Ulquiorra

Nah, the case for Romance is that they make for more memorable and better interaction with party members. The case against Romance is.....mmmm.....oh yes we can focus on other types of party interaction and discussion arcs .... That is all Even as someone who is nominally pro-romance in role playing games, a poorly written romance isn't going to be "more memorable and better interaction" than well written alternatives. True but as far as I know no one is advocating a badly written Romance arc But there's no guarantee that by writing a romance arc that it will be good; therefore romance as element cannot be seen as naturally additive, ie game < game + romance. The same as there are no guarantee that other type of relationships whoud be writen good. but still nobody complains And besides "badly desinged romances" are more memorable then good ones ... reaf this thres cerfuly and you see that all people complain about "bio-were cal of duty proromancers, no-lifers, etc. etc ...etc.... scum on the society" but almost no one says ... hey .. some romances was good ... for example those who fit in storyline ... The argu is about "we dont;t want romance-system like in biowere" ... but lets think a bit qhous any one be glad about "frendship" or "rivality" system ? ... i feel then no one ... I'm not sure exactly what you said in that post but I like it anyway anyone complains about badly desined romances .. but nobady complains about badly desings frendhips, rivality, hate .. so what we must cut them out becouse "they can be design badly to ?" Now you uderstand ?

ofc first one. Who cares if assasin could kill you before u call for help if u cannot confirm this from his appearance if we talking about crpg "intimidation"? Yeah if you don't know that then that.s ok .. but if you knew .... than this other thing .. other example Mucsulinge guy .. and kanibal .. Strong guy - I will cruch you bones ... Kanibal guy - I will enjout eating you for weeks ... Who is more intimidaiting ?

There isn't going to be one of those either! lol you know what i was saying lol

there always be some part of co-op .. wizadz are ameing dames .. tankers are tanking etc ... But if you think about co-op from multi perspectiv im 100% agninst it ... sory we ave already a hudge dungeon ... no rome for romances or co ops

From a modeling perspctin its .. 15 minutes ... to scale a model to shorter one (but as waight as original), you take scalin onption in 3d maker program .. 6 models ... 1 hour and 30 minutes ... and make some minor changes ... 3-6 hours yeah .... a hudge about of time

So what kreken battle is better then more realitic relationships ... then i sugest a pokemon game .. no realism .. only fights

No there will be regardles what you say .. unless anyone is genderless and "gender" option in the creation kit is to only "boob" adding ... Their will be some kid of romance, but not with player character

Nah, the case for Romance is that they make for more memorable and better interaction with party members. The case against Romance is.....mmmm.....oh yes we can focus on other types of party interaction and discussion arcs .... That is all Even as someone who is nominally pro-romance in role playing games, a poorly written romance isn't going to be "more memorable and better interaction" than well written alternatives. True but as far as I know no one is advocating a badly written Romance arc But there's no guarantee that by writing a romance arc that it will be good; therefore romance as element cannot be seen as naturally additive, ie game < game + romance. The same as there are no guarantee that other type of relationships whoud be writen good. but still nobody complains And besides "badly desinged romances" are more memorable then good ones ... reaf this thres cerfuly and you see that all people complain about "bio-were cal of duty proromancers, no-lifers, etc. etc ...etc.... scum on the society" but almost no one says ... hey .. some romances was good ... for example those who fit in storyline ... The argu is about "we dont;t want romance-system like in biowere" ... but lets think a bit qhous any one be glad about "frendship" or "rivality" system ? ... i feel then no one ...

big muscles ussually more intimidating than pale scin, greasy hair and weak eyesight. But i agree that pals/LG sould be restricted form "intimidating" option. Im not talking about pale skin or green hair, i am takling about personality : if we have "good cop that allways do right thing" and "unpredictable serial killaer, pshy kanibal" then the secont person whoud be more intimidaiting regardles of "how much muscules" they have KGB or other "assasinn special goups" where not so intimidaiting becouse they have muscules but becouse they coud kill you easly (even stronger people) or kill you for hours ... enjoing it ... What is more intimidaiting arrogant buck of meat or specialized assasin that coud end you before you say "help" .. (not mentioning atacking)

I don't think that Strength = intimidation. You may be strong and not look strong and you may look strong but not be so strong. Secoundly i think that i fire ball is more intimidating then muscules.... But more noticibly, for an example : 1. You have very strong, blonde paladin in shiny armor that is talking abou law .. 2. You have serial killer, kanibal, psychopath in Joker style, face coveres in scarsr waird tattos etc. but he is not looking "strong". And with of those are more "intimidaiting" ?

heh .. it whoud be fun to have Death Godlike with black angelic-like wings ....awwwwww ....awsome

