Lephys

I don't buy that. Clarifying your usage of the word isn't adjusting the definition. I've seen plenty of people do only that. And I don't recall the developers trying to define the word. They simply referenced the word, in the context of the super-vague people demanding "romances" (usually, like Biowarian ones, etc.), and said that they're not doing "those." Again, just because all cats are animals doesn't mean all animals are cats. Something can be "a romance" without romance being that thing. This is just a really, really silly thing for me to even have to explain. Look. This is how forums work. Someone makes a topic, and people share their thoughts on that topic, for the purposes of everyone collaborating on that topic toward some constructive end. Arguing about what an inanimate word means or doesn't mean is silly. Jeez... if you expressed something to me, and you used the completely wrong word, but I knew what you were talking about to any degree, I wouldn't even just go off on some complete tangent about how that word doesn't mean that, and just stop worrying about the topic at hand anymore. I'd just say "Hey, it seems like you mean this," and gather more info from you so that I can better understand the idea you're conveying, which is pretty much the most important thing in a discussion. The only useful purpose of discussing the definition of a word is so that we can confirm we're all on the same page about ideas being conveyed and shared. If it's just to be righter than someone else, it's petty and pointless. I understand exactly what you mean, for example, Stun, about certain things posted in this thread questionably falling under the definition of romance. But, that doesn't mean that the definition is anything less than it is. I just... don't understand why that's SO important to you. "OMG, what if one person doesn't show interest in the other person? Is that technically romance?!" Who even CARES at that point? Like, if it is, does that mean you've LOST at something? Gyah... Look, if someone wants to stick their tongue out at you for that, and count it some kind of victory, then let them. Why should you stoop to that level of pettiness? "See, the game DOES have romances! Hah!" Great, even if that's true, does that make those romances, and the ones "the promancer crowd" are demanding for the game the same thing? No. How should we go about romance in games, and for what reasons? Still a totally legitimate discussion. It remains completely unphased. It's an idea to be explored. If a game decides to have content in which a character unrequitedly pursues another character, who cares what you call that? It's still what it is, and we can continue to describe it with words other than "romance" and discuss it constructively. OR, we could just sit around making a 1,000-page list of everything that is allowed to be called romance, and everything that isn't. "What if a dog mounts his favorite toy all the time. Is that romance?" Let's discuss that, instead of worrying about whether or not there's any value in using a toy-humping dog in an RPG narrative. *eyeroll*

What... do two wrongs make a right now? Whoever arbitrarily adjusts the definition of anything is being an unreasonable and incorrect person. And, btw, pointing out the breadth of a definition is not adjusting it. Just so that's clear. I don't care if they support romance or not. If some guy says "Your characters have to have sex or it isn't a romance!", I'm going to tell him he's wrong. If he "supports romances," but insists that we have an inventory baby because that's what makes a romance a romance, I'm going to tell him he's wrong. Doesn't mean an inventory baby romance isn't a romance. It just means it doesn't define romance. There can be romance without such specifics. Someone else being wrong doesn't make you any more correct. Or, you know... we cold just lump everyone together all the time for no reason whatsoever. Hey guys! I'm going to attribute everything Stun's ever said to CaptainMace now, because CaptainMace isn't on MY side of the two, rigid sides of the argument! So now whatever reprimand CaptainMace for is justified, because of what Stun said! 8D! See how that doesn't work? How's about we pretend people aren't a hivemind, and consider each person's posts individually. You know, kind of like a discussion. Oh, wait... maybe someone's decided that a discussion isn't that anymore. I'm so behind the times.

I own... ~30 games on Steam, and I can play every single one of them without an internet connection. Now, maybe I'm just super lucky, and every other game available on Steam requires an internet connection. But... *shrug* I only had to be on the internet and logged in to buy and download them (which is the same with GOG), AND to install them (GOG doesn't require this, but, at the same time, if you've just downloaded a game, why not go ahead and install it real quick?). The only other advantage is that, should you lose your hard drive or something, and both Steam AND the internet have been shut down, you could still use your installer from GOG to re-install the game and never ever patch it (assuming you have the installer backed up somewhere). Which, admittedly, IS an advantage. But, I just wish people would kill the ridiculous Steam rumors. "I heard you have to feed one of your organs to a DEMON every time you play a game on Steam! If you're out of organs, you can't play the game, AND you die! o_o!!!"

