Jump to content

HereticSaint

Members
  • Posts

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HereticSaint

  1. I think anyone who would despoil what happened with this Kickstarter has ulterior motives. Sure, 4 million may not be ground breaking comparative to, "triple A" titles, but it isn't entirely devoid of benefits. I realize people already know this but -- http://www.alteredgamer.com/pc-gaming/49397-what-is-the-difference-between-developers-and-publishers/ is a great example of being free of the bonds of publishers. On top of that, Kickstarter in of itself was good marketing for the game. Also, honestly, who purchases a game now a days based on commercials on T.V.? Sure, publishers may explore other avenues but there's a lot to be said about watching gameplay reviews (On YouTube, for example), as well as other free avenues of advertisement. Looking forward a platform like Kickstarter will only get larger too. I personally absolutely hate social networking such as Facebook, but something like Kickstarter could easily get that huge. A Facebook where people get to fund things that they want and not just accept the closest reasonable compromise provided.
  2. How do we go about this? I'm hoping you have this all planned out already, right? Right? See post #256 Now we just need to hope they release the modding tools to make this possible. There's always Kickstart too. I mean, who wouldn't throw money at a project like that? It's no romance, but I can always give you a hug if you so desire? All you need to do is cover the traveling expenses.
  3. And again you don't understand why we want them out. Or you do and you don't want to admit the real reason you want them. Any interaction in the game is NOT a social interaction, not for the people playing anyway, it's part of the narrative. The characters socialize. You can immerse yourself all you want while you play, but you are not socializing. And a writer, one that doesn't **** at the thought of the characters they write, can't just write down whatever idea comes to their head. They have to take their time to think it through, them and their peers have to review it before implementing it. And that costs time, money and other resources like QA. Complexity is irrelevant. The endings to ME3 were complex, they anyone with a brain asking WTF just happened. But they are crap and full of plotholes. Depth can't be grouped together with complexity either cause they don't go hand in hand. And you still fail to tell me what is depth, and why is it so paramount. If you want a story that involves a romantic relationship, go ahead and make a thread proposing your premise of that story. But once again you ask for romances not a certain premise or plot. You are asking for added content, as in additions and features. If you assert I am asking for romances. Then that means pretty much everything else in the game, ranging from friendships, to tactical combat, to diversity in gameplay choices are all things I'm asking for as well. If you don't want romances as an option, then why don't you go ahead and make a thread and propose your premise of that story and how it makes sense to explicitely leave that out. I'll be waiting. Also, I'm rather sure we both understand what depth is and why it's relevant. Shallowness is a bad thing. The Bioware romances in Dragon Age 2 are shallow, a primary example would be Isabella. It isn't difficult to understand. Everything is irrelevant. According to you, clearly. Also, stop saying what I do and do not want. Clearly you don't understand, in fact you did exactly what I said you would do in the post you quoted of me and didn't even bat an eyelash while doing it. Which isn't only hilarious, but also kind of sad. So, you say I don't understand you because (Insert reason here), I say you don't understand me because (insert reason here). Glad that all worked out. And then you tell everyone that we make ad hominems? Right..... You know you didn't argue any of my points. You just generalized; and put character interactions in the same category as pawns on a battlefield? Not to diminish tactical combat of course, but they are not the same thing. And the rest of your post doesn't say anything, It's just "I'm right you are wrong." without anything to back it up. I'm not going to debate with you when you are telling me what my stance is. Don't misterpret that as a, "I'm leaving this topic" either, because I'm not. You didn't actually refute any of my post from the one you quoted of me quoting you, hell how could you when you are taking what I said and changing it to whatever you want it to be.
  4. Saying, "There's lots of options" isn't the same as saying, "There's lots of options and we aren't going to have romances as one of them". For an example of something they've explicitely ruled out, attacking while prone is one of them.
  5. If you read that from a non biased perspective it doesn't imply that there won't be romances. It implies that games don't need romances to have worthwhile interactions (changing deep, complex to worthwhile, because people clearly don't understand what I've been meaning), which I agree with. If they ruled anything out explicitely at this point I'd be surprised.
