Morality Games

Annah was truly spiritual.Oh wait. Depends on how fine of detail you look at it. She did resist physical advances, was motivated more loneliness, and feared fate.

This was in the very recent interview with Chris Avellone - Does that look like they're gonna put romances in? It sounds like its going to be ambiguous and more about spiritual attraction, like every Avellone romance.

I think we need a bit more reality here. Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again? He brought up the low-intelligence dialogue and how it could be removed from the game and impliying that romances could be written on instead. ... why? Here: http://forums.obsidi...80#entry1258833 Broadly speaking there are two ways you can approach low intelligence dialogue -- you can edit player lines to make them sound like a stereotype of a mentally handicapped person (which generated some controversy in its time) or it doesn't affect speech patterns but peppers the dialogue with opportunities to say or do unintelligent things (in the case of PS:T, kissing a succubus). The whole idea is a false dichotomy. There are no limited writing resources.

I think we need a bit more reality here. Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again? They aren't. I think the comparison is being made because both are dialog focused additions to the game that not every player will access. There are players who don't want to have romance in the game, for whatever reason. There are players who never play low intelligence characters, either. So both of those are relatively similar examples of text-only parts of a game that are for a limited percentage of the audience... so from that comes the jump that one could lead to the elimination of the other, if it comes down to limited writing resources. That's the range of the debate, at least as I see it. There are no limited writing resources. They could have had both romances and low intelligence dialogue at 1.1 million. The entire idea is a myth.

I think we need a bit more reality here. Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again? He brought up the low-intelligence dialogue and how it could be removed from the game and impliying that romances could be written on instead. ... why?

I think we need a bit more reality here. Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again?

Are we seriously suggesting that people with low intelligence can't have romances...? More importantly, I think people are missing the point of low intelligence. They are unvoiced player lines -- basically place holders -- edited in for laughs.

There is no real confirmation that half-breeds have been ditched altogether as a concept other than hearsay (no offense to Ausir). Regardless, it doesn't seem as though they will be a playable race. Moreover, its not so much that people dislike them as the concept has been pushed to its limits. A world where races can't interbreed is fresher than one were outcasts between cultures exist.

PS:T did have an influence system Sort of. Without mods, there is no way to see it. If you can't see it, there is no way to evaluate which responses or events are netting Morale or not.

I don't think Tolkein (despite the half-elf epithet) had hybrids - didn't offspring of multiple races choose which race to become? Elrond chose elven/immortality, while Elros chose humanity and was mortal (albeit very long lived). That aspect of the lore is vague. Other part elves seem to exist (such as the Prince of Dol Amroth). By default it seems as though offspring between elves and humans share the Doom of Men. That being said, Tolkien did occasionally stress that part elves and part Maiar inherited some of the nature of their parents.

Project Eternity is just a start and that's exactly what I meant by my post - we'll see how that model develops in the future; right now it's insufficient, but Kickstarter is still very much fresh - as we haven't even seen any of the big projects (Wasteland 2, Shadowrun, Double Fine etc.) released yet. I'm guessing here, but I'd suppose that 10-20 million of raw profit (assuming that's what it'll be) would be way more than they got for New Vegas, for an instance. It's only a conjecture, but I'm fairly sure about that. Well, Kickstarter and Amazon take 10% of the donations for themselves. If crowd sourcing evolves into a new form of preordering that everyone participates in to produce projects with hundreds of thousands of backers and upwards ten million in pledges (which is conceivably the future of computer gaming), then either Kickstarter will have to amend its fees or a new venue will be supported specifically for game developers. 10% of the development fund is one thing, 10% of total profits is another thing entirely. Crowd sourcing can attract two types of company -- the kind that is happy to take games and genres "order up" with little expectation of profit (beyond simply making the payroll) and the kind that is looking for some start up capital to grow or maintain a large market share. Obsidian is probably the latter company, though there is some middle ground between the two. Optimistically, the two are about the same. The difference is that Project Eternity demands a much smaller development team that is already being financed with the Kickstarter fund. That means the 20-30 million (or 10-20 million) can be directed toward employing the larger work force on a bigger project. That being said, they could still make sequels to Project Eternity or other Unity-driven IPs "on the side," additional profits of which could assist in the above project. This is all speculative though. I have no idea what Obsidian wants or expects out of Project Eternity in terms of the broader future of its company. It could well be it will just smooth out the odd ends of its payroll with some extra cash for bonuses or a rainy day.

