CaptainMace

What about we define what a romance is before talking about it. I've got the feel people ask for romances, as a game feature and not as a part of some side-stories or character background, yet when it comes to find good examples (or what we'll consider so) of romances, we end up talking about something that has nothing to do with the feature itself but more with good writing overall. So I'm confused

I don't mind obnoxious people charging insane fees on things only them can provide, especially if you gain power in the process. What I'm saying is that diablo-like games (and diablo II and III) did that for gameplay purposes, to fit the game design. Whether it's coherent with the lore or smthg doesn't really matter in that case, I just don't like these design logics. That's why I don't see how it'd fit in a game like PoE that doesn't rely on that kind of "farming sessions" (whether they feel forced on not isn't relevant). So if a game like this features people charging a lot for enchantment when you can enchant yourself, it would basically mean your enchanting abilities are useless by the time you meet these people. Or your ability match 'em and they become the useless enchanters. Either way something is out of place.

You find that the only acceptable system is one where you never run too short on money yet never hoard too much ? That's purely delusional, unless some very automatic game design is featured. I don't mind having too much money at the end of BG as much as I'd HATE a game designed to artificially tax me everynow and then on stupid BS. Beside buying secrets (which both never cost much nor matter much), the rest goes far above the simple balance of the currency system. I understand that it's obviously more interesting to explore gameplay mechanics instead of basic/overused tweaks. But the point of moneysinks and such is that it's easy to implement, it doesn't alter the gameplay in any other way than giving money hoarding purpose. Really, the only problem as being filthy rich is being unable to profit. The only problem would be that there's actually no difference in being extremely rich and not being at all. All we need is magic lore-friendly stuff really. Who cares if there's tons of money left in our pockets again by the end, why would that matter at the end of the game ?

That's exactly what he meant. Though Sawyer is a professionnal gentleman that wouldn't hurt the feelings of anybody by claiming out loud the utter truth of bg2 design. Although totally agree on BG investigation plot. It's the kind of stuff that always hook me (and is why I immediatly liked New Vegas as well, though it's definitely not the same scope of investigation ofc) and the contaminated-iron weapons made the world even more tangible in a way than the sequel. For all the reasons you've already mentioned.

Isn't Torchlight in a slightly different category though ? I haven't played it but I picture it as one of those endless diablo-like that feature insane costs for high level craft for the sake of kicking the player's butt to go venturing forth again and again in order to collect money to be more powerful to be able to collect more money and my brain is melting. I don't think such a logic fits a game like PoE. I still believe the best, and most lore-friendly, solution is to feature the same kind of shops/dudes selling some noteworthy, mighty and magical stuff. With the nice item description that goes with it where you actually realize you've been fooled and it's a damn painted wooden stick you just bought for 12000gc.

Well obviously the problem resides in accumulating a lot without being able to spend enough on relevant stuff. So mechanically you either make sure the player doesn't accumulate much, or is able to spend important sums. Hence : But you somehow call that "goldsinks" ? (Or I don't really get what a goldsink represent to begin with, this is about these very very expensive magical items right ?) Although, potions and bandages as the main good to buy... meeeeh. Though if these are somehow either expensive or limited I guess. Because that obviously doesn't just concern the money situation when it comes to healing items.

Indeed. This shows what romances, as a gimmick, are truly about. I'm starting to understand why we uncounsciously thought of food and buffet while searching for analogies to romances. It's indeed become like a love menu.

What does a buffet truly need ?

If by tactics you mean clicking an ability when the cooldown is up, then DAO is somehow tactical indeed. Mage gameplay is especially tactical.

There's an even more important question that also include this one, which is the relevance of shops selling goods, armors, weapons, magic stuff etc. A ton of recent rpgs made money damn dispensable simply because the stuff you can buy doesn't reach, at all, the level of efficiency/rarity of the stuff you can found or be rewarded of. Something I loved about BG or IWD was discovering these dudes who would sell some crazy magic stuff for an impressive cost, making the player even more envious about it and making big amounts of money relevant. Although hate it when shops have randomized stuff to sell, making magic items the most banal thing ever. So I totally agree, but I'd also add the need for making the money not only useful, but also relevant and rewarding the accumulation of big amounts of gold by something else than knowing you'd never run short of it. Though I'm aware that, especially in BG, you'd still be rich as hell at the end of the game, but I'm confident you see what I mean.

Cooldowns is the worst thing that could ever happen to a game like this. Dragon Age combat was already soporific because of that.

I don't understand the logic behind this swift succession of words. You can avoid rest-spamming in a game as long as there is in-game time ? Yet you're telling us you're totally ok to return to the village, spend some real time doing that, in order to get a little bonus ?

