KillerClowns

Anyways, back on topic. With the first game involving me planning to go gun-toting ranger, I'll be needing ideally a few meat shields, a cleric to keep them in the game, and a wizard or druid to help bombard mobs, since firearm reload speeds apparently aren't so great. In practice, this may vary, with me tailoring the party a bit to allow particularly fun/interesting characters a chance to shine. The second, I think, will involve me playing as a Bleak Walker. So I'll be limited a bit by those willing to tolerate the brutality such a person sows in their wake. I'll be joining the fighters and barbarians in the front lines, but a chanter and a priest of a suitably dark deity to help buff them even could make for a big, ugly, mean wrecking ball. I'll also be making room for any characters who found the witty, kind-hearted character of the first playthrough unbearable, but open right up to someone who knows the best way to solve problems is to find the people responsible and teach them the meaning of pain and fear.

Probably a human of the Vailian Republics for my first run, because they sound fun with their culture's emphasis on wit and intelligence -- and being, IIRC, technologically advanced, they're likely to have what's needed to support the gun-toting ranger I'm aiming to play.

Bleak Walkers definitely win for most interesting paladin order yet revealed. Yet I have to wonder how their mercilessness is defined, given their stated purpose is "to bring a swift end to conflicts". When the Bleak Walkers are unleashed, are their terms "surrender [under these harsh and non-negotiable terms] or die", or is it too late to even surrender if they are finally called to battle, with the mere threat of their presence used to coerce?

In my mind, that will always be Auric Ulvin. (If you'll pardon the reference to a semi-famous Civ IV mod...) That inspires a lot of optimism, though. Like the painterly style; the characters are distinct and you get a feel for their personality. Even though I'll probably end up using a custom portrait for my PC anyways.

This article is out right ridiculous. This guy only resolution is having more police/moderators to enforce civil behavior? Is that Germany '39? I would take a good close look on that guy, as he is prone to follow Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini/Mao road. "As it turns out, we have a way to prevent gangs of humans from acting like savage packs of animals. In fact, we've developed entire disciplines based around this goal over thousands of years." Yes, we developed a whole bunch of preventing disciplines. This guy claims they are effective, looking at the riots in Greece, USA, France, Russia, Poland etc. they are clearly not. Moderating comments is not a method of preventing hateful and uncivil comments, it's a way of dealing with them. A very bad way, because the same flaws apply to real life police and moderators. They are recruited from the same people that are prone to misbehave, so you have to have another group to control the controllers and so on. That's why we have corrupted cops, criminal cops and so on. That's why moderators are often the ones being attacked most often. So sum it up, this article is fascist beyond comprehension. Wow, that's a lot of butthurt over an article. With a side of Godwin's Law to boot! ...then again, that's really why I posted the article. I don't agree entirely with it -- though it makes some legitimate points, I think PrimeJunta has it right when he says social pressure is a much better solution, albeit one that will take longer. And yeah, noting what TrashMan said, I too reserve the right to be a jackhole when I feel people have it coming. Maybe that makes me no better than other trolls. I just figured watching people bitch and moan when they realize that a bunch of dudes in suits could take away the right to be a jackhole on the internet would be funny.

I'm just gonna leave this here.

[citation needed]

I don't need every farmer and merchant to comment on a Godlike's odd appearance, but race should be touched upon where appropriate. I'd love it if, say, a human supremacist group had racial slurs for every other race and a speech about "a traitor to your kind" for humans. At least some of these some of these reactions might be subtler, requiring multiple playthroughs -- an elven character might be civil, if cool, to a human, and only reveal he's actually a racist prick to a fellow elf. It encourages multiple playthroughs, to see the world through perspectives hidden from previous PCs

Heh. This ain't trolling. This is genetly giving a guy a bit of a ribbing. If we were trolling, trust me, things would be a lot uglier. Personally, I'm not directly interested in the exact "who's doing what," but I've always been a sucker for good devlogs, which would implicitly give that sort of information anyways.

In what sense it is any lesser crime than any other mentioned here? Slavery, one of the popular evil choices, implies a certain amount of rape -- even when the slave isn't explicitly sold into prostitution, there's a real chance they'll be taken advantage of if they're even somewhat attractive. And even if raping one's slaves is illegal, enforcing such laws is difficult at best, and when it's a slave's word against a free person, the slave's got pretty much no chance. Genocide as well, unless maybe the species is completely non-humanoid. It's hard to imagine someone brainwashed into treating a certain class of people as objects not taking advantage of their victims before slaughtering them, for the dead tell no tales. And yet, in both cases, because these consequences are abstracted away... I'm sure you all know that old saw. "One is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."

