Amentep

Lucy - Thought it was a fun film - its like Luc Besson decided to meld a 70s sci-fi movie with his own earlier action films. Enjoyment may be muted if you can't get past some of the initial wonky science.

Maybe its just me, but "my opinion as fact" rants don't amuse me.

Well if it is a horror RPG, I'm hoping you can create your character. Whether that is choosing how smokey your head is or what color your hoodie is, I don't know.

Even knowing all of that about real-trials vs TV-trials, I still watch re-runs of Perry Mason.

Yeah asking Sargy to give up his posting style is like asking Gromnir to give up his. Who'd want either to do that?

I liked it.

Wait is that perhaps horror? From Bioware? The horror of it all.

I've been busy myself lately...

And that should be fine, IMO, as long as it makes sense with the NPC and the PC's choices. I think that's the key to understanding how the NPC and PC will interact. Mind you I also think if the game allows the player to visit bars (or prostitutes) regularly the others should start recognizing you too (Norm!). But I admit that's a lot of consideration for minor parts of the game.

I think it depends on the game, the setting and such. But yeah, sometimes I see puzzles in games and think "What was that ancient civilization supposed to be thinking when they decided to trap every path to the holy relic...they worshiped every day."

I think its important - if you were to include a romance - to make each as unique as the NPC. Maybe you can flirt with the person but if goes nowhere. Maybe you build a relationship but s/he leaves you because you keep letting him/her get defeated on the battlefield. Maybe they do flirt with you to steal your stuff. Maybe it'll only really just be getting started by the end of the game with the idea the characters have a future together in the post-game. So far the examples we've had tend to follow the same rhythms and beats and tend to be "get a sex scene before the final fight" other than BG2 which is more like "get a 'fade to black' sex scene, randomly and sometimes in ways and places that don't make sense" as I recall.

I'm not sure Eternity could take an Aerie anyhow. Something about jamming the eventual baby-as-inventory-item into the deep stash just seems morally wrong.

Interesting post, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly Are you saying in DA2 that the flirtatious comments from party members towards Hawke basically only accentuated the Romance relationship at the expense of other emotions and experiences you may have had towards a particular NPC? No, what I'm saying is that the player's ability to control their PC was challenged by the game having the NPC flirt with the player - sometimes even past being turned down. The NPCs didn't give the player an ability to navigate the relationship before being hit on, thus a negative reception.

Hopefully you'll drive better than I did. But I liked a lot of other stuff the game was doing up to that point.

First time I played DA2 it was very effecting when I got Bethany killed (I'd originally planned on leaving her, then after she complained when the PC's mom suggested she stay, I decided to take her and since I'd rather lance boils than have Anders in my party she died. Oops). I don't think that romance is unique in its ability to connect the Player/PC to the game. My point is, realistically every romance, every friendship, every rivalry should feel (as much as possible within the limitations of cRPGs) like the NPC is really reacting to the player's choice and definition of the PC. I think this is part of why the constant flirting was received so negatively in DA2, it challenged the player's ability to define their character.

#2 gave me motion sickness. But then I tended to not be able to drive and keep to a road either which meant a lot of bouncing around. Had to give up playing.

Well I think romance can add a unique connection to a story or character; I think a well written other relationship can do the same. A lot of it, from a storytelling perspective, is that its going to depend a lot on the player's definition of character and the definition of the NPC. To me the important thing for any relationship is they're well thought out, well implemented and ideally such that they do not sublimate the NPC to work.

I suppose, they could be looking at the sales curve relative to an average sales curve and the current sales curve is trending to a lower day to day sales decrease so appears to be an increase over average sales decreases. Still it'd be a bit wonky to describe it that way and sounds like publicist speak.

Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really? So...wouldn't that mean you're being cheated of the obviously superior PC-NPC relationship if you can't romance every companion at the same time (as exclusivity would require that you miss superior romance relationships)? In a RPG this shouldn't make a major difference as the dialogue options are more or less similar if you Romance or don't Romance. But if you choose to not Romance someone or you attempt to Romance someone and fail you may be cheated out of certain quests or developments, like the Lolth attack on Viconia in BG2 that I believe was Romance initiated But end of the day the Romance option is more of RP development that shouldn't penalize a person who chooses not to participate O..kay? So a romance is "always...deeper and ... more meaningful" but it "shouldn't make a major difference" and "shouldn't penalize a person who chooses not to participate"? Isn't that contradictory? Its either deeper and more meaningful - and thus superior, or its just a different, equally viable alternative relationship, surely?

Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really? So...wouldn't that mean you're being cheated of the obviously superior PC-NPC relationship if you can't romance every companion at the same time (as exclusivity would require that you miss superior romance relationships)?

Well personally, I played it because it was a fun game. So it wasn't all for nothing, it just didn't matter to the bigger EU.

And then the adventurer takes the ex on the Jerry Springer show, where he throws a chair at the new boyfriend and the ex reveals she's actually a lesbian.

In post #107, Sophrox states "I'm probably missing something very important..." which from further statements he's made was his appeal, essentially, to tell him what about the game is it people like. In post #108 he was asked why he didn't like what he'd seen of the game. In post #115 he clarified what he'd seen that he didn't like After this, instead of being about why it is that people like the game and/or countering his views with evidence from the game, the discussion seemed to center on how Sophrox's was wrong to dislike an RPGs if he didn't play it for 20+ hours. At least that's what I got out of it. Hope this helps. I'm in chapter 2 right now with a mage character. My fireball kills the minor enemies, damages a decent amount the more healthy foes and send a lot of those off their feet. Boss characters seem to have high fire resistance or high ice resistance (but not often both). I'm not on a hard difficulty though, so maybe that matters a lot.

But will anyone go up and ask "Hey Torquemada, whadda ya say?"

I gathered that from the little tag on the video when I watched it. Still well done other than the voice sync.