HereticSaint

/sigh You know who that idea appeals to? People who want a romance simply for the sake of a romance. Know who it doesn't appeal to? People who want character growth and development amoung the party that can include rivalry, sword-brother/sister, best friends, platonic loves, or straight up lovers. Having a believable evolution of interactions between a diverse group of people who are traveling for great lengths of time together through various situations that binds them together in equally diverse ways. It just is insane to me that people want character interactive growth in every way except romance... because romance is somehow eeeeeeeeeebil. But two people who have wildly different moral stances can learn to despise each other and one eventually betray the PC and/or leave the party is A-OK, right? There is literally no difference between the two when both are written well in the sense that both are showing a growth and changing of feelings between two characters dependent upon the choices that are made throughout the story. When handled by an experienced and creative writer, like the ones we have at the helm here, both are equal. And I really wish people on here would stop going 'if you want that go play this other game and get out' already. It serves no purpose as these people are here to do exactly what these forums were meant for, which is to offer opinions about what they hope to see in the game. No different than 'I don't want any exits in the dungeon' debates. Yeesh. Basically how I feel but written more eloquently, thank you for that.

Because this is not a book. I'm sick of railroaded stories in videogames. If Project Eternity is going to be like that then the developers should warn us. At least I would stop worrying about this game and I'd look somewhere else for a real role playing experience. Since this is an RPG I want to be in charge of what my character does and feels. I want to be able to decide if a love story fits the character I'm playing or not, exactly like I want to be able to decide if I'm good or bad, chaotic or lawful, altruistic or individualist etc. Let's say that in the beginning of the story my character is happily married. The plt starts and after a painful event my wife gets killed. I want to have the chance to decide if my character finds the strength to move on (and finds another one to love) or keeps mourning his true love forever. This is roleplaying, not some ready-made experience you have to swallow as it is or screw off. You know, I find this hilarious and indicative of this thread: Jarpie actually started off claiming that there are books without romance in because proromancers were saying all good stories had romance in them, now we are at the stage that its reversed and people are arguing that just because some books don't have romance in doesn't mean it can't and that its a game not a book and so shouldn't be compared. This argument truly has come full circle, hilarious really... Let me put an end to this circling around then. CRPGs are not P&P RPGs. They don't have the luxury of a master that can interact with the players in real time and adapt the story taking every action into account. If I'm playing D&D and I say: now my character goes to a tavern and tryes to pick up some chick at the bar. The master can make up something on the spot or tell me: "Just wait until the next session, I'll prepare something". He doesn't need to make me find the love of my life (or even someone to have sex with) at the first try, but as long as I keep up looking for love someway somehow he must make something happen, just like it would happen in real life. As we said CRPGs don't have a master. The developers might try to give the player as much freedom as they can but they obviously can't cover everything. They have to make choices, which have to comply with the available development time. Some examples: Should the player be able to become a nobleman and rule a country? Should the player have the chance to play a musical instrument and become a famous bard? Can we afford to spend time in developing a full blown naval and underwater combat system to let the player explore the oceans? Do we need a stealth system to let the player be sneaky and avoid combat when he wants to? Do we need to give the player the chance to play the game as an evil character? (it means at least one more branch for every quest) Can we afford to spend time writing the senes and the plot of one or more love stories? Obviously each and every feature would enhance player freedom and would add at least one roleplay option. But the developers have a limited amount of time and resources so they have to make choices. Now the question is: what is important and what it's not? To me romances are a great roleplaying tool and are one of the main feature that a true roleplaying adventure should add. They aren't the most time and resource intensive feature to add too. Strongholds, Stealth system, and evil storylines are much more expansive. And let's say that pretty much every fantasy story contains a love story too. The Hobbit didn't have lovestory as far as I remember, neither did Ultima-games what I mentioned before...what they were about...oh yeah, Ultima 5 was about oppression, moral absolutes and corruption of men...and what was Ultima 6 about...racist prejudices and consequenes of the actions the player has taken in previous games. So what? There are plenty of other games and books that did feature a love story or romance option and they are great too. If option is there and then it's your choice whether to go down that route. But you don't have to if you don't want to. I really do like Shevek's ideas in post #588, as that seems the best compromise between both camps - a romance that occurs outside of the party, one that is possibly already in existance at the beginning of the game - IF YOU select it. Here's the biggest issue with an out of party romance; If you do an out of party romance, but still want it to have a deep and engaging story you have to do -a lot- more writing than if you have a character in your party. The reason being is the amount of dialogue required to facilitate interacting with a character in a way that you explain what you've been doing, where you went, learn what they were doing, where they went (Unless they are a stick figure, which again, ruins it). Basically, you can't have your love interest be inanimate while you are gone. While there will be more dialogue written for in party romances, you don't have to explain that you fought a mighty dragon and uncovered vast amounts of wealth and legendary artifacts before your friend double crossed you and you had to kill him. Because they were there the whole time, don't have to do that whole 'catching up' dialogue for every quest option that you can return home during. Of course, the in party companion might not -always- be there, but it can be assumed they will be there a lot. That being said, I personally wouldn't mind if a super flushed out romance with someone who isn't in party happened. But almost all the anti-romance people have at one time or another already complained that a romance eats up, 'valuable resources'.