  6. And again you don't understand why we want them out. Or you do and you don't want to admit the real reason you want them. Any interaction in the game is NOT a social interaction, not for the people playing anyway, it's part of the narrative. The characters socialize. You can immerse yourself all you want while you play, but you are not socializing. And a writer, one that doesn't **** at the thought of the characters they write, can't just write down whatever idea comes to their head. They have to take their time to think it through, them and their peers have to review it before implementing it. And that costs time, money and other resources like QA. Complexity is irrelevant. The endings to ME3 were complex, they anyone with a brain asking WTF just happened. But they are crap and full of plotholes. Depth can't be grouped together with complexity either cause they don't go hand in hand. And you still fail to tell me what is depth, and why is it so paramount. If you want a story that involves a romantic relationship, go ahead and make a thread proposing your premise of that story. But once again you ask for romances not a certain premise or plot. You are asking for added content, as in additions and features. If you assert I am asking for romances. Then that means pretty much everything else in the game, ranging from friendships, to tactical combat, to diversity in gameplay choices are all things I'm asking for as well. If you don't want romances as an option, then why don't you go ahead and make a thread and propose your premise of that story and how it makes sense to explicitely leave that out. I'll be waiting. Also, I'm rather sure we both understand what depth is and why it's relevant. Shallowness is a bad thing. The Bioware romances in Dragon Age 2 are shallow, a primary example would be Isabella. It isn't difficult to understand. Everything is irrelevant. According to you, clearly. Also, stop saying what I do and do not want. Clearly you don't understand, in fact you did exactly what I said you would do in the post you quoted of me and didn't even bat an eyelash while doing it. Which isn't only hilarious, but also kind of sad. So, you say I don't understand you because (Insert reason here), I say you don't understand me because (insert reason here). Glad that all worked out.
  7. First off, see guys, that's what I'm talking about. You don't understand why we don't want them. Where in my example does romance dominate the plot? It's weaved into the plot. It has to affect it somehow, it's not just being snarky for one line(which will still help define the character). I also didn't say that it's the best or worst plot with romance possible. You want romances. That 's' at the end is very important. We want a good story, if that involves a romantic or other kind of relationship between the main character and some one else, that we will accept. What you guys want is romances with different characters as added content. That is the first thing that makes them into minigames. Further than that, being deep and complex is irrelevant. Complexity doesn't make things good or bad. It's implementation that matters. Besides which, I still wait for examples of what makes a relationship deep. Writing many romances takes time and resources which could be focused on one thing to make it actually good. Lastly, every relationship affects the characters involved, and if those characters are involved in the plot in some way they are affecting the plot. An enemy has a relationship with the pc; that relationship is hostile and it's going to affect the plot accordingly. A good friend may come and save you at the right time, even if he couldn't before. A lover might sacrifice herself in order to save the protagonist in the beginning or the end of the story and that affects the plot. Neither the friend or the lover dominate the story, but the relationship has an affect. Please don't interpret me wanting something as me wanting to force it into the game. You are basically trying to represent the two as one and the same. While we are at this point, I could just as easily say you don't understand why we want them in. We could both, at any point say that for not understanding the other one is ignorant (or worse) or at that point try to misrepresent their position and use the excuse, "Well they don't understand". I don't want romances with other characters anymore or less than I want friendships, rivalries and other interesting character interactions with NPC's. I however, see absolutely no reason to not voice my opinion when others are voicing theirs in the opposite direction of what I feel is healthy and constructive in the game. In the end will either of us decide if something is in the game or not? Probably not. If there is a chance it will, I want my opinion to be known, and still would even if I was literally the only person with said opinion. To make my point, people have said that good romances would need an unreasonable amount of resources directed at them to be effective and wouldn't be worth the end cost. This is absolutely untrue, especially when compared to other similar social interactions between characters. Being in a close relationship with someone shouldn't change anything more than a friendship would besides other potential romances, if any. A lot of the friendship dialogue could easily be used in the romances or slightly modified as well, which also could easily reduce the amount of time required to write said dialogue lines. (Quick side note, I'm not saying this is how it should or should not be, pointing out why this is a bad argument to not have them) As for something being deep and complex being irrelevant? Um, no, it isn't. If a game tasks me with killing a dragon it isn't the same as a game asking me to gather rat teeth, just by default, even if they both have equivilant effort put into the writing. Yes, all relationships impact the plot and that's exactly why there's no reason why it should be arbitrarily left out on the whims of some people. I feel the same way for the inclusion, just so you know. I already said, the reason I'm posting is to form a balanced opinion if anything is drawn from the forums. If anything, to me at least, it would take more writing to make sense of why my character cannot have a deep relationship with anyone than it would to actually write a relationship.
