Gromnir

angry joe? well, it is nice that he likes the game, whoever he is. on the other hand, if it were Mighty Joe Young who approved... HA! Good Fun!

we would prefer a duster and/or stetson o' protection. black of course. ... is actual kinda ironic. HA! Good Fun!

currently is bugged. it appeared as if orlan were getting crit chance multiplied depending on the number o' party members attacking a given foe. HA! Good Fun!

"I have yet to see somebody create a thread to talk about romances in general, and not the rpg mechanic, and someone replying to narrow the definition of the romance to make his point. That just doesn't exist. Because there's no particular reason to talk about "that" romance. And no particular reason to be against it." btw, this is wrong. we wish folks would quit with the sweeping (and wrong) generalizations. stun has been doing that a great deal. there is no reason to copy his mistake. he couldn't deal with Gromnir personal, so he started generalizing and telling us that ALL promancers and romance threads is alike and that all such folks in them say the same stuff. don't be that guy. try and be better. is a guy earlier in this thread that pointed out that writer efforts to convey feeling is wasted effort. in his opinion, any effort by the developers to make the player care about characters were pointless. voss were quite animated and serious. also, as Gromnir indicated earlier in this thread, there is a very good reason to discuss romance separate from the tangential and optional mini-game/side-quest companion romances. we observed that we believed romance were handled well in ps:t. we gave examples o' poignant and heartfelt romance. we also observed that such romance existed and were possible Before the proliferation and popularity o' bioware style romance. we lamented that it is possible that bioware style romances decrease the likelihood o' more mature romances being included in crpgs. after all, if you already got considerable resources devoted to exploring thematic love via the optional side-quest nonsense, it makes sense that as a developer/writer you would be less inclined to make serious exploration o' similar themes in the critical path. etc. don't generalize. stun did so to avoid making a rational argument. am not sure why you are doing. don't make the same error. HA! Good Fun!

sorry, but that is idiotic. if other folks did the same stoopid thing, it don't somehow make his ridiculous backpedaling any less silly. heck, Gromnir also gave the genesis poster a hard time earlier in this thread. so stun sudden had a brain seizure and started spouting nonsense that not only was utterly irrelevant, but were mimicry o' the idiocy o' the guy he were insulting earlier in this thread? that is the why you feel stun does not deserve recriminations for his nonsense? HA! okie dokie. HA! Good Fun!

this is a trick question? answer: whatever form you were in before you spiritshifted. HA! Good Fun!

Not at all. Take everyone's definition of what a video game romance is or can be, put it all together, and the Above is what you get. This has been demonstrated on every single romance thread ever done on this forum. Including the current one. ... ... wow. gonna do a pontius pilate and wash our hands o' you. am hoping you ain't serious at this point, but we suspect you are. HA! Good Fun!

so then, this were fraudulent: "Who's confused? Have we not established that Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not...?" so at best, even though you were responding to Gromnir, you can point to one other person in a near 20 page thread that might embrace such a definition? wow. how... sad. is you even trying at this point? new. say something new. btw, repeating self is not new. "And besides you, who claims that all it takes for an NPC to be romanceable is for them to have loved one of your past incarnations? " we chalk this up to confusion 'cause otherwise it is intentional fibs. we did say that ravel's love for you were an example o' romantic love. you can't see a difference between a npc being romancable and that npc's love for the protagonist being an example o' romantic love? one wonders if you is manufacturing stuff about the genesis poster as you is with Gromnir. HA! pathetic. try. at least try to add something. "so, for the (FOURTH) time, has anybody other than stun posted such nonsense as the following: ""Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not." "show us. " HA! Good Fun!

reach weapons are extreme useful and arguably essential. ... wait, this isn't troika's toee? well, p00p. for poe, the reach quality for weapons is of limited efficacy when fighting in doorways. stick your tank in the doorway and lets your pike armed character poke holes in folks who don't have a ranged weapon or a reach weapon o' their own. keep in mind that unlike d&d with critical threat ranges and vastly different damage potentials, the weapons is 'posed to be balanced. the weapon qualities is not 'posed to give a strong advantage. HA! Good Fun!