Let me extrapolate from your words. You are pretty much saying: "If an RPG includes romance stories than it lets the player indulge on hedonistic love fantasies (or, even worse, sex fantasies). This might be good to make horny teenagers buy the game, but since this is a Kickstarter fund project we want something more mature." Let me give you the news: pretty much every story driven game contain some sort of hedonistic gratification for the player. An example? Call of Duty is built around the purpose of making the player feel like a badass, the only one who can save the world. Ok, if we talk about the shooters genre that is pretty obvious, but I can assure you that you can apply the same kind of reasoning for each and every storydriven game, even the most mature. Every western RPG is centered around making the player identify himself with the main character of the story. It's done mostly with customization: you can choose your character's race, its appearence, what he is good at (his class and attributes) and so on. Then you take control of it, it does exactly what you tell him to do. This strengthens the identification even more. You become the character you're playing and that character in some way becomes you. So you end up projecting yourself in a character that is able to take control of his life, overcome the odds and, in the end, reach his goal, whatever it is. This is a great way to give the player gratification, to make him feel good with himself and to increase his self-respect. And the interesting thing is that the game doesn't need to be a power hungry fantasy to exert this effect on the player. Every goal can be good, even becoming a chef in a resturant or helping someone win his struggle agains alcohol. So: you think that romance stories in videogames are childish? Know that RPG games are childish as a whole. And they couldn't be different, because it's enbedded in the relationship between the player and the character he controls. Videogames are interactive experiences and the very core of story-driven interactive experiences is the identification between the player and the character he controls. Developers can try to make this relationship less intimate by forcing the player to control different characters during the course of the playthrough, or by forcing the player to control a party and not just one single character, but this doesn't prevent the ego-stroking gratification effect from happening. In those cases the identification process stops but then the player fstarts feeling like a deus-ex-machina, able to make things right by controlling the actions of a bunch of characters, just like a puppet-master would. Don't blame romances for being an way to give ego-stroking gratification to the player. Blame the RPG genre as a whole. ...eh, what? You are doing it wrong, i think. Women appriciate men who are slightly dominant, like taking the lead and showing them that you are really interested. Talking about jungian gratification of the ego might be an interesting ice-breaker but it wouldn't go anywhere on a base level. This thread is still about dating right? I am beginning to be slightly confused by the responses here. Two options: 1- You have completely misunderstood the goal of this thread (and I've seen in your words more than they actually say). 2- You are trying to troll me. ...and I've seen in your words more than they actually say That's sound like a great title for a love ballad! You're on right path Maybe it's the over serious tone of the thread. Maybe it's sleep deprivation. But now I am laughing hysterically and I have you to thank, thank you sir.

Regarding this specifically, I do, to an extent see that you are coming more from a reasonable perspective than a, 'GTFO my game' perspective that a lot of people have, but again, and you did address this, Japanese dating sims don't really click with me, or a lot of people. To me, a deep, complex relationship with another character isn't the time management mini-game that Japanese dating sims are of.... 'You have 24 hours what do you want to devote time to? Friday - 2 hours study, 2 hours work out, 6 hours class, 4 hours spend time with girl A, rest sleep/eat Saturday - 3 hours work out, 4 hours spend with girl B, 4 hours spend with girl C, rest relax/eat/sleep' That to me... is just awful. Worse than anything Bioware could come up with by far (not stating my personal opinion necessarily, but a lot of people around here hate Bioware so it's something they can draw context from).

