PieSnatcher

I think we need to give each other room for small contradictions at least. I often find that my grasp on language is insufficient to properly communicate my thoughts as I feel they ought to be expressed. Like you said, maybe that is a failure on my part in explanation. Or perhaps I have changed, as human beings are wont to do, and I contradict my earlier position. Despite trying to be consistent on everything to everyone, we are probably going to have little contradictions (perceived or genuine) here and there. I think that's understandable.

Uh, sorry, I didn't know I had a max amount of posts to spend in a certain thread. Because she was totally trying to imply you did. You know what else consumes time resources? Excessive bathroom breaks. I think we're entitled, as backers, to view the Obsidian Bathroom Ledger. No leisurely commode trips on my dime! That, or we can cut them some slack on the silly things and grant them a reasonable measure of headroom.

Fair enough, but I'm pretty sure the resources required for romances would be much more significant than for this "feature" I get the anti-mancing, but I can't imagine we really lost anything of note for the sake of bobblehead characters. Or maybe they quietly nixed the 15 level mega dungeon for it. Yeah, probably.

I'm noggin-a tell you you're incorrect, but I think we can all give them a hats off for at least giving us something to chuckle about. At least, I don't mind.

After carefully examining the possible Tuesdays, clearly it will be December 9th. Clearly. I guess I'm with you on this, Sensuki Also, Labadal, I may be dyslexic because I read your guess as November 31st

Oh no you didn't! more cowbell too. Can't forget cowbell. Loved FO2, but I thought BG2's start was more enjoyable. Also any game that starts and plays like Arcanum is going to have a tough time holding my attention..

Fair enough. I never thought of myself as overly dismissive, but I guess you're right. Still, as much as I've posted on the issue recently, I doubt I'll care enough about romance options to seek out a mod for it in PoE. Time will tell!

The thing is I'd rather have them be meaningful and intended to be in the game or not at all. Despite falling on the promance side of the fence, I'm quite okay with their absence since that carries zero chance of them being a detriment to the game as a whole. I certainly don't plan on modding them into the game (I've never done an obsidian romance so I can't speak to their quality, but I still think they could write a better one than most mods. I dunno, maybe not)

I would say this is pretty much true in any type of PC/NPC relationship regardless of whether or not there is a romance aspect to it- it just gets all the more grating for the other reasons that you describe. Remember the KOTOR II influence system? Yep. Unless it is one sided wih a unique premise (Ravel had feelings for TNO? Kinda a quasi-romance. Kinda) Totally agree. My least favorite part of romances. But I don't think sex scenes are necessary nor do I think we must be subjected to a Padme/Anakin-esque pronouncement of love. I think we can have a maturely written story about two characters that experience a romantic relationship. I think it's possible. I guess that covers all the bases. As a promancer though, I do not want another rehash of a typical Bioware romance. Not all promancers want more of the same. I think it's fallacious to say that every possible relationship dynamic needs to be represented. I certainly won't be offended if the only relationships possible in a game aren't of my personal variety. Totally agree. If you can't imagine any possible implementation of a romance in the game that will make any positive impact in how you enjoy it, then the fact is its development will very likely take resources away from something that will.

Holy smokes who are you Lephys and what have you done with Slowpoke Lephys? And something on topic: Do people hate the concept of romances in an RPG, or have they just concluded that based on every example so far, it would probably detract from the overall experience? Just curious. Personally, I'm totally fine with said concept, but I completely understand how previous romance options in games can sour one's taste for them.

After spending literally dozens of seconds I guess I can't think of a romance in an RPG that I can hold up as an example of what I would like to see. My favorite relationships in games that I can think of off the top of my head aren't romantic, at least not explicitly. As long as I care about him/her, within the context of the story, I'm happy. The Baldur's Gate romances? Done all four at one time or another (I haven't done the EE ones). I didn't hate them but I haven't revisited them either. I think the Bastila romance in KOTOR may have been a bit better, if only for how it could influence the main story. And I felt the ME romances were designed to titillate more than to help us care about the characters, for the most part. I'd agree with this. I like the premise of a well-written romantic (sub)plot within the game, but I don't want to feel like the game is trying to give me romantic gratification.

Mmmmm. Steak. I'll reference Fable. Back in my youth, when I thought it would literally be the best thing, ever, I remember being disappointed reading reviews saying how short the main story was. Sure I could spend a bunch of time meandering through the game to make it last, oh, 10 hours, but the fact was that the game was a breeze to get through. I don't care if people can speed run through a game. I just expect the reasonable length of time it should take to move through it when played normally to be much larger.

I would like a well written one (no canoodling necessary, at all). I just can't think of any great examples off the top of my head. I guess that makes me a promancer. That said, I'm pretty sure no romance has been established for awhile now. *ducks for cover*

Go... out? You mean, like, for a hot pocket or something?

I think the argument was "The time and resources that the developers have to implement X, Y, and Z are finite" And "X, Y, and Z all require time/resources to be realized" And "I like all features, except for X" Then "I would rather feature X was not developed" Maybe I'm wrong

I think I'll try a cipher on my first Pillars outing. It doesn't sound like my usual build type, so it should be a fun new experience. As for the party? A full six please. Whichever characters seem to compliment my character personality/story-wise.