so, for the Third time, has anybody other than stun posted such nonsense as the following: "Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not. *shrug* you asked earlier: "So, what do we say to these Promances who've been coming here for the past 2 years tirelessly complaining that PoE won't have romances? Do we tell them thetruth according to F. Scott Fitzgerald, Henry James, Vitor Hugo, Louisa May Alcott, George Elliot, and any other writer we can think of? Or do just sit back and wonder what the hell they're all griping about?" we gave a response: "we will tell the promancers that the obsidians didn't have the resources to implement optional and tangential mini-game/side-quest romances with party companions. oh, sure, there will be romantic subplots and characters in poe, but that isn't what the genesis poster asked for, is it?" so, what the hell are you talking about at this point? just spewing nonsense and trying to redefine romance for what appears to be no purpose. redefine won't change the nature o' what the genesis poster asked for or how the obsidian developers responded. call ravel love for tno romantic or platonic or fraternal changes... nothing. so what the hell are you talking about? you is wrong, but what is you even arguing? "Excuse me, but is Gromnir the only one who gets to assign his Own definition to what constitutes a post BG2 Bioware romance?" wow, how confused and obtuse can you be? Gromnir observed that we were using the definition o' romantic love as used to describe the works o' literal thousands o' authors. is not Gromnir defining. blame harold bloom and the legion o' literature professors who is clear too stoopid and ignorant to recognize that stun's slavish adoption o' the biowarian tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game notions o' romance is the proper definition. *shrug* you is going beyond the pale at this point and we can't believe anybody agrees with you and your attempts to redefine romance or your backtracking and obfuscation. so, say something new... anything new. if the goal is to exhaust Gromnir, the you is the weener, but otherwise... HA! Good Fun!

TANSTAAFL spoilers: Gromnir were in jr. high school when we first read the moon is a harsh mistress. it is a book we have difficulty seeing done faithful. the good guys in the book is terrorists. our first exposure to complex terrorist cell organization and how it works were from Heinlein's novel. the leader o' the terrorists is an ai that re-purposes a mass driver on the moon so that instead o' sending surplus wheat to earth, it sends large chunks o' ferrous rock. ... is a good book. is a fantastic book. unfortunately, we got a hard time seeing it done faithful. HA! Good Fun!

Who's confused? Have we not established that Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not...? If this isn't the case then by all means, lets revisit the Ravel-TNO discussion we had less than an hour ago. actually, you seem very confused. nobody suggested the following: "Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not." we disagreed with your absurdest notion that for a love to be romantic it need be reciprocal and balanced, but that is far different than your increasingly ridiculous definitions. also, you didn't actual respond to Gromnir... and am genuine saddened that you either missed or ignored so much o' the ravel interaction with tno. HA! Good Fun! Third time: Can the Player Character Romance Ravel? Yes or No? no. yes. ravel has a romantic interest in tno. ravel loves and sacrifices for tno. you can tell her that you love her if you wish. what an odd and irrelevant question. as we noted elsewhere, ps:t did not have the tangential and optional mini-game/side-quest romances that were popularized following bg2. we lamented that romances such as ravel's love for tno were less likely nowadays precisely because some folks had allowed bioware to complete change the dialogue surrounding the inclusion o' romance in crpgs. having ravel love tno worked in ps:t precisely because it didn't matter if the player reciprocated that love or not. the kinda romantic love ravel felt for tno, while arguably as poignant and moving as any crpg romance written since 1999 is less likely today simply 'cause the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game romances exist. hell, look at yourself. you can't even recognize that ravel felt romantic love for tno. you have somehow let bioware redefine romance for you. we will repeat self, as gauche as that is: "you is imposing your own definition, and your definition conflicts with romance as attributed to henry james, vitor hugo, f. scott fitzgerald, louisa may alcott, george elliot, kazuo ishiguro and literal thousands o' other authors who has penned stories described by literature professors and casual fans o' the written word the world over as ROMANCES." for whatever reason, you has adopted the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game companion notion o' romance as your definition o' Romance. how... sad. so, for the second time, has anybody other than stun posted such nonsense as the following: "Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not." show us. quit talking nonsense. you were/are wrong. HA! Good Fun! ps in case you didn't get it, your yes/no question is irrelevant because regardless o' your ability to romance ravel in ps:t, her love for you and the resulting storytelling were one o' romantic love. we forget that we sometimes need force-feed folks answers.

we observed earlier that, "the "problem," if it is a problem, is ultimately unavoidable and practically insurmountable." people feels that they earned their extra gold. they wanna have some kinda use for it other than stuffing it into their mattress and pretending to be smaug. what use is gold if not to spend it? so, some folks believe it is necessary to have ways to spend all that extra currency. it isn't a problem about which any developer should lose sleep. excess currency is an inevitable and insurmountable consequence o' providing optional side-quests. we like more side-quests, so we don't mind the excess gold that is functional useless. yeah, there is some nifty ways that developers might sink the excess gold w/o overpowering the player, but Gromnir don't need a sink. is a considerable amount o' effort to create such sinks and we don't believe the effort is warranted. HA! Good Fun! ps if the developers add nifty sinks, we won't complain. be able to create a custom coat o' arms? hey, that sounds like a good idea to us.