So, lemme get this straight... you are saying the only way to build a meaningful romantic bond is to go on quests to kill monsters together? Yes, in fact that's exactly what I said. I mean, you quoted me and said that I said it, so I must've said it and it must be true.

This doesn't give people who want romances, "all the options they could desire". I'm not saying they should, either. However, I much prefer someone who would travel with me and share in the lush experiences of such an adventure, basically, actually create a meaningful bond with due to all you've gone through. Rather than some random NPC homebody who sits at home waiting to give me a **** job and supper before I go back out to do, 'big boy work'. In fact, the exact type of romance you are describing is actually what a lot of people from both sides would absolutely hate...

Japanese dating sims hardly have emotional depth and good story telling. They are almost always even more shallow than the Mass Effect romances people around here seem to hate so much. Simply going, "well, if you want this, go play this game" is rather silly, considering the game is in the very early process of being made and pretty much nothing is known about the plot and only vague amounts about the actual world setting. They could very well decide romance be tied into the story, or not. Either way I'm supportive of that if it isn't decided by the forums. Which again, may seem funny considering I am posting my opinion about it, but it's not my nature to rely on chance, so on the off chance they do draw even a miniscule amount of feedback from these topics, again, I want to make sure they understand there aren't people on just one side of the fence. That being said, having romance between party members is something that would interest me as well. Just like many other aspects of story telling, including PC-NPC relationships which is why it shouldn't just be cut and dry, 'no PC-NPC romances' from some random person on the forums, but rather the people making Project Eternity themselves.

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames. Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame. I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make, and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending. That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices. So where is the maturity in a romance minigame? Where is the depth? Nobody "railroads" you. Use that word in the appropriate forums, BSN and bethesda's forums, or for the appropriate games and their developers. You are an active participant in the narrative not its god. All the choices have to make sense within the narrative. It's funny, because you post vehemently about how romances shouldn't be in the game, then claim those who oppose you are, "wanting to be God". What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Great argument! Now try a real one and not something that is ad hominem. I'm not the narrative's god, but romance(and any other literary device) has to somehow be used by the plot, cause romance isn't just a minigame. It, like any other relationship(friendship, rivalry etc), should affect the plot through character progression. If that doesn't affect the plot, then it's wasted space, the main(and possibly the other person) remain static bricks. Romance in stories isn't combat that can be shown through mechanics and graphics, it's a plot device. Sorry, but pointing out things you've said in the past isn't ad hominem. Other than that I've never said anything that I meant opposing what you said in this post, so, awesome!

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames. Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame. I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make, and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending. That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices. So where is the maturity in a romance minigame? Where is the depth? Nobody "railroads" you. Use that word in the appropriate forums, BSN and bethesda's forums, or for the appropriate games and their developers. You are an active participant in the narrative not its god. All the choices have to make sense within the narrative. It's funny, because you post vehemently about how romances shouldn't be in the game, then claim those who oppose you are, "wanting to be God". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Why should every game have romances? Does every film or book have romances? would film like The Treasure of Sierra Madre get any better if we would add romances into it? What about 2001: A Space Odyssey (both book and film), and what about The Thing by John Carpenter? Would it make games like Ultima 4-7 any better if companions of Avatar would be romanceable? Would it add anything to the story of Ultima 5 which is about oppression, moral absolutes and corruption of men (and women)? or Ultima 6 which is about racist prejudices and co-existance, and consequences of what you have done in the previous games? Does your whole life revolve around romantic relationships? if not, why should it in games? There are so many potential stories what are possible in Project Eternity without including romances. Did you read the lines: The examples I gave didn't have anykind romance at all, and all of those are -very- highly regarded as films and/or books. 2001: A Space Odyssey was sixth in the Sight & Sound poll, which is held every ten years for film makers and film critics. My point was that not every RPG should have romances, so why this specific game should? Very few (no one) is saying that this game -has- to have romances to be good. They are saying stop going, 'It must not have romances to be good'. So to reiterate, we (meaning the people of similar opinion to me, which isn't necessarily everyone but quite a few if not most of the people who enjoy romance options) are saying stop stonewalling it and leave it for the developers to decide. If they have well written, homosexual romances only, great! If they focus on an epic bromance instead, great! If they make me have sex with a dragonand produce half dragon, half man, half awesome hybrids, great! But stop saying they have to not have it. I think I've been pretty open that I don't think they have to have it, and I really mean it, but I think they should use their judgement. (And if I've said otherwise it's likely been me responding to just as extreme comments with the opposite opinion, which I apologize for). Why people keep bringing it up then and opening topics with "Plz include romances!", and not leave the topic alone? CrazyPea's first posting to this thread was clearly written with the mindset that Project Eternity has romances by-default even though devs haven't said will it or wont it. The reason people who enjoy the possiblities of romance are posting are because the people who oppose them still are. Likely meaning it won't change until (if) something is announced. As for your other point, lots of movies, shows, games, etc, don't have something, that doesn't necessarily mean PE should or should not have that.

