Amentep

To be fair, the anti-romance crowd is just demanding all companions be romanceable in all sexualities that don't include the PC (however the PC is defined).

We've got to do something for the next two years. Yeah, I think this is pretty much it. To be fair, there's only so far anyone can discuss a subject and most of us probably feel little urge to restate the things we already said. Give us all a few days to get our wind back and I'm sure we'll be going at it again and debating the pros and cons of video game storytelling and the capacity of same to handle long term character development and characterization while utilizing a multi-party framework while also not detracting from the overall goal of the story which is to have a party of 6 whack the fool out of their enemies.

But it is a bad action RPG... I'll admit to a ridiculously high tolerance for any action RPG when I'm in the mood to mash buttons and slash / fireball / arrow monsters in the face. So you may want to consider my tastes in this regard as slightly skewed. Plus I liked Plan 9 from Outer Space; some entertainments don't have to be good to entertain me. Yes they reused maps, yes 90% of the time the parachuting in of enemies made no sense, yes there could have been a lot better depth to the action play mechanics, yes the end renders the game-long faction conflict pointlessly moot. But I liked the dwarf rogue (probably better than all of the companions in DAO). I enjoyed the combat despite it not being anything special. I admit I was floored when in my first game I took my sis into the deep roads and she had to be killed or become a darkspawn because - despite knowing that it was possible in terms of game lor - I really didn't expect the game to go there with that character because usually games "protect" family from dying (unless as a non-mobile plot point, like mom in the game). So not perfect, but I didn't regret playing it (although I found little reason to replay it like some other games which get many replays over long periods of time).

I liked Dragon Age 2 but it is an action RPG to me, not a straight RPG (IMO) and as such I regard its strengths and weaknesses in relation to other action RPGs. DA:O tried to be a more traditional western RPG and as such I regard its strengths and weaknesses in relation to other traditional RPGs. It seems like the Dragon Age franchise is sticking with action RPG models. And that's okay, I like action RPGs. Project Eternity seems to be an attempt to capture older style traditional RPG; I hope it succeeds because I enjoy games in both styles and would like to see the traditional RPG have more of a presence since most moderm RPGs favor action mechanics (or more extreme forms of tactical / turn base strategy RPGs)

Throw a little S1: TOMB OF HORRORS in it, and I'm for it.

I'm pretty sure the statements they've made (at least the ones I've read) have summed up to "Romances can be tricky to do right, but inclusion of any will be dependent on how the characters and story shape up". In other words they'd only include them if they make sense for the game and they think they can do them in a way that - to them - works. And that is exactly what I've told. Officially romances are nor confirmed, nor denied for the time being. Yes, I was concurring with you with my own elaboration. I am curious if anyone had heard otherwise (and frankly I agree with their approach; stuff shouldn't be put in the game just for the sake of putting it in - it has to work)

I'm pretty sure the statements they've made (at least the ones I've read) have summed up to "Romances can be tricky to do right, but inclusion of any will be dependent on how the characters and story shape up". In other words they'd only include them if they make sense for the game and they think they can do them in a way that - to them - works.

Is the dragon easily distracted by hot adventurers making out? If so, bedding every female in your party in view of the dragon could lead to a really easy mega-backstab by the party rogue (who'd have to be male to explain why you weren't making out with him for sake of dragon distraction).

I wouldn't even know who Malukah was if this thread wasn't here.

Only if he shows up in an Oasis, just like he did in BGII:ToB

Yup, totally - I'd just argue that all of these experiences are far less demeaned and corrupted by being made into a challenge, partly because in reality they're one-sided personal experiences and partly because in reality they are challenges. Winning a physical contest or a fight is a challenge. Getting a good price from a shop is a challenge. It's all about you overcoming the obstacle, and actually, the obstacle is nebulous, because it's all about you. Saving the world is every kid's self-centred fantasy, and again, it's a challenge, and it's all about you, it's ego-driven. Placing a 'romance', in which two people are supposed to fall in love with one another, mutually, into the context of an interactive experience turns it into a one-sided challenge in which it's all about you getting a certain response out of that same 'other', overcoming the obstacles of their not displaying affection for you, and that's far more troubling, because love isn't meant to be like that, it's the sociopath or the narcissist or the plain creep's way of looking at love, with the other party and the other party's displays of affection quite explicitly as a prize to be won through the correct behaviours. A real love affair by definition involves two actors (or more. If you're very lucky); putting it into a game results in one actor (the player/PC) and one pre-programmed reactor - a passionate tale of one man and his database. It's turning a meaningful mutual experience into a solipsistic fantasy - turning sex into masturbation if you like - which is what makes it more concerning than your other basically harmless examples. Thanks for the clarification. I'd disagree with you on the distinction you make that there is a harmless/harmfull division between the fictional actions and that seems to be the crux of our differing views on whether romances should or shouldn't be in a game.