Mmmmmmm, also Pro: - no DRM - no ARM Sorry, probably should have edited the last post. Didn't mean to pad my post numbers.

Pros: 1. Isometric party-based RPG in the spirit of the IE games. Been waiting a long time. 2. A well told, engaging story. 3. Well developed characters. 4. The beggining of both an Obsidian-owned IP and (I hope) an adventure that is comparable in length and scale to the BG games and their expansions. 5. Strictly single player focus (not that the lack of MP is a pro per se) Cons: 1. No Boo. 2. Possible (perhaps inevitable) minor missteps in tweaking the IE formula to innovate and keep things fresh. This is, of course, also a pro. Might include inventory, buffing system, exp system, or it might not. 3. I decided the last one counts as two. 4. I decided number two actually counts as three. 5. No... romances? Bah, sue me, I'm not averse to the concept. At least that ensures no awkwardly-written ones.

Yes one can but that doesn't automatically dismiss his observation and opinion (and correct me if I'm wrong) that sexual violence is often used as a shortcut to convey strong emotions to an audience. I would be inclined to agree. I would not say, however, that it should be off limits. Just that it's inclusion ought to be thought out and measured in the context of the story that is being told. Like most here, it seems, I am not into sexual content designed simply to titillate. If that is the goal then I think it will nearly always come across as awkward. Fortunately that won't be an issue here.

I never hope for more mmo shenanigans. My poor, poor pipe dream that was KOTOR 3 is a victim of said shenanigans. Oh, I swallowed my pride when TOR was released. It was better than I had feared. But still not worth it.

Lived most of my life in Portland, Oregon! A stone's throw from the Nike campus. But I did live in Rouen for several years so I'm... kind of French? No? Ok. Still... Vive la Normandie!

I think this is arguing semantics. He says that choice is illusory because your choices have predefined boundaries. You say that's bull because your choice is, nonetheless , a choice. I don't think either of you are wrong. At least from my perspective. I just see a difference in focus. One can focus on the fact that in a game, no choice can be made that isn't permitted by the system. And, usually, these choices are in the system by design. Or you can focus on the fact that, the system notwithstanding, you can still make your choices (provided they are permitted). And perhaps more importantly, you can have your own reasons for making those choices- that is something that cannot be contained in code or a system. Whether there are infinite paths that you can take, or just two, you can still be an agent to decide what path you go down. I suppose you can even argue with only one path you decide whether to go down it at all. I agree; I don't think that there is an inherent problem with random encounters or bandit tropes per se. I think that bandits kind of create a context for themselves. They'll do what, in my mind, bandits do. Attack. I guess. I just think Micamo brought up a good point, even if I don't feel as strongly about it. There can be a range of context for these encounters. And the more the merrier! On the other hand I don't necessarily need to know the reason for everything (your novel vs random life point)... buuuut I'll stop rambling, because that's easy for me to do if I let myself.

Mmmmm yes, constants... and variables... I enjoy a game that will let me trick myself into (momentarily) believing the illusion of choice in the game (well, more ignore that it is a selection of limited choices), or a game that can cleverly use that illusion as part of its narrative. I enjoyed reading the back and forth. But back to the original topic, I agree with the OP in that combat in a game is so much more enjoyable when there is a believable context for it. It isn't always a love it/hate it thing- usually a scale. I accept that bandits want to just kill me because that seems a fairly bandit-y thing to do (and a fairly ubiquitous trope). But breathing a little more life into the situation immerses me more into the game world.

To name a few- HK-47, Minsc, Edwin, Morte, Garrus. Also, more. What makes these characters good? Its hard for me to say- they are all so different. I think in order to have a great companion there are many factors that can contribute to it being a great companion; an intriguing back story, well-written dialogue, very human or empathetic motivations (even if they aren't human). Often they are genuinely funny. I think they need some of these qualities, but a common denominator to me seems to be a well developed personality. HK-47 is enjoyably sadistic. Minsc is an enthusiastically happy (and principled) idiot. Morte- he's a friendly (but possibly treacherous) skull with a fast mouth and a penchant for sarcasm. And I was attached to many ME companions because the three-game arc allowed me time to care about them and what happens to them (which is partly why I am a little dismayed with the end of the trilogy).

I think this has gone in circles a few times. Does anyone remember zots from the NWN boards? I'm remembering that right... right? 1 zot = 1 "unit" of developer time/resources/etc. I just like saying zots though. Zots. mmmm. Anyway, I think we understand that there are a finite number of zots available for the game. Even if the deadline gets pushed, it'll come out at a relatively fixed time; Obsidian has only so many zots to spend on building the game from scratch- including npcs. I'm assuming from what I have previously read that they are trying to flesh them all out more or less evenly. The more npcs they have, the less zots they have to spend on each npc. Quality>Quantity is a very valid statement- no shenanigans need to be called. Everyone here just seems to be at odds on where they prefer their balance of quality and quantity. Also different definitions of quality. If they focused all their zots on only one npc, I'm sure they could have an extremely compelling character. But I would rather have a handful of very compelling npcs than one extremely compelling npc. I'm sure they could even do well with a dozen npcs- but those zots have to come from somewhere. I trust that they will use their zots wisely here. That's why I paid 'em!