Would it make Citizen Kane or Star Wars any better if they had romances? Oh.. wait they did. No not every movie or game needs to have them and the inclusion doesn't automatically make them better. Not every movie has swordfighting either and that doesn't make them bad movies. But hey, if we go and look up a list of 100 best films of all time, would you guess how many of those would, and how many would not have romance in there? Not necessarily as the central theme, but in there anyway. My guess is that most would. Don't try to twist the argument:people against romances are arguing against the tipycal PC-NPC romance.Noone's arguing against stuff like Christine-Veronica,etc Can you explain to me, in a well thought out, well typed out post that is clear and concise what constitutes a, 'typical PC-NPC romance'. Don't leave anything out.

Why should every game have romances? Does every film or book have romances? would film like The Treasure of Sierra Madre get any better if we would add romances into it? What about 2001: A Space Odyssey (both book and film), and what about The Thing by John Carpenter? Would it make games like Ultima 4-7 any better if companions of Avatar would be romanceable? Would it add anything to the story of Ultima 5 which is about oppression, moral absolutes and corruption of men (and women)? or Ultima 6 which is about racist prejudices and co-existance, and consequences of what you have done in the previous games? Does your whole life revolve around romantic relationships? if not, why should it in games? There are so many potential stories what are possible in Project Eternity without including romances. Did you read the lines: The examples I gave didn't have anykind romance at all, and all of those are -very- highly regarded as films and/or books. 2001: A Space Odyssey was sixth in the Sight & Sound poll, which is held every ten years for film makers and film critics. My point was that not every RPG should have romances, so why this specific game should? Very few (no one) is saying that this game -has- to have romances to be good. They are saying stop going, 'It must not have romances to be good'. So to reiterate, we (meaning the people of similar opinion to me, which isn't necessarily everyone but quite a few if not most of the people who enjoy romance options) are saying stop stonewalling it and leave it for the developers to decide. If they have well written, homosexual romances only, great! If they focus on an epic bromance instead, great! If they make me have sex with a dragonand produce half dragon, half man, half awesome hybrids, great! But stop saying they have to not have it. I think I've been pretty open that I don't think they have to have it, and I really mean it, but I think they should use their judgement. (And if I've said otherwise it's likely been me responding to just as extreme comments with the opposite opinion, which I apologize for).

No one's even said that don't start flinging that around. The argument is that if there are romances in the game they WOULD have to cater to all which would lead to at least half the companions needing to be romanceable hence why they don't want it in at all. This would be assuming the companions were incapable of being bisexual. Personally, even though I am pretty much straight I would rather there be gay and lesbian romances than none at all, including ones that cater to my specific wants and needs. As long as they were well written, which again, should be a non issue. The argument then becomes, are they worth it in the sense of the playerbase appreciating it, which, again, I believe they would for the most part and if they didn't then they could ignore it. We've already discussed bi as well, its all been one long heated exchange over what people want. Bricks have been thrown and babies sacrificed to dark gods, assassinations in the dead of night and last minute castrations, its all been done, sorry you missed it. I've been around for at least a bit of that. I don't see how a companion who is open to advances of either sex make it so, 'half the companions are romancable'. At the end of the day, I think they will do what is best for the game according to them. But if there's even a 0.00001% chance that even a microscopic amount of their decision making would be garnered from all of the romance threads I want it to be known that there are people that enjoy and support such options. Honestly, if there weren't people posting so vehemently about their opposition to it then it probably wouldn't of even popped up in my head.