Damn, you wrote the post I was planning to. Well, mostly. Just one thing to add. How actions are viewed should depend on context, such that an intelligent and pragmatic player should always be able to figure out the "smart" choice out of "good" and "evil" options. Take the old "accept reward or politely refuse" schtick. A poor peasant would view this as a kind deed, and the peasantry would love you for it... for what little that's worth. An idealistic nobleman might give you a greater reward than the offered gold. A wealthy merchant might file you under "sucker," and take advantage of your generosity by manipulating you into eliminating rivals for free with sad, half-true stories. And a foreign warrior, not used to the local culture, might read the refusal of the reward as an insult.

It's about time! The sexually ambiguous sofa demographic is sadly under-represented in modern gaming, and this is a brave step forward.[/selfdeprecating]

On the suggestions of genocide, I can't help but wonder how a small adventuring party is supposed to pull something like that off. Participate in or callously ignore, perhaps, but I somehow don't see the PC's party doing it unilaterally. Just... logistics, y'know?

This is actually my main problem with the whole discussion surrounding the incident. There's reasonable and good voices (people shouldn't behave that way), but there are people that are upset because a *artist* was attacked and how dare you insult someone *special*. I must agree with this point. Being an artist, even one as clearly skilled as Fish, does not give one a right to be a jackass. An artist shouldn't have to endure torment and mockery simply for trying to create art. But it's a damn shame nobody was there to drag Fish away from the computer before he did anything stupid.

I love offensive humor (see ), and I can shrug off trolls if necessary. But the childish insults and obscene threats that are so common among third rate trolls? Why would anyone who isn't utterly unfit for society think that counts as somehow funny? As for Phil Fish: he was being a jackhole, yeah. But let's be honest, he did what a lot of creative types have fantasized about doing, but thankfully do not. That doesn't make it right, to be clear, and having played Fez, I'm hoping he reconsiders on making a sequel, but... c'est la vie. Actions have consequences

Nice try, BruceVC, but I think if we were all in agreement this thread wouldn't be seventeen pages long, and wouldn't be the most recent of seventeen threads either. What you present there is almost the textbook definition of anecdotal evidence. As any behavioral economist will tell you, people are more easily swayed by a few colorful examples than by the weight of data. So, though it is--as you have clearly recognized--a good tool for scoring points in arguments, anecdotal evidence doesn't actually prove anything. Here in this thread I can find a number of examples of people who believe the antithesis of what you do, as strongly as you do. Would you then concede that romance doesn't help with sales, just because I can find anecdotal counterexamples? You make some good points I have to concede that you are right and the implementation of Romance is not what everyone wants. I thought I could slip that one in without you noticing But now back to the facts, let me give you a different example to reinforce my point. We know that ME and DA each sold several million copies and that is considered excellent sales figures. We also know that each game had comprehensive implementations of Romance. These are facts right? Now if you go to BSN you will find hundreds of posts from people who love and cherish Bioware games and the way they implement Romance. Without doing detailed research I can't say that all those millions of people bought Bioware games for Romance but I can say without a doubt that the integration of Romance hasn't effected there sales figures. And if they did they were negligible as we know the excellent sales numbers So why leave out something like Romance when it can potentially make certain groups purchase the game and by including it you won't be effecting the sales as we can see from the Bioware model? Why not just include it I can already see the reply incoming, the common refrain: "because it takes up writing resources that could be used elsewhere." EDIT: Not saying it's an illegitimate argument or anything, mind, just that it's a common and inevitable one.

Oh yeah, and this. Any romance option that serves as wish fulfillment and/or emotional pornography (not to be confused with conventional pornography, though there's overlap) is a terrible thing to be burned with fire. Y'know, one of the common meta jokes for RPGs and such is a character that behaves like a PC would. Maybe watching a guy try to get into a girl's pants in the stereotypical PC style would make a nice background gag. "Hey, I searched the city sewers for days to find that ring for you! Why don't you love me?" "...because I'm married, I already paid you the promised bounty, and you haven't washed since."