Who's confused? Have we not established that Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not...? If this isn't the case then by all means, lets revisit the Ravel-TNO discussion we had less than an hour ago. actually, you seem very confused. nobody suggested the following: "Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not." we disagreed with your absurdest notion that for a love to be romantic it need be reciprocal and balanced, but that is far different than your increasingly ridiculous definitions. also, you didn't actual respond to Gromnir... and am genuine saddened that you either missed or ignored so much o' the ravel interaction with tno. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure if you is obtuse as you appear. "So, what do we say to these Promances who've been coming here for the past 2 years tirelessly complaining that PoE won't have romances? Do we tell them thetruth according to F. Scott Fitzgerald, Henry James, Vitor Hugo, Louisa May Alcott, George Elliot, and any other writer we can think of? Or do just sit back and wonder what the hell they're all griping about?" we answered your query many times. we will tell the promancers that the obsidians didn't have the resources to implement optional and tangential mini-game/side-quest romances with party companions. oh, sure, there will be romantic subplots and characters in poe, but that isn't what the genesis poster asked for, is it? ... am not seeing your confusion. am also not seeing how your complete ridiculous reduction o' traditional notions o' romantic love has any bearing on the question o' why obsidian won't be including optional and tangential mini-game/side-quest romances with party companions. you are wrong. HA! Good Fun!

bg1 did indeed have romance. sure, the romances were fragments o' the plot and poorly crafted, but skie and eldoth were professed lovers and tamoko claimed to love sarevok, though we doubt it were mutual love. *shrug* you wanna distinguish romantic love from familial or fraternal love? fine, we can get behind that. is tricky to distinguish categories o' love, but am willing to separate such for the sake o' convenience. wanna distinguish romantic love from the idealist who loves/obsesses over an idea such as freedom or God? fine. ultimately the willingness to sacrifice for _________ is likely the same, but if it makes you feel better to categorize, we will go along with it. distinguish romantic love from romantic loves that is unequal, one-sided or fraudulent? dear lord, why? the complete reciprocated and balanced love stories is likely the minority o' written love stories. there needs be some kinda obstacle to love to make the story dramatic, and the most common obstacle is the lovers themselves. we rare say this: you are wrong. is not a subjective or opinion kinda thing in this case. you are wrong. period. and yeah, we agree that poe will likely include some romance... which is why we keep saying that use general romance terminology is wrong. what the genesis poster wants, and what the obsidian developers is refusing to provide, is tangential and optional mini-game/side-quest romances with the companions. even so, your ridiculous definition has no bearing on distinguishing mini-game romances from those found in ps:t. you wanna inexplicably change the definition o' romantic love for some reason that eludes us. perhaps you just don't wanna admit you were wrong. romantic can be sad, funny, tragic, unrequited, doomed. romantic love can be easy and balanced and comforting like a warm blanket on a cold winter's night. romantic love is many things. however, romantic love is not what you think it is limited to. you are wrong. HA! Good Fun!

There's no such thing as an unrequited romance. That's like saying "this is a solo duet!" You're discussing love. Don't confuse the two terms. *sigh* you is imposing your own definition, and your definition conflicts with romance as attributed to henry james, vitor hugo, f. scott fitzgerald, louisa may alcott, george elliot, kazuo ishiguro and literal thousands o' other authors who has penned stories described by literature professors and casual fans o' the written word the world over as ROMANCES. for chrissakes, don't be so arrogant. you can't honestly think you got some kinda perfect notion o' romance that is more accurate than the multitude. HA! Good Fun!

We don't doubt Ravel loved The Nameless one. We wasn't arguing otherwise. We were pointing out that there was no romance between Ravel and the Nameless one. 'cause there wasn't. Romance is a shared thing. And the love wasn't shared. Edit: And for F*cks sake, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Millions of little girls Love Justin Beiber. They'd die for him. But that doesn't mean that Justin Beiber is involved in a romance with millions of little girls. Does it. do you really want us to list all the tragic love stories in history? how many you think include unrequited or fraudulent romances? *snort* you can yell that such stuff ain't romance all you wish, but you is gonna be wrong. HA! Good Fun!