No one's even said that don't start flinging that around. The argument is that if there are romances in the game they WOULD have to cater to all which would lead to at least half the companions needing to be romanceable hence why they don't want it in at all. This would be assuming the companions were incapable of being bisexual. Personally, even though I am pretty much straight I would rather there be gay and lesbian romances than none at all, including ones that cater to my specific wants and needs. As long as they were well written, which again, should be a non issue. The argument then becomes, are they worth it in the sense of the playerbase appreciating it, which, again, I believe they would for the most part and if they didn't then they could ignore it.

It's not my largest concern, I just don't feel the need to voice my opinion on a lot of other matters because it's rather cut and dry if Obsidian are going to have those features or not and if they have them then I feel like they will do a good job with them. This should've been a stretch goal. Too late now, unfortunately, so we must bide our time, watching, waiting...

You can have a hug if it'll make you feel better. You have to pay the travel expenses though.

You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender. If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep. 1/5 for the trolling. It's still the author who gets to decide what content gets in and what doesn't.Even if you have player choice,yes. One would think that such a notion is quite simple to understand. Exactly, it's the author who gets to decide, not you, not me. Yet people are stonewalling romance, saying that it shouldn't be in the game and I'm simply retorting in kind. But apparently, you don't understand this, 'simple notion either', because you are voicing your opinion just as loudly. I was responding to your specific post and the specific conversation it was part of.Not my fault if you come up with poor analogies. And I still have to see a convincing argument in favor of romances from you guys.Not a single one that hasn't been criticized by well thought out counter-points by various posters(Ieo and Crusty in particular). What you do or do not deem convincing is not particularly my concern. I've seen plenty of worthwhile opinions and facts as to why romances would be a good thing, hell I've seen some good counter points (Because I'm actually open minded), but not enough good ones to simply say, 'no romance, no, never ever'. Why are you arguing only with one side if you are so neutral then,mmh? Who said otherwise?And why are you even bringing up this point as if it was relevant to the discussion? I never said I was neutral, please don't try to misrepresent my position on the matter. For the rest, you once again don't understand. It's up to you if you want to keep quoting me, but I'm not going to try and rephrase the same thing fifty times because you somehow can't decipher a meaning from it.

You are mixing issues. No one is arguing for or against character recruitment and the analogy you make is deeply flawed. 1) My argument is such: Games with romancable NPCs typically must have more than one romancable npcs to react to player sex choice and sexual reference choice (the one exception to this is games where they make the PC for you - like Torment). This leads to a significant perspective shift into how the player then views the party. The player soon makes a mental note of npcs as "sexable" and "nonsexable." This has little to do with people crying over why you couldn't recruit Drizzt. 2) If anything, NPC availability is reflective of developer intent to accomodate PC creation. In other words, devs tend to make enough npcs of varying classes to accomodate player's of any class. If romances are included, then the same philosophy leads to the issue described above. Umm, I don't quite know what you are saying there. But, Cain said thats how he wants low int to work EXTENSIVELY so... Give me a real argument and I might. Actually, no. Building friendships and rivalries is NOT the same as trying to find your next hot date. One could argue that one would NEED to build trust between party members to triumph. One cannot argue that you must attempt to bed every female in your party in order to defeat the dragon in the next room. You say I'm mixing issues, I'm not. You just can't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll put it in much -simpler- terms for you: The playerbase who enjoys Cowtipping and at least wants it as a potential option to pursue is large enough that it is a worthwhile time and monetary investment. Saying, 'you can't the absolute perfect cow for everyone' is not a valid reason to not have Cowtipping. Here's an anology for you, I'll reiterate this, it's like saying that companions shouldn't be in the game because not everyone is going to enjoy the companions that are in there. I'm doing what's called, 'drawing a parellel' in this example. You also, again, clearly don't understand the friendship example. The point I was making, was again, that everyone may not like the Cowtipping presented to them, that doesn't all of a sudden mean you cut out the feature. It's unfortunate that I have to be so redundant but you are doing the exact same thing.. so there you go. With same arguments one could easily claim that they should add Cowtipping to the game. Like I said earlier, not every fiction has to have romances. No, not really. cow tipping isn't something that can be used to complement or develop a compelling story (if you disagree, please site me this mighty novel or game that has a focus on cow tipping). Not every fiction has to have romance, but that doesn't mean that there's a reason to explcitely leave it out, either. If you want to disagree with that, then expect me to try and gather counter points to refute it. This isn't a, 'you get to say what you want that's anti-romance while I sit here quietly thread'. It's meant to be, at least in part a debate of the value and the potential incorperation of romance. What about..necrophilia then? Apparently Wikipedia has a list ready: http://en.wikipedia....popular_culture and we can use exactly the same arguments you have. At least what gets me and probably some others up in arms is that some of the "pro-romance" crowd thinks that romances should be in every RPG by-default which is probably because they do not have imagination to imagine game without one, as they are so used to having romances. You can't deny the fact that if Obsidian would come out and say, yes there will be romances, there would be that certain obsessive crowd swallowing the forum with demands that every possible gender combination should presented, oh and every possible race. If necrophelia was used in a compelling and interesting way I wouldn't necessarily mind it. Now you may go, 'That's all we are saying about romance' and my refute to that, is I believe that Obsidian can and I believe that enough people would specifically enjoy such a feature that it would be worthwhile in terms of cost both in regards to time and money. Before you go, 'wish fulfillment, etc', again, I believe that Obsidian can do it in a way that is compelling and interesting. If you are saying, 'it shouldn't -HAVE- to have it' great, neither am I. But I am also not going to sit by while people say, 'There should never ever be romance in PE, no matter what, it isn't worth the time or money to develop, it's bad, biodrone, etc'. As for people who want everything, that doesn't matter. Again, the same could be said about the companions in general. (There could very well be many people who hate them all, or at least most of them and want more options beyond creating their own and the base ones).