Yup. And the silly choices they make are the result of hasty/inaccurate data-reading. "we made this other game that was 3D, and it sold better. The difference in sales obviously means that people hated this one thing about this other game. CLEARLY, u_u..." They change 50 things, then think they can pinpoint one factor. Or "Oh, we polled some focus groups, and now we know how everyone's brain works! 8D!" That data is useful, but not to the extent they use it. Same with TV shows. That's why Firefly got cancelled, but some network executive somewhere is 100% seriously excited about their promising new show called The Slap, about a group of friends and relatives, and how all their lives change because some guy slaps another person's child one day. A... WHOLE... SHOW! ENTITLED THE SLAP! I couldn't make that up if I tried. Obviously, some marketing geniuses figured out what we all want out of television. What we've always dreamed of. Heck, Gilligan's Island was cancelled while it was the most-watched show on television. All because the network executives insisted it was a dumb show and no one should enjoy it.

EDIT: Okay, I actually thought up a splendid example of what you're doing. "I love weaponry, and I want to see a ton of weaponry in the game! I want there to be like, a bunch of coins on some kind of cord, that you sling around and hit people in the face with!" You -- "That's not a weapon!" Yes, I'm afraid it is a weapon. It's just a crazy weapon, and probably isn't useful in designing a medieval fantasy video game. But, the definition of weapon isn't really at question, there. Just the usefulness of said weapon design. Same thing with romance. If two characters share some amount of romance, then those characters share some amount of romance. You don't get to change the definition of "romance." And there's no need to. "Okay, that's a romance, but it's a terrible and piddly one." Awesome. Why can't you just say that? Why do we need to argue about friggin' definitions for 93 pages?

I wanna say you're right about it being ~10% per missing party member. I think they didn't want you to happen to solo something, then make the rest of the game infinitely easy to solo because you just gained 3 levels from one quest. So, you still get bonus XP, but it's not ALL the XP just going to the one character. Some of it is "lost," I suppose, math-wise.

@OP, Erm... if they have some money around, then they can just set a lower goal in their Kickstarter campaign. They only wanted 1,000,000 for PoE, right? And they got 4. Does that mean we should have 4 games right now, instead of just 1? Does that seems reasonable?

And yet, sometimes it's more prudent to walk than to run. Existing game romances feel more like someone running before they learned to walk, as well as when it isn't even prudent to run. Gourmet chefs have a very high bar set for them, compared to amateur cooks in their own kitchens. Sometimes, that simply amounts to knowing how to get the best flavors with fewer ingredients and/or less seasoning/sauce, etc. If typical romances are frosting on a cake, all I ask is for a cake with more ingredients inside (like a rum cake), instead of with just frosting slapped on top. Clearly. What's a necromancer? Someone who mances necros? Here's a good question: How many lines of dialogue and/or what amount of content constitute a romance, as opposed the game lacking a romance? What dictates the threshold? I mean, even in Bioware games, some characters have less romance-arc content than others. If they get down below a certain amount, is it no longer a romance? Or, is it a romance only because the game's design tells you it is with a heart icon on your dialogue option? I'm really curious, here.

I dunno why that was, either. I get early 3D games that really took advantage of the 3D aspect (Like Super Mario 64). Sure, the textures and models weren't beautiful, but the game would've been a lot different if it were 2D. But, games like Neverwinter Nights... it really didn't gain much by being 3D, except for being less pretty. I guess people just wanted to play around with new-fangled graphics? *shrug*

Romantic wish fulfillment? Perhaps? Romantic actually-thought-out story aspects? I don't believe so.

I have a feeling we'll see a boatload of numbers tuning in the final version. Just look at all the proposed changes to Interrupt (interrupt potency on different weapons, differing chances of Interrupt, effects of crits/hits/grazes, etc.), and that's just between two beta builds. And that's just one combat factor. Again, I don't expect Wizards to be specifically tanky. But, they really don't need to be the-opposite-of-tanky, when everyone else is already either average, or quite-tanky. Or, at the very least, the likelihood of your character taking some damage is still way too high, even with heavy armor and a shield, so it's silly that a Wizard trying his best to just hold his own in Melee can still be dropped pretty easily, while a Barbarian just standing there naked laughing at the enemy and saying "CUT ME AGAIN!" can last like three times as long. I'm going to make a Wizard regardless, but I'd really like to make a somewhat-melee-oriented Wizard. I'd understand if it was "Oh crap! 10 enemies! Might wanna fall back, Wizard!". But, if it's "Oh crap! Anyone in melee range at all! Might wanna fall back, Wizard!", I'll just be sad. In our PnP campaigns, I always actually gave my Mage some weapons skills and such. He didn't rush into the fray to annihilate everyone with his mad skills. But, he could easily hold his own against one target. Depending on the target he could still be in trouble, as compared to another class who wouldn't be. But, it wasn't dire danger just because something was fighting back up-close. I really kind of wish we had weapon skills, so you could actually tweak your melee-ability on some kind of scale. I get that there are all the weapon focus talents, but they just feel like "One proficiency point on 5 weapons! 8D!" Doesn't feel like much room to adjust the own-holding capabilities of a less-than-deadly class. And if you took nothing but weapon focus/specialization (just for example, you maxed out your Wizard's melee weapon-using abilities), it feels like having piddly Health just completely contradicts that decision. Like putting yourself into melee is a just plain bad idea, instead of just not the best idea.