Or, as a not-as-good-but-still-better-than-usual option, at the very least, make it actually difficulty/resource-intensive to get to the top of an organization. AND don't let the player get to the top of every organization. AND if you're going to give the player some spiffy item for making it to that position, at least make it an awesome item, instead of just a mildly pretty-decent one that can easily be outshone by effortlessly-crafted-by-the-player stuff (I'm looking at you, Robes of the Archmage from Skyrim). But seriously... I would still much prefer for simply climbing into pretty good ranks to be the way to go, and for it to be interesting and meaningful, instead of just rungs on the ladder to faction CEO. I also think so, but i also think that some organisations (in skyrim mostly) where desined stupidly.... 1 mage gulid, 1 warrior gulid, 1 rogue gulid, 1 anti-goverment gulid, 1 goverment gulid. For example im orcish spellsword..... And im propably gonna join mage and warrior gulids (becouse i have both type of abilitys) and for example 1 anti goverent ... the only gulit that i was feeling that i was realy belonging to was anti-goverment ... pure warrior and pure magic gulids was immersion brakers to my char. I shoud be more intelectial then pure fighters and more brave/ combat oriented then pure casters ... the "non-class" based gulid was the best becouse no one was asking me to fix problems in pure "wizard-style" or "pure-warrior style" .. or at least they don't made that clear ... Scoundry after a wile i have becouse the master of wizards gulid and fighter at the same time ... more then non-realistic to me ... I think that there shoud be more "non-class-based organizations" or at least "pure class organizations shoud only take those who are in their "piont of view", wirad gulid shoud take wizards and sorcerers but to druid ... thanks to obsidan in PoE we will have kitts of our class so propably no pure rogue coud join wizards gulid etc ..

Sure, it's easier to decide that avoiding/hating a specific group of people based on an identifiable factor (ethnicity) will yield statistically awesome benefits, after being wronged or otherwise negatively affected by one or more members of that group, than it is to deal with each and every person I come across as an individual with the potential to be any manner of person imaginable. That still doesn't make it logical. No i did't say about "some" sad events like "they robbed me so i hate them". But if a whole "etnicity" is at a war with mine isin't it at tihis point logical to hate them ? For example we have a 2 nations who hate ech other, one nation is of blue people one of yellow, if a blue started ethnical cleansing of yellow people, those it mean that yellow have a right to "hate" the blue race as a whole ? And im talking about "Hate" racism not "my nation is better" racism. Next more fantastical example Orcs invade Elfs, they where killing robbing etc. If orcs as stupid monsters that bearly are able to use weapons but elfs are "higher" from civilizational develompment level and are more "civilized" then orcs will it not be normal for them to feel "hate racism" and "im better racism" at the same time ? Games where always racis to orcs, ogres etc "becouse they are monsters". Games will never think about "not killing" them as they will do if they where encoutering humans. So there is some sort of "monster box" that we can put someone some-race without thinking twice. Of cource that we can say "hay there ones that are attacking" but remember every conversation with a monsterlike-talking creature there war always a line "hay you can talk, i was thing that your king is mindless monsters" or "ohh... you are orc you must be realy stupid"... if this isn't some sort of racism then i don't know what is

1. Realistic, mature, living characters. 2. Good, interesting storyline. 3. Meaningfol decisions (both in char progression, and the story) 4. Living, interactiv world. 5. Athmospheric. 6. As many role-playing possibilitis as possible. 7. Non buged abilitys/ quests/ decisions (i will even stand some graphical bugs).

I dunno... it seems pretty illogical. "I had an interaction with some people who happened to be of a certain ethnicity, and they gave me a valid reason to hate them, specifically. Therefore, I shall deduce that the cause of their badness was their ethnicity, and assume I should hate all people who share that ethnicity! I'm pretty sure that's literally a fallacy of logic. I could be wrong. "Understood" and "logical" are not the same thing. Apart from real life. If i hate ogre/ orcs/ undead etc. Becouse their monster that whant to kill me and are not someone that i convince .... and im hateing those races .. this meant that im a logical or illogical races ? Now to a real life I bring this topic becouse from historical pooint of view there "Was" same cultures that racism to them was "logical", mongole hordes (all of them were rapeing, killing, looting raiding) or a racism for germans in a World War 2, germans where thyring to complatly trying to derstoy Polish people Jews etc, it i was a Polish guy then racism for my opresors is logical or not ? For me racism is mostly illogical but in some extreme cases it is logical,