  8. Please do, I'd love to know how I rate! On an unrelated note, is there a possibility that you scale back on the constant quoting a maybe trim the the quote pyramids down a bit. This thread is unreadable as it is. Don't worry komrade! The master of minigames will bestow judgement upon you. Saying everything in a RPG is a minigame is just. What. Have you seen the posts he was responding to? Do you understand the context of why he said that? Doesn't seem so, I could be wrong though. Point is, good romance dialogue and interaction is not a mini-game.
  9. Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways. As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less. Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames. To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary! You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****. And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc. And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that. I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility. We'll compare who results to ad hominem first, the most and who actually posts constructive, intelligent, well thought out, legitimate posts that don't reek of self importance. I already know who's going to sound more reasonable and mature out of that pile. Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright. Did you go through my posts yet? I don't really feel the need to. From what I remember, in the last thread we reached some vague agreement that romances could potentially be alright if done for the right reasons and done correctly, but then that all fell apart when the next thread started. When I put your name in there I was explicitely going, "This guy is always bad and unconstructive", I was merely trying to be more fair to both sides. I do think we can both be reasonable about the subject, that just isn't necessarily what happened for the last few pages before this...and maybe further back in the thread? I don't know. If you mean more from a validity and refutement standpoint, half the posts I made in the last thread were never refuted, I don't exactly expect people to sift through them all. If I feel the need for a specific argument to be brought up again I'll repost it and you should do the same.
  10. Personally, I'm fine with whatever Obsidian decides, if it isn't at all impacted by the forums. Which I think will be how they go, but am I entirely sure? Not really. I do think it's silly that there are people who go, "No, there absolutely must be no romances, no matter what." which, even if not meant has been said many times.
  11. Go ahead and make that list. You'll just dub everything to what suits you. And this here is the problem you miss. If someone was asking for a Love Story, I wouldn't like the idea, but they are not asking for add ons. They are not asking for endless possibilities. This is what a plot involving romance may look like from afar: "A dragon appeared and the hero killed the dragon to save his lover." And here is what most of you want: "A dragon appeared and the hero killed it. While on the journey to the dragon's lair, the hero had a chance to get involved in a romance with companion 1 or companion 2 or companion 3." And that is just an elaboration of the above. You group bioware and japanese visual novels together. And again Japanese visual novels, which involve romance, they have that weaved in the plot, not as minigames. I absolutely 100% disagree with your assertion that romance can only be in the plot if it dominates the plot. Now, before you flip out and try to turn this around on me, this isn't the same as saying that it has to be in the background as a mini-game either. There can be a happy medium, a happy medium that would take just as much time to develop and flesh out as a real, deep, meaningful friendship. If you are against romances for any reason other than the potential of people who enjoy later Bioware games from coming to play this game and frequent this forum then you should also be against friendships. Why? Because, again... they can take just as many resources and just as much time to get fleshed out and done correctly. Neither romance, nor friendship has to dominate the plot, that doesn't mean either of them have to default into mini-games.
  12. Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways. As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less. Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames. To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary! You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****. And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc. And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that. I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility. We'll compare who results to ad hominem first, the most and who actually posts constructive, intelligent, well thought out, legitimate posts that don't reek of self importance. I already know who's going to sound more reasonable and mature out of that pile. Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright. I tried to provide you with the link from the forum's search engine for my posts but apparently it's not possible. Let me summarise what I've been saying and arguing: I have been arguing with the time on how long it takes them write companions and how long development time they have, I have argued with the budget which is very limited, I have argued with the "Not all fiction must have romances" (which they still don't) and have asked why this specific game should, and haven't gotten any other arguments than "because we want it" or "it makes them deeper!", I have argued with the type of the crowd it brings here (which haven't been countered). I have time and time again have said that if they do romances and they are done like in PS:T for example, I could live with that but I still would prefer not to have them. When some of us have criticized Bioware writers, you run in for their defense so what we should think of that when you first say you dont want the romances they do and then defend them? Just because something brings a certain crowd doesn't mean it should be left out for that reason alone. That's an awful reason, just as bad as explicitely putting in a feature to draw in a crowd. I think romances could very well be worth the development time and resources necessary to make them, I also think that about a lot of other features, but those aren't being contested currently. Not all fiction needs romance, but not all fiction needs friendships, or combat, or anything else, again not a good reason. As for Bioware, I haven't defended Bioware besides two examples: A) I've said Dragon Age: Origins is a good game, which I believe, I enjoyed it. I'm not saying it's great, but I think it is good. and B) I think Dragon Age 2 is ages better than Dungeon Siege 3, I said that for very specific responses where people were saying, "Dragon Age 2 is the worst piece of garbage ever".