What if there are only three of you, though? Who ventures forth, then? 6_u

Yes. Like a class. You know, like Scythe-Wizard.

It's not solely about the damage, no, but it's gotta be considered. What I'm really thinking of is offensive utility. There's no point in giving something up for less-than-that-something (in general... damage is not going to be EQUALLY as useful as Deflection, for example). Keep in mind, by choosing the 1H fighting style talent, you're not just foregoing the other fighting styles you could've chosen... you're foregoing an entire hand's worth of weapon/shield. Simply using no fighting style, and equipping a small shield or second weapon gives you great bonuses. Then, you can take a talent for either to get even more bonuses. What do you get for using only 1 weapon? More probable damage (Accuracy's gonna give you statistically more hits and crits). With a 2-handed weapon, you already get better base damage (albeit at the cost of attack speed, so that's at least balanced conceptually), but then, you get more guaranteed damage (the equivalent of some Accuracy without the uncertainty) if you use the 2H fighting style. See, a 2-handed weapon accounts for the fact that you're not getting to use your other hand for anything else. But, a 1-handed weapon just kinda shrugs at your other hand. The only thing preventing you from equipping something in that other hand is "this bonus is totally worth it in some capacity." I don't care if it's not damage-centric, but, Accuracy IS about damage, for the most part. I agree about weapon effects being something to differentiate, though. Maybe that's it? Maybe the 1H style could offer boosted weapon effects? Be it on all hits, or just crits, or whatever is decided. That would make them pretty nice, though. With that 1H weapon and fighting style, you give up a shield or second weapon, so you're dealing less damage, but you're using all that extra control and precision you've got (maybe it still gets an accuracy bonus of however many points wouldn't be ridiculous) to inflict terrible effects on the foe more often (or every time? *shrug*).

It's not harsh. It's simply inaccurate. I was just letting you (and, really, everyone) know. I mean, I know what you meant, simply because it's become inexplicably common for people to use the term like that. You can continue calling it what you wish. I just wanted to point that out, so that maybe we can collectively say "Oh yeah, that's not really what I meant," and start making accurate word-to-idea relationships cool again. I'm uhh... I'm not sure "storymancer" works, either, unless someone is mancing stories. 8P If we mish-mash "plot junkie," we get "plunkie." That's kind of fun,

I do really hope the final game lets you pick your starting gear (from a select list, of course). It sucks to pick Weapon Focus - Noble, only to not have access to a rapier. 8P I know we currently don't pick any Talents at level 1, but I really hope that changes (and we get to select SOME kind of extra talent-like customization at level 1 -- we're not fetii, after all. I'm sure a fully-adult, level-1 character has already developed SOME kind of specialization for something adventuring-related.)

Wizards are pretty horrendously squishy. I don't think the HP divide between classes needs to be quite as extreme. It's a bit of a mixed message when the game's like "want to wear the thickest armor known to man and wield a halberd, as a Wizard?! THAT'S TOTALLY FINE! Just prepare to inherently still go down in about 3 hits, and also suck at casting! 8D!" Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks can inherently be better frontline combatants than Wizards without Wizards being made out of balsa wood. Ideally, I'd leave the majority of Health and the like to stats and something akin to traits. You can always give Wizards some kind of penalty, like a defense penalty for each additional foe who's attacking them simultaneously or something. So, maybe you can make a Wizard who's pretty good, actually, at 1-on-1 melee combat, but when others start joining in, you're going to want to get out of there (even if it's like 3 "wussy" foes, because they'll be collectively a bigger threat to you than to another class.) Casters should be friggin' scary. Not "as long as I can thump him before he kills me, I win!"

They're probably sneaking a new build past on the western flanks, or perhaps the western rear. 8P

I'm sorry, but unless you freely sell your story-writing creativity in an astoundingly open fashion, no one is a "story whore." You might be a story "junkie," or a story "fanatic," etc. Whoring is the act of trading something of your own (usually just one thing, but it can be used more figuratively) for monetary gain. Or, it could also be used to describe one who manages others, and freely trades their stuff for monetary gain. Either way, being extremely particular about and/or obsessed with some aspect of games' designs is in no way akin to whoring. I really have no idea why that's a thing. It's a commonly used phrase all other the internet, now, and it makes no sense. My apologies for this service announcement. Please, continue. *bow*

Pre-buffing's fine. It's a thing you can have too much of or too little of, just like anything else. If they felt there was too much (which I agree with, on a certain level), then they could've just designed way fewer buffs to last that long. Honestly, though, in a cRPG, it's a bit silly to have buffs that last 6 hours and grant armor or damage or accuracy. They might as well just be auras, at that point. "For the next 73 encounters, you'll get to go beyond the stat choices you made at character creation PLUS your current level's worth of allocations PLUS your current gear already makes you." There's nothing tactical about that. It's never a better idea to forego buffs at that point. So, yeah, agree with the "too much pre-buffing" view, from a tactical standpoint, but disagree with heavy-handed "ZERO PRE-BUFFING!" If a dish is over-seasoned, you don't remove all the seasoning.