I never said they would; keep in mind that, should PE be successful, they'll keep the lion's share of the profits, whereas they only get a small portion when a publisher tasks them to create a game (for an instance, Obsidian didn't receive any royalties from New Vegas, only a straight payment). On that note, who cares about triple A titles? I never said they would; keep in mind that, should PE be successful, they'll keep the lion's share of the profits, whereas they only get a small portion when a publisher tasks them to create a game (for an instance, Obsidian didn't receive any royalties from New Vegas, only a straight payment). On that note, who cares about triple A titles? Companies that have to employ dozens or hundreds of people. Project Eternity supports at maximum a 30 person payroll. A very optimistic projection for Project Eternity sales would be upwards a million (reproducing the success of the original Witcher). For the expansion in that situation, probably half a million or less. Taxes in the gaming industry are low, but between that and whatever Unity charges apply (which will be low), they would be lucky to get 20-30 million dollars in raw profit. A more realistic projection is about half a million copies and maybe two-hundred thousand expansions, which would go from 10-20 million.

What is "quite well"? A quarter million copies? Half a million? A million? Pretty much any of them would allow Obsidian to finance the expansion and a full sequel, or start a new Unity-driven IP if preferred. By almost any optimistic projection Obsidian can't live off of Kickstarter. If Project Eternity, its expansions, and possibly a sequel were extremely successful, then they might be able to independently fund a triple A title. And if it that was successful, then they might be able to become a self-publishing entity.

You have to understand that knowing what's going to be in a story takes some of the joy out of it. As far as your suggestion goes, that's not a bad concept for an RPG, but I think it would exert too much control over the narrative of what is supposed to be a masterful RPG following a certain tradition.

What could they possibly say? Obsidian has gotten some of it's staunchest support over the years from die-hard old schoolers (like RPG Codex people) who are, in general, hostile to many "modernizations" of RPGs. It would be bad form (and bad for their brand) to directly say anything that would upset these people - and romance is clearly a bad thing to bring up. I mean, I'm betting Sawyer is at least mildly regretful of being too upfront about not doing Vancian verbatim. And Obsidian has gotten a big boost of new forum goers thanks to PE. And, clearly, a swath of them are clamoring for romance with the companions (NOTE - again, for those making assumptions without checking, I'm not one of them) so to blatantly say "no, we aren't including that" would upset a great number of forum goers and cause either a defection or a potential storm of negativity. Rock. Hard place. Best play? Stay non-committal, do what you were planning on doing from the start, and let the chips fall where they may after people get to play the game. Will some people still be upset? Sure. But some people will always be upset - let them be upset for the GAME, not for the concepts behind a game not even really started in development yet. I think Avellone's response is motivated more by amusement than by worry. Enough of the story hasn't been composed to make a specific commitment or clarification as to the nature of romance in the companionship relationships, but the overall style of the Infinity Engine games requires meaningful bonds form among the party and between the party and the PC. If it winds up being something like PS:T or Kotor II, then romance won't feature in the same way as a Bioware game, but it won't be absent either.

We could already look forward to that in any case. Whether or not meaningful bonds would form among the party and the PC wasn't really at stake given the historical context of the company, the writers, and the Infinity Engine games. I'm starting to think that the romance of Project Eternity will be like Avellone's responses to the issue -- evasive. Not that that bothers me.

The average salary in the gaming industry is $79,000. They are talking about employing 20 or so people on this project. Development is going to span 18 or so months. That's $2,370,000. They have upwards $4,000,000. I think they'll be fine.

Well if the only thing you want to post about is romances and relationships between PCs and NPCs, not much more to it then. Then again this forum is, at this stage, rather meaningless. Thinking of 18 months of retreaded conversations and ideas is also depressing, heh. Its not all bad. Its a good opportunity to talk about the Infinity Engine games (and Obsidian and role-playing games in general) in one setting. If nothing else, it has people talking about Torment again.

The irony being that wanting to alter the premise of the story to prevent people from make demands that alter the premise of the story is still people making demands that alter the premise of the story. That's less a reason to not talk about the feature and more a reason to not having certain attitudes about the feature. We dont even know what is the premise of the story, we just know that the main character witnesses something big and crucial which sets up the story in motion so like Jasede said, why people are then demanding that romance is shoe-hoerned into the game and wont let the devs do their job writing the game. We dont even know what it is about and what kind of story it'll be. Unless you have mind reading powers or crystall ball. However, I'm not the one who asserted that romance would, or would not be, part of the premise of the story. I was commenting on somebody else's assertion that people on the forum might try to compel Obsidian to design their games around the romance feature to the exclusion of other aspects of the narrative. Not wanting romance to be part of the story, specifically because it might draw the attention of people who will insist that it overtake the story as a whole, is an equally extraneous influence on the premise of the story.

