Amentep

I'm all for having variety so people can flesh out (lewl) their character the way they want. And I'm all for the game makers to make their NPCs in ways they want. I'd argue for chainmail bikinis provided the clothing (can't really call it armor) has a negligible effect to protection. Or is magical. And then the player can decide if they want to be sexy or functional.

First just because you are in a relationship with somebody does not mean that you talk about nothing else. The relationship status can be easily expressed by changing a few lines, e.g. how the character responds, how he/she adresses the main character. However the less reactive the relationship - and this is any PC / NPC relationship, not just romance - the less impact it will have on the player. And then you get the marriage in Skyrim that seems to exist so you can get a free store because it matters not at all to anything else in the game. I think for those of us who want the romances in the game, we'd want that aspect of our PC / NPC relationship to matter in the game beyond a facebook like status update. To be fair, just because you couldn't create a 3,000 line extra NPC by cutting 1,500 lines doesn't make creating the 1,500 lines trivial, either. Most of them do realize that; they just firmly believe that the romance dialog path doesn't need to be created at all.

It's only a detail, of course (Cadegund's armor has been fixed, does not bother me so anymore, but is still "genderized", by the way). And it would be just that, a minor detail, like "sensible shoes" or tissue colours, if we did not live, all of us, in a society of masculine domination. That was really my point though, in regard to the idea that changing Cadegund's armor was some PC move (I actually think it looks better changed, personally, so I like the second armor purely on aesthetics) - its a moot point if the game is good, if the character well written and all that.

Invisible pooka, ala Harvey...

I've always liked the idea of using an optional "job board" for most fetch quests. Makes a lot more sense then having every Tom, **** and Harry Peasant ask you to gather some random item they lost in a field or something. Make it so the jobs change every so often and you've got something that people can do if they choose to and then if a more important quest is a "fetch" quest it can be disguised a bit more.

I think I ended up with dual wielding halberds, IIRC. It didn't make sense, but it was fun. Personally while tanking and stuff is fun, if they're going the swashbuckling route as an option I think there needs to be better/good use of parry / disarm

In the end, will anyone really care - if the game is good - whether or not Cadegund's armor had extremely detailed boobs on it? Would anyone be put out - if the game is good - if some ritzy society lady is wearing a sexy but unrevealing party frock or if the barmaid is showing a bit of cleavage or if the villagers all have sensible shoes? EDIT: That is to say, I think the art direction is really up to Obsidian as they determine what this world is and what makes sense for it.

i don't remember it being THAT bad. *goes to look* lol...I go there to look and the first thread I see is about romances... Anyhow, looks to be okay to me, maybe a bit too busy with the background and all - I do prefer simple colors and all to textured background images.

And no man would be caught with that on the battlefield. I have to disagree on that. I'm pretty sure the design was used in combat and tournaments. Everything I've read (and remember) said the phallus cod-pieces came into vogue once armor became about fashion rather than function. Dunno if what I've gathered over the years is accurate, but I'd think a protrusion in your armor right there that could easily take a hit (intentionally or accidentally) would be something you'd not want to encourage.

If it takes time from developing other things to develop an export / import system, that could be an argument against it.

I think at *best* it might add additional discussion dialogues on use (akin to the "Speak to the Dead" spell in ARCANUM, but, you know, on living people) or similar to the Paladin scenario above. I doubt the Cipher class will have extra dialogue as they mindprobe everyone in the world as I'd imagine that would just be too much.

Well they've already said that if they have to delay it to make sure its a quality product they will (IIRC from Feargus in an interview or chat). So if it happens and they communicate it to the backers - no problem. I want it good, not Tuesday.

But it could be a very good year! OBTopic - personally I think the NPCs should be designed to look like they should look for what the game/setting/lore supports. I'm for the PC to have options, however I think with limited time / budget the best options to focus on are the realistic ones.

You should at least be visiting the forums on the last Sunday of every month. Should you choose not to, the fabric which makes up the existence you believe yourself to be a part of will begin unraveling and you will suffer unending madness. Sadly reading the forums even as little as the last Sunday of every month will probably *also* result in unending madness. Its a vicious cycle! Seriously I'll use me and Wasteland 2 as an example - I only occasionally lurk over there because I've played *maybe* 5 minutes worth of the original game. I don't really have any strong opinions on how the game "should" or "could" be, so am content to see what happens. Unlike with PE where I've played all the IE games and all of the Obsidian games so many more opinions (even if, ultimately, I'm okay with just seeing what Obsidian comes up with here too).

DA and ME both consummated the relationships with on screen PG-13/PG level clinching and (in ME's case) semi-nudity or (in DA's case) underwear clad figures. ME did it as the culmination of a relationship prior to the final battle (Jade Empire did it this way too but did the fade to black after a kiss, IIRC). DA did it at the culmination of the relationship whenever it happened (with subsequent "sex request"(!) dialogue doing a fade to black) (the exception being Morrigan who would have sex with the character until they were in a relationship and then refuse).

