Gromnir

I dunno. Why does a guy firing off shots in Disneyland get all the attention from security? I guess with you calling everyone out on everything, I should randomly start questioning Bruce about the stuff you're saying. *shrug* Also... you continuously group all "promancers" into one collective hivemind with the exact same thoughts and ideas on things, yet I'm the person taking "potshots" at "the anti-mancers"? Name one time I've said anything against "the anti-mancers." Do you represent all people who don't advocate romance? Or do you just represent yourself? You can call out people left and right, to the point of no longer even caring what it is we're discussing, as long as someone "isn't doing it right," but heaven forbid anyone "grill" you with questions? My goodness, sweet child... stun is a hoot and complete devoid o' any kinda sense on this topic. bruce is dogged about romance. bruce genuine likes biowarian tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game companion romances. ... can't have much o' an argument with bruce. he likes the romances. period. he doesn't try to deny the existence o' romance in games previous to 2000. he doesn't try and define what all promancers want. bruce has never tried and tell us 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." but heck, even if he believed such nonsense, he would recognize just how pointless such a definition is 'cause he would still want the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game companion romances... 'cause ultimately stun's attempts to define promancy for promancers (does that make sense?) is meaningless. stun has said some ridiculous stuff: "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." "There's no such thing as a non-reciprocal romance." "There's no such thing as an unrequited romance." etc. the longer the thread gets, the more ridiculous stun will be. bruce, on the other hand, likes the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game romances. bruce believes that the romances make crpgs better. Gromnir disagrees with bruce, but what is the point o' telling a person that the thing they like, even when doe well, isn't very good. bruce disagrees with Gromnir regarding the quality o' romances; he likes the biowarian style romances even so. *shrug* there isn't anything to argue with bruce 'bout that would require more than a post or two. stun, on the other hand, creates fodder as he goes... and again, Gromnir Loathes the biowarian style tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game companion romances. as far as biowarian style romances being included in poe or poe expansions and sequels, stun and Gromnir want the same thing... and we still see stun as obtuse to the point that we has a hard time comprehending him. bruce has been given a hard time by Gromnir regarding romance. such stuff is maybe comprising a post or two o' mockery. HA! Good Fun!

In a video game there isn't. There can't be. When you need Larping, or some other form of headcanon to create the illusion that romance between the two characters is occurring, then you've already failed. And the promancers will let you know it we are finally back to where we were before you tried to mislead and distract. congratulations. unfortunately, you aren't contributing new. there is no such thing as unrequited romance or non reciprocal romance. and there is no such thing as unrequited romance or non reciprocal romance in a crpg because, "there can't be." well golly, how might anybody argue with such a well-formed and enlightened response? *snort* is funny. HA! Good Fun!

is not an idea we would want implemented in poe. sorry, but the idea is bad for same reason as we observed about gear. the guys who do more than the critical path is already likely to have better gear than the crit path player and they may level a bit more. even so, the game is meant to be beatable by the crit path player. you is simple adding ways to make the game easier for a player with money. boost mechanics and stealth and athletics through gold rather than leveling? is a bad idea. sure, there is gonna be skill boosting gear in the game... we expect that. however, to have a mechanic wherein leveling limitations can be functionally overcome with gold is bad. gold sinks is fine. a gold well is bad. the sink should have the player voluntarily divesting themselves o' excess currency without gaining a gameplay benefit by doing so. we suggested pay for a customizable coat of arms. some folks would pay considerable gold to see their custom coat o' arms on their shied or arour or perhaps on banners outside their keep. having a customizable coat of arms does not make game any easier for the player, but it would take gold from the player even so. HA! Good Fun!

it is perfectly fair as the thread had been merged Before you and stun made your relative faux pas. and as we noted already, "'course that ignores the fact that what stun did were abandon his untenable argument with Gromnir, and sudden argue stun v. promancers, wherein he came up with a definition o' what promancers consider romance w/o actual being able to point to anybody that actual supports his definition." so again, regardless o' the time and method o' merging, you mischaracterized. your fraudulent misrepresentation o' a Gromnir quote remains a complete separate issue. and now to stun... *sigh* "What? I did no such thing. I did the OPPOSITE. The subject here is, and always has been, about video game romances. It was YOU who decided that such a topic was too narrow, and so YOU branched off and began talking about Love; Romance in literature; how T.S. Elliot and F. Scott Fitzgerald define Love etc. etc." you musta' missed where we quoted you. am not certain how you could miss that. you said something stoopid. we called you on it. you fought needlessly. then you attributed a definition o' romantic love to imaginary promancers, a definition nobody has embraced. want us to quote your silly romance definition too? "Now then, lets get down to the brass tacks here. We are no discussing Love. We are not discussing romantic stories. We are not even discussing romances that occur in old books. We ARE discussing video game romances. Do you have a definition of what constitutes a video game romance or NOT?" great. finally. now we can get back to this nonsense: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70723-the-official-romance-thread/?p=1576847 whether it is novels or games, you are still wrong. "There's no such thing as a non-reciprocal romance." "There's no such thing as an unrequited romance." you are still wrong, and if you again backtrack to some ridiculous invented notion o' what you thinks all promancers Really mean by romance, we will laugh our self right outta our chair. whether is games or novel is not helping you. you are making yourself into a joke, and you don't even realize it. HA! Good Fun!