The irony being that wanting to alter the premise of the story to prevent people from making demands that alter the premise of the story is still people making demands that alter the premise of the story. That's less a reason to not talk about the feature and more a reason to not have certain attitudes about the feature.

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me. Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent. What is subjective about good writing? Apparently some people like James Joyce's ULYSSES. I kid. Well kind of. There's a technical aspect to writing and a creative aspect. The technical aspect is I'd agree objective to a large degree (and yet writers can subvert it to effect as well, so it's not always clear cut); the creative aspect is, however entirely subjective. At least that's how I see it. That's because SHEPPARDS DEATH with respect to the plot is an element of the story, not necessarily the point of the story. That said it is an element of character since being brought back by CEREBUS effects the character interactions that Sheppard has. To me a romance could serve as a good element of defining character between PC/NPC or NPC/NPC but only if it fits the context of the story and fits the characters involved and fits the developers vision for the game in general. It just moves the time forward! And it isn't an element of sheppard's character, because he doesn't care about it, nor does anyone else. You don't just ****ing kill the protagonist, only to bring him back to life minutes later. Sheppard is a brick. We don't see what he experienced, if anything, while dead. We don't see that traumatizing, hell lethal, experience. progress him as a character. And it doesn't matter to the plot either, the time jump was not needed, sheppard's death was not needed. Same with "romance" minigames; they don't serve anything. 'Anything' is extreme. They don't serve the main narrative. Neither do side missions or the mega-dungeon. Side content is related to the exploration of the world,wich,and it has been stated,is a primary goal of the project.Therefore they are necessary,in wich form is another non-specified(mega dungeon aside)matter.Ofc speaking in specific terms content that enhances the rapresentation of the world/of the story takes precedence. Arguing in favor of romances is arguing in favor a very specific matter that might/might not fit.A feature that,however, has the pecularity of having reached mediocrity at best(Grace)(if we are talking about romances in wich the players interacts). I wouldn't call the relationship with Grace 'mediocre' -- or even the one with Annah. Although the romances in Torment weren't exactly a state of being you were trying to achieve.

Maybe just not talk at all ? That'd be an improvement, or at least make tracking things a little easier in this place. Not talking sort of kills the point of running a forum. Obsidian could just run a blog if they wanted to make announcements.

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me. Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent. What is subjective about good writing? Apparently some people like James Joyce's ULYSSES. I kid. Well kind of. There's a technical aspect to writing and a creative aspect. The technical aspect is I'd agree objective to a large degree (and yet writers can subvert it to effect as well, so it's not always clear cut); the creative aspect is, however entirely subjective. At least that's how I see it. That's because SHEPPARDS DEATH with respect to the plot is an element of the story, not necessarily the point of the story. That said it is an element of character since being brought back by CEREBUS effects the character interactions that Sheppard has. To me a romance could serve as a good element of defining character between PC/NPC or NPC/NPC but only if it fits the context of the story and fits the characters involved and fits the developers vision for the game in general. It just moves the time forward! And it isn't an element of sheppard's character, because he doesn't care about it, nor does anyone else. You don't just ****ing kill the protagonist, only to bring him back to life minutes later. Sheppard is a brick. We don't see what he experienced, if anything, while dead. We don't see that traumatizing, hell lethal, experience. progress him as a character. And it doesn't matter to the plot either, the time jump was not needed, sheppard's death was not needed. Same with "romance" minigames; they don't serve anything. 'Anything' is extreme. They don't serve the main narrative. Neither do side missions or the mega-dungeon. How do you know? Do you have somekind of magical crystal ball? They will probably tie in sub-quests and mega-dungeon into the main narrative. Even if so, tying something into the main narrative doesn't necessarily add to the narrative -- it uses the narrative to add interest to the side mission.

Not sure if I do. What else do we have to talk about for 18 months of development?

No. A romance would change/color the entire interaction with the character. It'd be a red thread running through everything if it's to be done with any measure of quality. Let MCA and Ziets use their own discretion. FFS. The stretches that "run through everything" require editing. Eventually it will carry you into completely unique dialogues that require all new writing.