I'll defintiely say this much... romance or no romance, **** sex scenes. (Terrible pun completely intended.) Close the door and fade to black. I always skipped the sex scenes in the Mass Effect series and the Witcher series because they always felt creepily voyueristic. Maybe it's possible for a video game to have a tasteful sex scene, but it hasn't happened to my knowledge. Based on the way the internet/game forums tend to work ... not much would cease. The debate would probably just shift direction ... if/whenever the topic came up again. It's not a debate that is confined to a single game, really. Course, I'm a cynical old bat. If they did include it, probably would keep going but arguing over particulars, as if this chatter matters. If they said nope, it'd probably die at that - can't see the pro-romance people lobbying further in vain as they're not pathetic people. Nah, but some of us would start showing an interest in these modding tools we were told about. And to any modders already sharpening their quills, I say better to create new companions than hack into the old and risk shattering their characterization.

Now you see, that is a counter-argument. And a pretty damn good one to boot. Don't know if I agree with it or not -- I'm mulling it over -- but it was respectfully put and thoroughly explained. More of this on both sides and this thread would be a lot less contentious.

Yeah sure Bruce that's exactly it.... Or maybe it has more to do with the fact I don't want limited resources spent on 4-8 romances(2 straight male, 2 gay male, 2 straight female, 2 gay female). And before someone chimes in with you aren't asking for that, you are. The point of me constantly emphasizing Set straight male PC, was to show why those games can get away with no female romances and a lack of homosexual ones. The minute you start allowing the player to create the PC, gender and sexuality change the requirements. If only male players get two romance, females are going to rightly ask why they are being excluded, if only heterosexual players characters get romances, homosexual players are going to rightly asking why they are being excluded. It's a resource drain. I will put it this way, I dislike the idea of any romance in P:E. That's a fair enough point, though you probably should've clarified that before. You still moved the goalposts when offered a counter-argument, though, and besides, there's the standby of four conviniently bisexual characters. As mentioned by CrazyPea, in fact... Oh, look, you just invented Dragon Age 2. "DA2 did it" is not a counter-argument. But that said... Okay, I know when I'm beat. While I guess you could stick me in the fringes of the promancer camp, I won't bitch and whine if it doesn't happen because the guys at Obsidian didn't think it was worth their time. And... yeah, it is looking like that'll be the case. Better for Chris, et al, to stick to their artistic vision then listen to us whiners. If someone else on the writing team thinks otherwise and feels like writnig a romance for some companions would be a good use of their time and creative energies, and they do it well enough to stay up to Obsidian standards, awesome. But if not, life goes on, and let the modders go wild. (God help us all.)

Taking your claim as true -- dubious, as others have pointed out -- more RPGs (excluding those that dispense with romance altogether) should, if they're claiming to offer romances to the PC, ensure that there are options for all sexualities and genders. As with anything else in in-game romances, half-assing it is worse than not doing it at all. The fact that it hasn't been done often or at all (depending on who you ask and how strict you are) is simply a reflection on a past that we, as a civilization, have moved on from. Say what you like about Bioware on other parts, but in this example at least they're worth following.

As one fond of exotic worlds, I'd just like to say: Torment: Tides of Numenera. $4,188,927. I think there's a market for strange and fascinating worlds.

In this much, he has a point. While I'm not personally worried about the new stats system (as long as other systems like feats pick up the slack), the folks at Obsidian have made it very clear they're interested in input from the community... especially since so many of us have already paid for the product.

Are you implying that healthy, strong-willed and independant woman is inferior to chauvinistic male pigs just because of pregnancy? It is horrible how Obsidian forums of today reek with patriarchal misogyny. Don't worry, this time it's obvious you're joking. Nobody in their right mind will deny that carrying around a fetus makes a lot of things harder. Thus the reason I'm going to quietly refer back to my previous idea of the protagonist being rendered conveniently infertile. If there has to be some way of having little blighters running around the castle calling the PC "mommy," "daddy," or "poopoo head," let them adopt orphans or whatnot. Honestly, if one accepts letting the PC have kids as a good idea, adopted kids with their own backgrounds, histories, personalities and perhaps secrets already developed sound way more interesting than squalling poop factories, and the timescale probably won't allow them time to grow up any.

Methinks that in-game reproduction would be quite problematic to deal with. Pregnant people make poor adventurers. Perhaps if Obsidian does go with romance, they'll steal a note from DA:O and the Witcher: whatever disaster the PC witnesses at the start of the game leaves them permanently sterile as a side-effect. Whether this is to be lamented or celebrated is left to the PC, and perhaps a way of adding an interesting wrinkle to romances with characters who like the idea of having a flock of children herding about when the mayhem is done. ASIDE: I for one approve of the idea of inventory babies... if and only if they are properly integrated into this cooking system we've heard so much about, of course.