Never said otherwise. What i said however is that you and others reproach somebody to get back to the original matter of the discussion. and Gromnir observed that you not onlyy intentional misquoted us but mischaracterized stun's mistake, so much o' the rest o' your post.... *shrug* wanna talk about romance in general? that IS what the actual op topic is... in case you still hadn't recognized that fact. HA! Good Fun!

Lol Choosing to ignore the nonsensical ramblings of this forum's premier white noise producer, should not be interpreted to mean that an 'untenable' argument with Gromnir has been 'abandoned'. you complete changed the subject being discussed. your only explanation for doing so were that you were responding not to Gromnir but to your imagined definition o' romance from the promancer pov... or perhaps from the non-op poster. you were a bit confused on the matter. it were embarrassing. and no, Gromnir is not gonna provide you with his personal definition o' a romantic story. as we noted elsewhere, quibble over the minutae o' the definition is pointless. we objected to the following bit o' stun silliness: "There's no such thing as an unrequited romance." our definition is a distraction and doesn't in any way impact the silliness you backtracked into regarding some weird kinda generalization for promancers. you said something asinine. am not sure why you can't just man-up and admit your obvious mistake. HA! Good Fun! ps pardon us, what actual started your descent into madness were the following: "There's no such thing as a non-reciprocal romance." for all practical purposes, the differences is unimportant, but we expect you will wanna fight the detail.

we don't know any details about the expansion, but you can pay for it today. HA! Good Fun!

There's no debate, there's originally dudes who ask for the romance mechanic, this dialog mini-game which is about making npcs lose reason and sanity. Then people decided to talk about love in storytelling in general, 'cause the original discussion has ended a long time ago. I don't see how it's a stoopid thing to talk about the original subject of a thread. I think it's actually in every forum cores rules of the history of internet forums all over the web. However nobody ever really reproaches people to denature the concept we're discussing, at the point where it's absolutely pointless to talk about it. But, again, let's pretend the point of this thread was about romance in story-telling in general. Then let's witness that the one and only thing that keeps this discussion alive is that nobody, at all, still talks about romances as game mechanics. The original subject of any romance thread in the galaxy. Where do you see backpedaling in stunt messages. I'd rather say he sticks too much to the original debate which is over since several months. But then again how could I reproach him to stick to the original debate since the new one... isn't one at all. somebody isn't paying attention. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70723-the-official-romance-thread/ you may now correctly observe the original subject o' the thread. 'course that ignores the fact that what stun did were abandon his untenable argument with Gromnir, and sudden argue stun v. promancers, wherein he came up with a definition o' what promancers consider romance w/o actual being able to point to anybody that actual supports his definition. "Fixed." sorry, but not fixed. your attempted quote clear left something outta Gromnir's post 'cause what you fraudulently misrepresented as a Gromnir quote requires an extra infinitive... or two. "These "romances" you find good in ps:t, again, are just a matter of good writing." your point? am suspecting you complete missed our point that romances existed before the mini-game side-quests. they were indeed the product o' well-written character interactions. we noted elsewhere that the optional and tangential side-quests/mini-game romances is presenting a particular challenge for writers http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70723-the-official-romance-thread/?p=1576523 specifically: "in any event, the thing that prevents the tangential and optional companion romances from being anything more than pap for the slobbering promancers and the gibbering sjw crowd is the thing that makes 'em acceptable to Gromnir: they are tangential and optional. try and think o' a decent story with romance wherein the romance were complete tangential and coulda' been optional. ask a rpg writer to create a good romance arc. fine. now tell him/her that he must complete the entire arc with a half-dozen dialogue encounters and the entire romance must be optional and tangential to the main plot. "... "@#$%. @#$% U." it were our point that romance plots and sub-plots existed and were well-written in games previous to september 2000. the mechanic o' the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game romances actual make writing compelling romance more difficult. am suspecting you is being intentional obtuse where stun simple flopped into his mess... but then again, perhaps we give you too much credit. HA! Good Fun!

you know, while we cook with a wide assortment o' alcoholic beverages such that we have a rather well-stocked liquor cabinet and wine rack, we do not drink booze. the thing is, we were always told that there is terrible peer pressure to drink and yet we only experienced some o' that once we got... old. the only folks that ever genuine pushed us to drink were our wasp bosses and our rugby mates... and the rugby guys backed off once we explained that we would break the nose o' the first guy that tried to force a drink into us as part o' a silly hazing ritual. typically when we mention that we don't drink, folks just say, "that's cool." we did have a roommate in college who 'pon hearing o' our reluctance to drink asked us, "well then, how do you talk to girls?" he were complete serious. as an aside, our friend/roommate were a 300lb offensive linemen with father issues. a couple o' times a year his parents would drive up from malibu to visit him at Cal. our friend's parents were quite wealthy and they would invariably take their son to an expensive restaurant when they visited. after dinner our friend would abuse peach schnapps-- it were a ritual and we did not pry. in the morning we would learn what were on the menu the previous night as _____________ repainted our bathroom with bile, schnapps and perhaps lobster or rack o' lamb. our desire to experiment with alcohol did not increase when we went to University. HA! Good Fun!

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!