Wow, that's an obtuse misunderstanding of the story. First off, He did NOT 'charm her'. He wanted to become immortal, but since you can't just walk up to a fiend from the Gray Wastes and politely ask them to make you immortal, he decided to manipulate her emotions. And, NO, those emotions were NOT love. Or charm. They were Ego and Pride and Vanity. He posed a challenge to her. He taunted her by saying that even she isn't powerful enough to make someone immortal. And so she jumped at the challenge. Second, we're not told the how's or why's of her infatuations with TNO, but the clues we are given suggest that the ritual may have caused Ravel to love TNO the same way that a Mother loves the children she gives birth to (Mabbeth is a mother figure, remember?) Third, and most importantly, what does this have to do with ANYTHING? We were discussing Romance. Romance is *shared* love. And there's no such thing going on between Ravel and the Nameless One. There never was. what a horribly shallow notion o' love and romance has stun. love can be one-sided and romance is all the more tragic when it turns out that one person were simple using the other. ravel knew she were used and still gives up everything for tno. is saddening that you missed so much o' ps:t, 'cause it were a better game than what you seem to recall, or at least the story were more complex. "better" is, after all, subjective. btw, there is a reason chrisA almost invariably (we haven't played south park, alpha protocol or ds 3) adds ravel into bis/obsidian games. if ravel were simple and shallow, we doubt he would invest so much time into her. ps it would be a terrible joke on promancers, but with critical path storytelling we can see a very compelling & tragic romance that does not have a happy ending and the romance is one-sided. the promancer invests his heart into wooing Bert the Bulge only to discover that *gasp* Bert were a man-wh0re who were only using the protagonist. can be a romance without being happy. in fact, most classic romance stories ain't happy. sure, we made Bert a joke, but the developers need not do so and should not do so. is nothing wrong with making love hurt in a story. in fact, am not certain we see a point in writing about love that doesn't hurt. if shel can make a kid's story that shows painful side o' love, then why not obsidian or bioware? HA! Good Fun! edit: is a bit longer than what we first posted, but we found the shel narration o' the giving tree movie short.

which is exactly the problem. romance such as ps:t is different than tangential and optional companion mini-game/side-quest romances. sadly, or perhaps inevitably, the ps:t romances appear to have become mutually exclusive from the biowarian-style romances. it is a bit unfair to argue the viability o' romance in poe and future poe games by use o' ps:t. Gromnir used ps:t to show what is wrong with the tangential and optional mini-game/side-quest romances and you is, somewhat disingenuously, trying to use same such stuff to show why romance is good and right for crpgs. naughty boy. HA! Good Fun!

If somebody does all the sidequests, he should have more opportunities to spend in addition to more opportunities to loot. I don't agree there is no solution, and I've actually proposed a few. most of your solutions cause new problems. shops with better gear creates a whole new set of problems for the developers. yes, as a player you want to be able to spend your 1007 to buy improved gear, 'cause let's be honest, that is the only stuff worth buying in a crpg. is not like you need save for your kid's college education. improved gear results in the game being easier. the more sooper gear the developer makes available in shops and side-quests, the more likely they functionally make the game easier for anybody that does the side-quests. paying to progress? bg2 did that, but obviously the cost to do so must be kept relative to what is capable for a critical path player... which brings us back to our earlier comments about critical path players v. completionists. paying to access side-quests or the tollbridge jokes is actual not a complete bad idea, though we would likely handle different. pay for maps that open actual game locations on the world map? pay for a ship's captain to take you to a location inaccessible by land? there is reasonable ways to access game locations, but they is ultimate doomed. at the locations you need pay to access, you will find 1007. sure, the player will happily pay excess gold to reach the Graveyard of Dead Gods, where after terrible and epic battles they is able to recover the ________ of __________, a weapon/shield of great power... which only increases the gear problem we identified earlier. gold needs to a sink, not a well. if you can draw forth gear or more gold from the sink, then you don't actual have a sink. sadly, most folks is gonna be dissatisfied with an obvious sink. people want something o' value for gold they is dumping into the sink.... which largely defeats the purpose o' the sink. the only way the sink works is if the player doesn't get value other than cosmetic or aesthetic from his investment. HA! Good Fun!