  13. You of all people accusing others of passive aggressive behaviour and ad hominem attacks is frankly hilarious. HereticSaint, meet Strawman: Because rape is cool: Passive aggressive bullcrap: Ad hominem: Well, at least you've edited this one by now: Yeah, real intelligent posts that don't reek of self importance there, chief. Keep it up. I'm not going to debate with someone who takes things out of context and completely leaves out the posts I responded to. Thanks for the post though. As an aside I would enjoy you doing the same for your side, make sure you get all the stupid images they post, how they talk about how they don't care if they get banned as long as they scare us off, call us, 'Biotards', infer we want to have sex with sock puppets, etc.
  14. Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways. As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less. Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames. To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary! You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****. And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc. And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that. I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility. We'll compare who results to ad hominem first, the most and who actually posts constructive, intelligent, well thought out, legitimate posts that don't reek of self importance. I already know who's going to sound more reasonable and mature out of that pile. Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright. How about this, with romances you pretty much always have to choose the right responses or the romance cuts off but with friendships it doesnt. In BG2 you have praised for doing good romances you always have to choose the right response or romance is off. The problem is that isn't how real romances work, you don't say one wrong thing and then they always end. Friendships are the exact same way. If you say something stupid enough you could end either in a single sentence, that doesn't mean it's how it should -always- work.
  15. Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways. As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less. Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames. To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary! You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****. And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc. And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that. I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility. We'll compare who results to ad hominem first, the most and who actually posts constructive, intelligent, well thought out, legitimate posts that don't reek of self importance. I already know who's going to sound more reasonable and mature out of that pile. Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright.
  16. 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. What is it so bad opposing "modernizations", like quest compass and arrows above NPCs head "I HAVE A QUEST!" or opposing magic map markers like in Skyrim? Or what's so bad opposing small party sizes, opposing cooldowns like in MMOs. When they revealed how exactly the cooldown will work, the complaints quieted down because it wasn't idiotc MMO cooldown. We from the RPGCodex have seen basicly entire genre been abducted, beaten, tortured, shot back to the head, dissected, pissed and shat on and then finally cremated in the last decade mostly because of so-called "modernizations" and appealing for lowest common denominator - we now have a chance of getting a grand rpg from one of the best RPG developers of all time without publishers meddling. We are (sometimes) abrasive because we are passionate about our precious genre and we dont want the game compromised because small subset wants it to be like those other modern rpgs with melodramatic relationship dramas - and what I read from the MCA's interview, the game wont be like that, none of the Obsidian's games have been melodramatic but we still dont want to see the forums filled with people who demands that kind of romances and romances for every possiblity. That being said I do trust Obsidian to make the best game they can and make it how they want it, and according to MCA's interview it'll be more like PS:T than BG1 and BG2 from the story point-of-view. There's been one, maybe two poeple who have explicitely asked for Bioware like romance interactions, that's it. Everyone else from the, "romance side", again, for the umpteenth time hasn't said there has to be romance, but leaving it out just because, "you don't like it, don't think it can be done right, or for some god awful reason think it will be like Biowares romances" isn't a good reason. If they decide it doesn't fit the narrative, that's a good reason. However, that isn't how a lot of the, "anti-romance" side have been treating it, at least a majority of the time. So to cover this again: - Want romance if it makes sense to the narrative - Don't want Bioware type romance Not really all that complex. If there isn't romance though, it should make just as much sense as if there is romance, just like if the main character were to not have any friendships, or something akin to that, it should be explained.
