feel about the PC, which does get difficult when I'm juggling several playthroughs at once. I also liked the approval spam in DAO actually(since some seem to be talking about it). I always thought of it as a way to get approval points when the PC said something they meant positively, but was taken negatively by the NPC. The gift represented the off-camera conversation where everything was cleared up. I also would have liked insult spam quite a bit too.

I like the idea of critical failures, but would like to see them apply to all checks, not just combat. I think Obsidian can come up with some great consequences for critical failures, but I would not like them to be randomized effects. Critical hits can either do multiplied damage or go straight to HP, and critical success(in regards to saves and checks) can result in various rewards, like a high-quality item when crafting.

It meets my requirements of "never contradicting any character design the player comes up with for the PC", so in that respect, yes it is. However it has a combat system that relies on the player's skill rather than the characters, doesn't allow much ability customization at character creation, and has overly simple progression. In those respects it is pretty damn bad. Back to the point. Look, I thought DA2 sucked. From everything that has been officially confirmed about DA3, I will loathe it with a passion. I donated more money to PE than I usually would have in part because Bioware games can no longer scratch my western party based-RPG itch anymore. With their damn dialogue wheel(which IMO is the worst dialogue system I have ever seen) I simply can not roleplay in the manner I like to in RPGs. I don't think that words can express the hatred I have for their cinematic direction that results in games I watch more than play. I don't think that PE really had anything to do with Bioware or DA3 though. Obsidian had already been working on Wasteland 2, several of the more notable people at Obsidian had expressed a desire to make a game like the great IE games. I believe Obsdian just said "**** all these damn publishers, lets make the game we want to make".

I think that topic deserves it's own thread. It is too interesting of a discussion to get lost in here.

Where is the "It isn't turn-based, please stop creating these threads" option? I don't mean to knock turn-based(I really do like it), but PE was advertised (not exactly the right word, I know) as being a Real Time with Pause game, just like the old IE titles. I think that it should simply be the best RTwP game it can be, and was happy to throw in $140 to make it happen.

I don't think that many people who want romances in this game simply want a sexmance that consists of Hit on NPC ???? Achievement Unlocked! Probably the worst thing that has happened to RPG romance(other than the fanservice romances in certain games) has to be the "Sex=Victory" idea. Sex in a romance is no more a "win" than completing a companion's personal quest and getting a fistbump is a "win" in a friendship. I would guess that the majority of us in the "Pro-Romance" crowd want romances in PE to involve a good bit of character development, player options, party interaction, and good story telling, something that we feel Obsidian can easily do. I would go as far as to say that quite a few of us don't want a fanservice romances that involve a NPC with the personality of a cardboard cutout trying to have sex with the PC every five minutes while telling them how awesome and amazing they are.

I think that attributes should be done either like GURPS(for classless) or D&D 3(.5)E(for class systems). Preferably attributes will not grow at an incredibly fast rate where 100+ is common. Also, all attributes should benefit every class in some way. At character creation I would prefer a "point-buy" system to a "roll" system.

Heroes Unlimited.

I don't think the reason PE was made was to be "anti-DA2", but rather "pro-Great RPG". Although Boware's obsession with creating a cinematic game rather than a RPG probably helped get some people to contribute. It got me to throw in $60 more than I originally intended.

They were "weak" romances as you could not get your hand in their pixel panties. How does not being able to have sex with them make them "weak" romances?

I lol'd.

Instead of "respec", how about any new party member starts out at level 1, and the player gets to level them up to the current level? This way, the player gets to build the party how they wish, without some metagame feature.

This is what I gather the positions are for the more reasonable of the pro and anti crowds. Pro- We want romance in PE because we believe that it can be done well and will enhance our experience. Anti- We don't want romance in PE because we don't believe that it can be done well, it won't enhance our experience, and can take away resources from other parts of the game that we find more important. About right? Both positions seem reasonable to me. The problem when this thread occurs when... Anti- You **** to pixels! Pro- You are a socially stunted ****head! Seriously guys, we aren't five year olds or politicians. We can have a calm, respectful debate about the value of romances(or any other feature) in PE without mudslinging if we just state our respective cases and let the other side state theirs. Also it would help if Obsidian could give us some idea of how much it would cost to implement romances, so we could all have some hard data. Anyways, I would like to see romances, because I see attraction to NPCs as something that quite a few of my PCs would have. Romances would enhance the game for me because it works well with my playstyle.

I think that would be an interesting experience(although I could see it working for all kinds of relationships, not just a marriage/romantic relationship). If possible I would like to see this done.

I think the bolded would occur if people would try to understand why people like or dislike a certain feature instead of lobbing attacks at each other.

Megaversal? Yes. From what I understand, the proposed system is quite similar to the SDC/HP system found there.

I would prefer "Structural Damage Capacity" TBH. Bonus points if you get the reference. It really doesn't matter much as I see it. If anything Vitality should replace Health.

Honestly, I don't like it very much. It seems to be much more complicated than 2-8 damage. Personally I love the idea of a damage range plus a static bonus, like 2-12+5. It shows the player the base range of damage the weapon will do and what bonus they will get to damage.

It should function exactly the same way it does for the party, unless there is a damn good lore reason why it does not.

I prefer the feat system like the one found in 3/3.5E to be better than talent trees.