The only thing I don't like about making 1H style just attack faster is that that's pretty much what dual-weapon style does, right? Ideally, each style would give you a different bonus (even if you had SOME overlap, like one giving you something + deflection, and another giving you something else + less deflection). So, it'd be nice if the 1H style gave you something worth scratching your chin over. "Maybe I should pick that, and use this character in this manner in combat." Instead of "Maybe I want to attack faster, but not quite as fast as dual-weapons." So, maybe 1H gets a faster attack rate AND some unique bonus (still can't figure out a really good one)? Or just a slew of minor bonuses, making it the well-rounded choice? *ultra-shrug*

This. Even if a game has not-so-fantastic gameplay, but a fantastic story, while I can't give it a 9/10, I can still rate it well, for what it is (maybe a 7/10?). I mean, I enjoyed The Last of Us, but it wasn't because the gameplay was super fun. It was pretty super-basic 3rd-person shooting, on a mechanical level. Sure, the animations and detail in enemy unit actions and movements (and your own) were amazing, but the actual AI/behaviors, and the actual combat/stealth mechanics were nothing to write home about. Which is kind of a shame. Story-heavy games don't necessarily need to map a new continent with their gameplay mechanics, but they should at least be quite solid and enjoyable, even without the story there. If sneaking past a dude is only fun because the story progresses, for example, then I don't think you should even have to do that. It should just be one of those things you control, but that you can't really fail at. "Quick, over here, through this vent shaft that the guard's never going to spontaneously check, so as long as you do what I'm telling you, you're always going to sneak past him." Annnnnnywho... Mechanics are important, even if the story's more so. Now back to Romance.

Yeah, I knew 3rd Ed. D&D did that. I just tend to go straight for the concept I'm thinking of, and not for "Like such-and-such system," because I inevitably fail to remember certain specifics of that particular system, and that ends up causing more confusion unless I just fully explain the exact concept I'm going for anyway, heh. Also, things do get a little more complex when you've got two different types of damage. However, that doesn't really make things ultra complicated or anything. Think of it this way: PoE currently has 9-or-so different damage types. Imagine non-lethal damage is just called "concussive" or something, and it's just a damage type. Now imagine that "concussive" damage only hits your Endurance bar, and all other damage hits your Health bar. Now, you start with nothing doing Concussive damage (in your design process), and go through deciding what should deal non-lethal damage, and what shouldn't. It's really not that complex, inherently. Sure, you could get REALLLLY complex with that. But, it's just 2 things instead of one. Now, I mean, taking the current PoE system and converting that... that would be no quick-and-easy task. But, I just mean designing your game from the start that way. It would be nice to see that representation of damage, especially in a game that's already kind of representing it (with two "health" bars) in a game like PoE. You could even apply the max-health strikes idea to both bars, independently. Did you drop in combat because of your non-lethal damage? You get a penalty to your maximum Endurance. I dunno exactly how much of one, or how long it lasts/how it gets removed. That remains to be figured. But, it's a disincentive for being downed, while not being a horribly huge penalty just for being downed one time. The more times you consecutively let people become downed, the worse it would be for you. Which is kind of the idea behind Health/Endurance as it currently is; the more damage you take, the less damage you're able to take in the next encounter before you're in a lot of trouble. If you get down to 50 Health, then it doesn't matter that your Endurance'll recharge after combat.

To be clear, nothing is gained by preventing the player from being stingy. If you want to hoard your gold, you should be able to. However, if you can very easily spend gold on all the things in the game that would be useful to you, AND still have amasses hoards of gold, then something's wrong. At that point, why even have gold? "I found 10,000 gold in the first chest I came to, and I bought every single weapon and armor off the first arms merchant for a total of 6,000 gold." That sort of thing. I know gold "sinks" are a thing when you're talking about the game's economy in any regard, but I hate that term, because there shouldn't be anything in the game expressly designed to dispose of gold. If something exists and is able to be obtained, it should be for its own reasons. If it costs gold, that should be for a reason also. Being a gold sink should just be a side effect.

8D! We can use it to weave everyone some XP garments! When you equip them, you gain XP! 6_u