I was thinking about something. Games in 80's where mostyly only games like "click and catch a ball". Games in 90's started to have some "story" in it but still it was more focused on "gameplay" part of the games. in 99/01 the "Story" started to be realy meaningfull (BG, BG2) examples, and some main "Story". Today games look like animated-videos with possibility to decide how this "video" will end. but still there is a "Story" and i even think that in some point this "Story" element started to be most important and more "emotional" then previos games. This type of evolution brings up 2 subiects that are very close to "romance" it is "Story-taleing" and "athmosphere". The whole idea about romances where also changed becouse of it. Prevously romances were only shown as a "text wall" today "interactiv move with sex-cutscenes". To me the point about romances, homances, hatemances etc in today video games are problematis becouse of bad writhing and trying to make some "system" out of it. But first thing i what to show is storytaling, for example take "Game of Thrones" nobady says it has bad story, it has romance, bromance, homance, rape and high sexual content, and nobady says "Game of thrones" is like softcore porn or "biowere-style" child, why ? becouse it has good story, comlexed world and are waaay batter in story taleing then all bio-were game combined. Of course game of thores is not "romance-cantred" but still chars are acting realistic, we see all kind of relationships. If we copy this content to a vieo-game with AA+ graphics, still will it be bad idea of seeing some form of "romances" and sex scenes (by the way in Game of Thrones we mostly see homance and almost in every episode there is some point of sex-scene) whoud this type of game be bad ? In my opinion not until they will not cutting or "changeing" something to pass a game thru PG12 raiting. But still i thing that many players (even if the game whoud be also great from gameplay perspectiw) whoud not like it becouse of those "3d Sex-scenes". And here we returt to "Atmosphere", in older games "Atmosphere" was mostly build by musics, story, textwall conversations... Today games can be made to a full "movie-like" level, faces can have mimics, camera can change position, so.. mostly movie-like. Most of the players are offendet by this becouse they still can't get it that today this type of things, and we have more possibilitis. But still some people cant eat this idea of iteractiv-movie like games. Are those games bad becouse of it ? No, adding AA+ graphics are not the reason why some games are lame, sex-cutsces also are not the reason. Problem is storytaleing, if story is bad then it's bad and will be bad. If we have story-relevant romance that is pointed to a decision "yes or no" then the story may be done well. But if we have non-story relevant 6 romances / 3 possible threesomes, 2 homances etc, there it isn't possible to make a good story from a "system-based-daiting-sim" romances, i will uderstand even 2/3 romances but not 6-8 like in mass effect 2. Romances, homances, bromances and every type of possible relationship is the "center" of story even if some of you are struggleing about it. For example, why do you must hate "Archevil", why you must save/ destory world ? why you what to save/ destoy a vilidge ? Even Player - Archevil is some form of relation ship "hate, rivality etc". Without it most of the games whoud never function. So in most cases the raltionships are the bricks of any story-line. For example : Player hates his enemy/ enemys, player is travelling becouse he want to find out who killed his parent/parents player likes his companions/are their emloyer(mercs)/ have simmilar goal (enemy of my enemy etc). Player save/destroyes vilidge becouse he likes/ hates them/ or at least what to act good or bad, player character is romancing some girl becouse of deep emotional conection(or isin't). Now a storyline without any relationship : Player fight enemy becouse "his" evil. Player is traveling becouse ... he don't have anything to do, companions are travelling with player becouse... someone telled them to do so, player save/ destoyed vilidge becouse destroying it will give him addictional 1000gold from looting and he needs that to by longswod+3 or not destroying will give him more exp and he want to level up. Player is romancing girl becouse he want to see sex-scenes. Now with type of story taleing is better ? Romance isn't a problem. And by the way THERE will be some sort of romance in PoE, but not with player char (for examle farmer and his wife, princes and a guy who want to marry her but parent are not for him) so if those "story-based" romances are acceptle then why PC-based in simillar way isin't ? and before anyone argu with me "where always will me some sort of a "Girl-boy-love" relation in game, so in some point proromancers win at the begining

LOTR Version :

Seriously guys I am sorry but Bioware has made some great games. The amount of hate they get lately just makes the internet look stupider than it normally is. Of god the ME3 ending was bad, not that! Actually no, it really wasn't that bad. I am sorry some people didn't like it but I bet more people were mystified it was even an issue than were upset. As for Dragon Age 2 it was still an okay game. Was it great? No. Was it even above average? No. But was it a bad game? Not really. If Dragon Age 2 is the worse game your company has ever made you are not doing bad. Get over it Bioware haters your schtick is old. Please note I am not singling out Monte Carlo here despite the quote. His offenses on this front are few and far between and quite minor compared to many I have seen. I am calling down the whole attitude of Bioware hate the fanboi on this forum have. I agree

Whait so i be able to play one of this dudes ? Pillar of Eternity is starting to risemble Bleach more and more ... Who cares about romances if i can be one of this guys ..buahahahaha ... grim reaper falls ..asleep...

And i thout that only people or animals coud be "inteligent", but now i know that world it self can also have intelect ...

Might be just you. Wolves don't have a distinct mane, or a "fat" muzzle/head like that, or a long, lion-like tail like that. Etc. *Shrug* Mayby so, but at least i think that their jaw is a little bit to long ... but mayby it's becouse of angle ...

Yeah, and by thinking about this im aculaty glad that obsidian is not doing romances, even if im proromancer in rpg. The same reason that im very happy that obsidian is not doing fully 3D game... Becouse they suck at is to be honest. 2 Examples from 1 game Neverwinter Night 2. 1. Elanee worst romance ever 2. Badly desineg graphics, this a level of "optimalisation" that even today it isint working without some weird freezez from time to time, and even skyrim is workim like mad on system Not mentioning that NWN2 had propably most ugly head-sets i've senn in newly desined 3D game, only oblivion had worse ..what's strage even NWN1 heads where ... looking better

Is it me or those "Cat form" look almost exacly like "wolf form" ?