Who said that ? I've said multiple times on this very thread I don't mind romances in rpgs. Romances as a game mechanic feels weird. What I don't understand is why people ask for these game mechanics and justify it by talking about its narrative dimension or its optional aspect. I didn't mean to say that romances, as a part of a story, doesn't add anything to the game. I even wrote otherwise multiple times on this very thread. The romance game mechanic however, which is what people want, seems to be a very weird thing that doesn't fit well in any game that features it. Again, doesn't the association of the word "romance" and "mechanic" feels weird to begin with ? I like the scenery in a game, but again you're bringing the matter on the artistic level. We're talking of the romance as a game mechanic dude. "A story is there for the sake of being there" Really you don't see how a story can bring to the gameplay or the game in general ? You don't see how the story can be an incentive for the exploration and such. What does the romance (AS A GAME MECHANIC) adds to the game, really ? EDIT : Well yeah i'm talking about these romance buttons, gift systems and such since the very beginning ! Guess we weren't sync'd correctly :D

Do you take pleasure in slaying enemies in rpgs ? I usually do it because it's a way to fulfil the missions. I never said it was about taking pleasure in it, at all, and it's not. Now what's the point of having the same mechanic applied to develop a romantic relationship that never adds anything to the story, the characters or the fulfilment of tasks and such, I don't know. I don't mind these kind of things in fire emblem for example, since relationships affect the gameplay via different bonuses and such. I don't see the point of it if it's there for the sake of being there. I didn't mean to say bioware games were all bad or mediocre. But you clearly made a reference to dragon age gift system, and this (and other things) is what makes dragon age a mediocre rpg in my opinion. Didn't mean otherwise. However friendship/inimity usually triggers automatically depending on the player choices/behaviour. Romances usually are about finding the love button between the things i've mentioned. It's a bit out-of-context and the fact these dialogs could trigger anywhere and anytime during baldur's gate 2 campaign pretty much tells how random and out-of-context these mechanics are.

You see this just highlights the illogical nature of some of the criticism about Romance, why is it weird? Its a game, isn't everything about steps you need to complete ? Why single out Romance ? Because among all the things that you do steps by steps, mechanically, in a game, the most weird one is indeed developing a romantic relationship between your character and some other one. I mean the very association of the word "romance" with the word "mechanic" which is all over this thread just... feels very very weird. All of this feels way way less weird than a romantic relationship. Friendship has never been a game mechanic of any good rpg as far as I know. It's either automatic, part of the narration, or featured in sims-like games. In most Bioware games you need to do a loyalty mission/give enough gifts/achieve enough friendship points for REAL friendship to be unlocked. The requirements for romance and for friendship are normally pretty much the same, except for romance you pick a couple flirting lines on top of that. I said good rpgs. Bioware gifts, which they did only once if im not mistaken, is exactly a sims-like game mechanic btw. Although edited before i saw your answer sorry for that :>

You see this just highlights the illogical nature of some of the criticism about Romance, why is it weird? Its a game, isn't everything about steps you need to complete ? Why single out Romance ? Because among all the things that you do steps by steps, mechanically, in a game, the most weird one is indeed developing a romantic relationship between your character and some other one. I mean the very association of the word "romance" with the word "mechanic" which is all over this thread just... feels very very weird. Though I like romances in stories, I just really don't find it tasteful when it's reduced to a choice between A) Recomfort B) Make fun of C) Don't give a f*ck "Hmmmm what is the love button ?" Romances just don't fit well as game mechanics. All of this feels way way less weird than a romantic relationship. Friendship and inimity has never been a game mechanic of any good rpg as far as I know. It's either automatic, part of the narration, or featured in sims-like games. I've never witnessed a dialog which purpose is to determine if the npc adheres or not to your method. It's usually a smooth thing. Unlike romances. If you don't see the difference between convincing a npc to trust you in order to fulfil a mission via a series of speech check and making a lady blush for -no reason- via the same gameplay mechanic, you got a problem.

Well enemies using the same system would obviously not make any difference now, would it.

I don't get the point of this topic. It feels like the op just realized that nothing comes out of thin air and that you could reach the ancient times by endlessly rewinding the chains of inspiration. Now I understand that stories inspired by other stories are less (or seem less) original that stories inspired by history events, which feel less original than stories inspired by a day at work or some reminiscence of a dream, but really it's all the same in the process. Now go, wild soul, and chase down every similarities in the massive world of story-telling. Don't forget your lunch it's gonna take a while.

They although react to other characters and events in general. I think we all agree that a rpg with recruitable companions can only benefit from their reactions to your actions. That doesn't mean it's about ego-stroking as you present it. it's about giving 'em a bit of believability through the only natural (or it seems natural) way, aka the player's actions. I fail to see why romances would add anything particular to that aspect. Again, I don't have anything about romances, but they're really dispensable, and as I've said I have yet to see a romance that brings anything to the character concerned, the PC or the world they evolve in. As Stun said, this seems to be exclusively about ego-stroking indeed. Unlike characters reacting to the player actions, decisions and such, which is about depth and believability. Although non companions react to the player actions and decisions, is that ego-stroking as well ? Is every good rpg out there ego-stroking, and only ego-stroking ? Although they see pc as someone they can travel with, it's nothing particularly cool to know when it concerns a red-dressed wizard that basically use you as a tool. I've seen better ego-stroking.

Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree Really it's nothing about that. Or Xzar and Montaro, Edwin or Xan make the player feel important and I've failed to see how. I know the first BG didn't put the same depth in its companions background, but they had personality nevertheless.

Skyrim mods all over again.

I haven't played Isolation yet but the criticisms I have read about is that you spend too much time sneaking around and avoiding Aliens than you do killing them, is this is valid ? You can't kill the aliens per say, gameplay-wise the flamethrower is the only way to face the alien, and it only makes it go away. It's indeed a sneaking game overall. Plus, I don't understand how it's a bad thing unless these people expected a shooter. It's not. It's an alien game Edit : just realized tamerlane already said it all.

Alien Isolation is the best damn thing that happened to Alien since Alien itself. Yeah I don't like AlienS, sue me !

Fixed.