You are mixing issues. No one is arguing for or against character recruitment and the analogy you make is deeply flawed. 1) My argument is such: Games with romancable NPCs typically must have more than one romancable npcs to react to player sex choice and sexual reference choice (the one exception to this is games where they make the PC for you - like Torment). This leads to a significant perspective shift into how the player then views the party. The player soon makes a mental note of npcs as "sexable" and "nonsexable." This has little to do with people crying over why you couldn't recruit Drizzt. 2) If anything, NPC availability is reflective of developer intent to accomodate PC creation. In other words, devs tend to make enough npcs of varying classes to accomodate player's of any class. If romances are included, then the same philosophy leads to the issue described above. Umm, I don't quite know what you are saying there. But, Cain said thats how he wants low int to work EXTENSIVELY so... Give me a real argument and I might. Actually, no. Building friendships and rivalries is NOT the same as trying to find your next hot date. One could argue that one would NEED to build trust between party members to triumph. One cannot argue that you must attempt to bed every female in your party in order to defeat the dragon in the next room. You say I'm mixing issues, I'm not. You just can't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll put it in much -simpler- terms for you: The playerbase who enjoys Cowtipping and at least wants it as a potential option to pursue is large enough that it is a worthwhile time and monetary investment. Saying, 'you can't the absolute perfect cow for everyone' is not a valid reason to not have Cowtipping. Here's an anology for you, I'll reiterate this, it's like saying that companions shouldn't be in the game because not everyone is going to enjoy the companions that are in there. I'm doing what's called, 'drawing a parellel' in this example. You also, again, clearly don't understand the friendship example. The point I was making, was again, that everyone may not like the Cowtipping presented to them, that doesn't all of a sudden mean you cut out the feature. It's unfortunate that I have to be so redundant but you are doing the exact same thing.. so there you go. With same arguments one could easily claim that they should add Cowtipping to the game. Like I said earlier, not every fiction has to have romances. No, not really. Cow tipping isn't something that can be used to complement or develop a compelling story (if you disagree, please site me this mighty novel or game that has a focus on cow tipping). Not every fiction has to have romance, but that doesn't mean that there's a reason to explcitely leave it out, either. If you want to disagree with that, then expect me to try and gather counter points to refute it. This isn't a, 'you get to say what you want that's anti-romance while I sit here quietly thread'. It's meant to be, at least in part a debate of the value and the potential incorperation of romance.