some folks like to quibble over nomenclature. obsidnaties spoke more than once o' not having the resources to create quality romances in poe. is not, strictly speaking, the same as saying they didn't have enough money. josh sawyer is writing pallegina. now don't take this the wrong way, but based on josh's writing contributions in past obsidian games, we wouldn't want him to write a romance arc. (sorry josh) give obsidian an extra $100,000 in kickstarter funds and that won't make josh more capable o' writing a romance for pallegina. so, do you hire somebody else to do pallegina? does that make sense? hire a dedicated romance writer to help obsidian writers with their romance characters? how much time do you lose hiring a romance writer or do you have a capable obsidian writer take josh's character from him? the hypothetical obsidian writer who takes over for josh is now doubling-up his/her workload? obsidian no doubt recognized the writing talents they had available as well as the man-hour limitations they were facing in their attempt to release the game by end of 2014. obsidian reflected and realized that they couldn't do quality romances with their resources. call it money v. resources is hardly important, but somebody wants to have a laugh at your expense... somebody not Gromnir. HA! Good Fun! ps perhaps josh is a closet jane austen or emily brontë. if that is the case, we apologize for our implication that mr. sawyer is not an ideal romance writer.

for a crpg that provides optional side-quests, excess 1007 is a given... period. the developers necessarily needs provide the critical path player enough 1007 to make the acquisition of 1007 worthwhile. the player who explores the game more fully will acquire proportional more 1007 than the critical path player. if the critical path player has enough, then the completionist will have more than enough. this ain't rocket science. *shrug* most o' us want the developers to provide additional side quests, yes? is any number o' gold sinks the developers can add to a game, but that ain't gonna change the fact that the more optional content the developers provide, the greater the player's surplus o' currency will be. the developers can come up with dozens o' gold sinks, but they must needs be careful as the completionist can quickly find themselves buying themselves outta a challenging experience. buy better gear is appealing but ultimately self-defeating. the developers need find ways to satisfy the player with largely cosmetic benefits. pay 100,000 gold for an ultimately meaningless title? pay $50,000 to custom create a coat o' arms that will be displayed on the player's shield and w/i his keep? is it worth developer effort to come up with such stuff? perhaps. regardless, the "problem," if it is a problem, is ultimately unavoidable and practically insurmountable. we want more side quests. we want rewards for doing side-quests. we complain that the game is too easy once we find/purchase/craft the best gear in the game, which were only possible 'cause we did all those optional side-quests? gold sinks is fine, but they should be mostly empty ego stokes... which will inevitably disappoint folks. *shrug* if Gromnir were an obsidnate, we wouldn't lose too much sleep over this, 'cause it is not a problem with a solution. HA! Good Fun!

hairstyles: at least three... maybe four? robes: a garment you wear after getting out of the shower? sadly, there are robes. ascots will be dlc. combat: am considering linking the kickstarter page for poe 'cause this is kinda fundamental. *shrug* there are numerous auto-pause features you are able to select, but otherwise, combat can be paused at anytime, much like all the infinity engine games. the ability to pause combat was part of the obsidian sales pitch for poe. respawns: am not understanding how respawns allow you to take your time, but sorry, your deal is broken. should we bother addressing the last few? romance: the story is about a boy's love for his sled... oh crap, did Gromnir spoil the ending? modding: modders will be free to mod, but obsidian is not supporting mods. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity you will likely get better answers from the link. HA! Good Fun!

the question identifies the problem: why equip a larger one-handed weapon? there is gonna be some few situations in which Gromnir has weapon focus X but the weapon we typical use is poor for overcoming a particular foe's dt... or are we calling it dr this week? regardless, in most situations, Gromnir is either dual-wielding the fast one-handed weapons, or we is gonna choose a two-handed weapon. ruffian is ideal for dual-wielders because you get stiletto and clubs, and if absolute necessary you can switch to a sabre when you need a slash weapon. noble is arguably an equal viable option with both rapier and daggers for your fast weapons covering pierce and slash damage and a mace for crushing stuff. adventurer appears ideal for 2h folks... ridiculously ideal. estoc is a pierce weapon. the poleaxe is slash/crush. well golly, this is gonna be a difficult choice when we compare with every other focus that at best has a single 2h option that does a single damage type. dunno, were this a trick question? HA! Good Fun! ps please note that as soon as we know the actual weapons in the game, the answers is gonna change. find out that the best 2h weapon in the game is a greatsword, and that the second best 2h weapon is a distant second at best, would considerable change the debate.