  17. Yes, because specifically leaving out a basic and important human emotion and interaction explicitely because you dislike it is exactly the same as arguing the sun doesn't emit heat. Hyperbole away! I haven't seen a single intelligent, constructive post from you (You much rather post stupid images while being passive aggressive, aka: act like a total fool), hell I don't think I've seen a post from you that was more than two sentences of ADHD.
  18. It's funny, because they are targetting romance specifically, then they yell Bioware as the reason it's bad. As if, somehow Bioware didn't have other emotions or social interactions in their games besides Romance. On top of that, you have this group of people who want it to be far secluded from the main plot and having any impact on the actual game. Then some of those exact same people (and just some of the anti-romance people in general) complain about it being, "a tacked on mini-game'... after that's what they asked for.
  19. Alright, since "people" like yourself continue to make condescending, insulting posts towards others, I have a solution. You can help make sure that the writers make a well thought out, in depth story regarding how everyone in the Project Eternity world asexually reproduces as well as how that impacts the social tendencies of the various races among the world. Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense that one form of deep social interaction and specific emotions are completely absent from the game for no other reason than "because you don't like it" whereas all the other gambit of emotions, anger, sadness, determination, envy, lust, etc, are still there.
  20. Ok now you are trolling. I ignore the other two, but with these ones no one with a brain should take you seriously. You don't have to like their storylines, but Tali and Merrill had their own problems that were not linked with the main character in any way. Tali had the difficoult relationship with her race and her father, Merrill had her quest for the Eluvian. I hate Merrill and I consider her a childish emo girl that does nothing else but cry around and complain that no one wants to help her, but this is just a personal judgement. Facts are that romancing her is totally optional, her storyline goes on with or without you by her side. Yes,and the main story was a mess consisting in mandatory side-quests.But you and others will undoubtly keep deluding yourselves that romances don't detract from more important things. DA2 wasn't a great game. It wasn't unplayable either. But in the end a game being bad that includes romances doesn't mean it was bad because of them. I mean the game has sword combat and a magic system for crying out loud, clearly you can't do both in 1 game and still have a good game! What I wrote wasn't hard to understand:you brought up Dating Age 2 while saying that romances don't detract from other parts of the writing.No need to comment further on such statement.Just like I'll refrain from commenting on the sword vs magic thing. DA2 was the biggest disgrace to ever happen to the RPG genre with its trash mobs,poor writing,creepy romances(including one with a loli) and terrible level design(wich 'quality' was an even bigger issue than the repetition). DAO was a mediocre game that had the same problems of its sequel,just to a minor extent.It managed to be successful due to lack of direct competition and people's low standard.Same with Mass Erection series. BG series was good except for BW's cheesy writing. The fact that you feel the need to clarify that despite not touching you TNO/just kissing you TNO...let's just drop it. All of the game you mentioned had poor masturbatory romances,except for the Grace one wich was merely tolerable. Well founded budgetary concerns won't go away because you people ask it without giving good reasons. Dungeon Siege 3 is about ten times worse than Dragon Age 2, I could actually get deep into Dragon Age 2 before the stupidity known as Isabella made me stop. Dungeon Siege 3, well... let me check Steam...3 hours played. Yep, couldn't stomach another second. Dragon Age: Origins however was quite good.
  21. It does, which is why my proposed mechanical solution for perfectly parallel and exclusive "Y" paths covers everything. Main branch: get-to-know-you Left branch: romance Right branch: bromance Huzzah! No one ever gets more content than the other and both paths are equally deep, meaningful, and immersive. Wait, this thing is still going, huh. ... I'll go eat breakfast now. I have absolutely no issue with this. Some people think this is somehow impossible with the amount of resources and time they have though.
  22. You are making things uglier than they are. Writing and text implementation are some of the least time consuming tasks that you have to perform to develop a game. As long as you don't have to do full voice overs and cutscenes adding a romance plot (which doesn't even require specific dungeons or locations like a normal quest) is a piece of cake. Whether this is true or not, it isn't me you need to convince. There are at least some people from the anti-romance camp who think creating romances, 'takes an unreasonable amount of resources' more or less.
×
×
  • Create New...