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames. Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame. I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make, and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending. That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices. Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence. And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what woul reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget. You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender. If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep. 1/5 for the trolling. It's still the author who gets to decide what content gets in and what doesn't.Even if you have player choice,yes. One would think that such a notion is quite simple to understand. Exactly, it's the author who gets to decide, not you, not me. Yet people are stonewalling romance, saying that it shouldn't be in the game and I'm simply retorting in kind. But apparently, you don't understand this, 'simple notion either', because you are voicing your opinion just as loudly. I was responding to your specific post and the specific conversation it was part of.Not my fault if you come up with poor analogies. And I still have to see a convincing argument in favor of romances from you guys.Not a single one that hasn't been criticized by well thought out counter-points by various posters(Ieo and Crusty in particular). What you do or do not deem convincing is not particularly my concern. I've seen plenty of worthwhile opinions and facts as to why romances would be a good thing, hell I've seen some good counter points (Because I'm actually open minded), but not enough good ones to simply say, 'no romance, no, never ever'. Also, to an extent what the player wants to do and does -should- have an impact on the game, that's why it's a game and not a movie. It really isn't that difficult to understand man.

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames. Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame. I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make, and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending. That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices. Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence. And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what woul reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget. You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender. If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep. 1/5 for the trolling. It's still the author who gets to decide what content gets in and what doesn't.Even if you have player choice,yes. One would think that such a notion is quite simple to understand. Exactly, it's the author who gets to decide, not you, not me. Yet people are stonewalling romance, saying that it shouldn't be in the game and I'm simply retorting in kind. But apparently, you don't understand this, 'simple notion either', because you are voicing your opinion just as loudly. I do appreciate how this thread, once again turned into, 'the anti romance people are allowed to voice their opinions, but the people who want romances are not'. Oh, and since you did it, 0.000001/10,000 for the trolling.

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames. Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame. I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make, and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending. That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices. Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence. And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what woul reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget. You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender. If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep.

You are mixing issues. No one is arguing for or against character recruitment and the analogy you make is deeply flawed. 1) My argument is such: Games with romancable NPCs typically must have more than one romancable npcs to react to player sex choice and sexual reference choice (the one exception to this is games where they make the PC for you - like Torment). This leads to a significant perspective shift into how the player then views the party. The player soon makes a mental note of npcs as "sexable" and "nonsexable." This has little to do with people crying over why you couldn't recruit Drizzt. 2) If anything, NPC availability is reflective of developer intent to accomodate PC creation. In other words, devs tend to make enough npcs of varying classes to accomodate player's of any class. If romances are included, then the same philosophy leads to the issue described above. Umm, I don't quite know what you are saying there. But, Cain said thats how he wants low int to work EXTENSIVELY so... Give me a real argument and I might. Actually, no. Building friendships and rivalries is NOT the same as trying to find your next hot date. One could argue that one would NEED to build trust between party members to triumph. One cannot argue that you must attempt to bed every female in your party in order to defeat the dragon in the next room. You say I'm mixing issues, I'm not. You just can't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll put it in much -simpler- terms for you: The playerbase who enjoys romance and at least wants it as a potential option to pursue is large enough that it is a worthwhile time and money investment wise. (Not saying it -HAS to be in there, combating the idea that it, 'has to not be in there') Saying, 'you can't the absolute perfect romancable companion for everyone' is not a valid reason to not have romances. Here's an anology for you, I'll reiterate this, it's like saying that companions shouldn't be in the game because not everyone is going to enjoy the companions that are in there. I'm doing what's called, 'drawing a parellel' in this example. You also, again, clearly don't understand the friendship example. The point I was making, was again, that everyone may not like the friendships presented to them, that doesn't all of a sudden mean you cut out the feature. It's unfortunate that I have to be so redundant but you are doing the exact same thing.. so there you go.

This is a big reason why romances do not work. Equity. Soon, all npcs must be bangable because the player must have equitable choices. Frankly, I hope OE avoids this pitfall entirely. If not, the entire slate of npcs will be little more than contestants on some fantasy dating game show. No, this is fallacious and I'm kind of sick of seeing this argument. It's like saying, "You can recruit this character, but you can't recruit this one? You need to be able to recruit everyone!" Or..." You have low Int/Cha dialogue here? It should be an option as a response in literally every statement made my the PC." No, you don't have to have every Half-Elven/Half-Human with purple eyes and white hair fantasy that people want for NPC's that can be romanced. That isn't a good reason to leave romance out, stop using it. In fact, the very same thing could even be said about friendships if you want to go down that route.

Where would you instead uses 3d artist and animators time? Gear, monsters, enviroment animations or something else? Literally all of those instead, including gear, because if you make a ton of different physique types you have to make sure the armor fits on those physique types as well. If I had to choose something above all those others, probably monsters would be my first pick though.