WHY. "I want kissykissy in muh gaem!" "No, that's dumb." The End. Seriously. It's been discussed to death. To death. Because every day posters discover the thread who haven't had their chance to weigh in on the viable/dumb aspects of "kissykissy" in their gaem. I enjoy reading it just simply because I like trying to understand why people hold particular positions (well and there a less noble aspect of myself that finds a certain entertainment value over posters from both sides going needlessly apoplectic over the possibility of existence/non-existence of this specific inter-character relationship in the game)

I have to say, I liked Mass Effect 1 enough (and to some degree ME2 and parts of 3) that I'd be willing to give a ME4 a shot, particularly if its not touted as the first of a universe changing trilogy.

I still hadn't decided to back it; I'll look to see what they come up with next time, I guess, since hopefully it'll be stronger and clearer on what they plan to do.

"Transcending history and the world, a tale of souls and swords eternally retold" Realistically until there are more details on the game, this topic will probably remain alive (and given the people seem to really want to debate the side, probably remain very active as well).

ChronoTrigger didn't rebalance at all. Of course in that scenario the reason for doing the Game+ was to allow the player to find all of the alternate ends (which resulted in defeating Lavos at different time points in the game so you still had to be an end-level character). That said I appreciated Mass Effect 1 allowing me to continue playing an unbalanced game+ with my Shepard because (a) I didn't have to try to create a face again and (b) sometimes I just enjoyed running around the track shooting things and the only point seemed to be so you could "fix" things for import in the planned ME2. That said (part 2), I don't really see a party based RPG on a computer as a game that would really support it. While I know others did import their characters, I replayed BG and IWD (particularly IWD) many times over starting with new characters and classes and seeing what I liked to work with. I only used the import feature to create my own party member(s) in BG/BGII who were same level as my PC. And I think that's the kind of replayability this game seems to be headed for.

To be fair to the character, a druid who sees balance in nature would probably see balance in life and death as a part of nature and probably have an easier time coming to terms with the death of a loved one than another character might and understand the need for life to continue. Dude the promancers aren't overly interested in fact. They just want romances. And they only take 6-9 days to write. I'd think that's a bit unfair; I consider myself to be "pro-romance" (but again within the context of such a thing that if it was included it'd have to make sense with the character(s) and the story / game and that romance is only one of many possible character relationships in a party that could be explored). I'd never assume that writing a romance would take x days because you can't quantify writing like that. Particularly not writing that (IMO) should be integrated into the game experience (ie relationships should be recognized to some degree by those outside of the relationship). You could get a mad inspiration and create all the dialogue in 24 hours and still spend a months making it fit within the game (making the timing work, creating reactions amid other NPCs, looking at effects it might have to the campaign story) without writing 1 more sentence of romantic banter.

And I agree with you. But if it fits the story and if it fits the characters and if it fits the development time and if it fits where the creators want to take the game...I say 'why not?' yes that is a lot of ifs. But frankly if they had all the money in the world and all the time they wanted, I'd still argue the test is 'does it fit the game, characters and story'

I think the problem with the "quota" system is that it removes the development out of the game out of what makes sense. Just like I think it is entirely possible for a good game to be completely devoid of romance because that's what makes sense for the scope of the game/story. I'm not saying it isn't disrespectful, just not to the entire group of pro-romances (since not all of them weird people with pie-charts and graphs). Look I think the opening to ME2 is stupid and I really dislike where they took the series. But - the fact that's he's brought back to life effect the ability to influence that Cerberus lady, it changes how the marine from the first game views you when you meet, how Tali views you, how Liara views you and it comes up in dialogue. Can't remember if Shepard comments much without prodding. So it does have some effect in how the game treats Shepard with respect to the other characters. Now I won't disagree with you that most of the sex scenes (never tried them all) within the modern Bioware games exist as time jumps that "finalize" the romance relationship banter, with varying degrees of success in how those play out (and few having an in-game impact outside of postgame story outside of Morrigan). But I'm not (and I think many others aren't) arguing that romances need to have a culmination in sex either.

What about this: http://forums.obsidi...00#entry1248851 I don't see that as disrespect for the anti-romance group anymore so than I see as disrespect for the pro-romance crowd. Perhaps I just have unnaturally thick skin / low ability to detect disrespect?

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me. Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent. What is subjective about good writing? Apparently some people like James Joyce's ULYSSES. I kid. Well kind of. There's a technical aspect to writing and a creative aspect. The technical aspect is I'd agree objective to a large degree (and yet writers can subvert it to effect as well, so it's not always clear cut); the creative aspect is, however entirely subjective. At least that's how I see it. That's because Shepard's Death with respect to the plot is an element of the story, not necessarily the point of the story. That said it is an element of character since being brought back by CEREBUS effects the character interactions that Sheppard has. To me a romance could serve as a good element of defining character between PC/NPC or NPC/NPC but only if it fits the context of the story and fits the characters involved and fits the developers vision for the game in general. EDIT: removed all caps on Shepard's death since it seemed like I was emphasising it for some reason.