Not really what I meant, but I can see how you got there. I'd argue that the highlighted sentence is a bit problematic, though. Aren't RPGs essentially always a case of "the player is involved in a challenge in which the aim is to successfully [complete action] within [fictional context]?" In other words a PC trying to save the world involves the player in a situation where the aim is to successfully save the fake world; a PC bartering is aiming to successfully win a fake negotiation with a fictional character through a proxy; a PC fighting an orc is aiming to successfully win a fake fight with a fictional character; a PC trying to camp is aiming to successfully fake sleep through a fake night via a proxy. There is to me a logical disconnect as to why romances are singled out as somehow being "bad" because they're fictional - the game is fictional; but this brings us back to the argument (or perception) that I get from many of the anti-romance crowd that they believe the pro-romance crowd are fetishists who only want romance because it gives them real-life pleasure (thus the reason of contrasting this with the "fictional" and "fake" elements of the world). Anyhow, (and to try and clarify what I was saying) because we're talking PC/NPC (as opposed to NPC/NPC relationship) there has to be elements (IMO) for the relationship to not start or to fail that are innately part of the game and not dialogue choices. Part of that is who the PC is (innate characteristic); part of it should be what the PC does. The second I mean beyond the lines of dialogues that are directly involving the PC and NPC but involve what the NPC "sees" the PC doing and interacting with the world an whether that NPC would support / be against those actions. This may include not protecting them in combat and things like that if reactivity could be included in such a way. Maybe I'm wrong and it'll always devolve into some weird "minigame" in games. I just don't think it has to be and I hate to think one of the major types of human relationship to never be capable of being explored in RPGS (again unless it makes sense in the game for it to be devoid of same) or to exist in RPGs only as "press the right button combo for sexxor"

8 is fine, given the development time. If I hate them all: Adventurer's Hall. Burma Shave

I'd disagree to some extent. First that the idea that romance = sex (which seems to be a common thought in this thread); while sex could be an option in a relationship (and not even a romantic relationship, to be honest), I'd think it just as likely to not end in sex and still be completely satisfying as a character story arc. Second, I'm personally not fond of the idea that the NPC characters shouldn't have a higher threshold for romance than "get the dialogue chain 'right'" (which is what I refer to as romances only failing if the PC chooses to fail it). That's not an NPC, then, they're an appendage of the PC and I disagree with that entirely. I see no problem with putting restrictions on what might even trigger an interest from the NPC - age, gender, traits like INT, WIS, CHR; the need for the PC to have a certain PERception to recognize that there might be interest. Again for romance to work (and move beyond the perception people have it of an automatic semi-nudity dialogue chain) then the NPC has to be a well realized character with specific interests which may or may not ever involve romancing the PC (or other NPCs in the party). Because that's the way of making good character, IMO, and good character supports good story (and vice-versa). Now you may argue that that's a lot of work - and I agree, which is why it should only be used if it fits the game and character(s) involved. And since I think that it is possible to create story/characters where romance makes no sense I'd only want them in the game if it made sense to do so.

I'd like a giant multifloor statue just because the idea is pretty cool. No interest in fighting him, just a level by level design element. (of course if its not there, I think its cool too).

I'd agree with you actually; as the PC the Wash / Zoe relationship shouldn't be mine to command over or develop. I'd see their relationship similar to Korgan hitting on Mazzy or Mazzy making that ranger her squire. Stuff you'd only see happen that creates the illusion that your party is full of people and not 17th lvl Fighter Dwarf and 17 level Fighter Halfling. I'd also be okay with a me as Mal PC who was *never* able to resolve the "thing" with Inara because it'd fit the characters. Again story character is primary focus for me; I just think that within the realms of making those elements in the game Romance could be a part of it (but not must be, because again the story and characters involved may not make sense.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gq44rH4Wgw

Again. Nope. Romances are a story telling device they are not THE story telling device. And I never said they were THE story telling device - I said that I see romance as one possible aspect of larger character relationships I want dynamic relationships; rivalries, friendships, relatives and more. I don't think every NPC should be romanceable. I even think that there are plenty of scenarioes and NPCs where romance makes no sense for the characters involved (even whole games - again if PE has no romances I'll not have an issue so long as the characters are well realized). I think we're closer on this than you think; the biggest difference is I see romances as one potential tool for Obsidian to use from the toolbox to create interesting characters in the game whereas you seem to not want it in the toolbox at all. Maybe its just me in my playthrough, but I didn't see tons of oppurtunities to have hot loving with Ignus or get kinky with Morte. Again, I am talking about party romances. And I'm not arguing you should have a loving relationship with Ignus, Morte, Vhailor... What I am arguing is that if you create a character where it might make sense for that character to fall for the PC (even if they are dirty and sweaty all the time). People who work together fall in love all the time, regardless of where they work. It also a lot of time doesn't work out which I'd also be for - I don't think just because a character is romanceable that the romance should only fail because the PC decides to fail it (or picks badly phrased dialogue that kills it because its unclear what it meant). I think that there could be NPCs who the PC can start a romance with that will fail; I think they should be able to flirt with NPCs who'll never romance them. And I think there should be NPCs who'll never, in no way, romance a PC. I think some NPCS should be able to romance each other if both are in the party without any assistance from the PC. If it makes sense for the character involved. Again my position is for romance to be one possible character defining relationship PCs and NPCs but not the only one and not even a required one. Again, DISAGREE. Romances do not ADD. They are a story telling choice . You can add to the relationship the player has with his party in other ways. I would argue that ensuring the player has sufficient intercourse options actually DETRACTS from suspension of disbelief and takes away from immersiveness. I'd disagree with you here unless you are of the opinion that character interactions entirely detract from the game. A properly written and motivated romance option should not, to my mind, detract from the game in ways that any other type of PC / NPC relationship would.

It think watching the recording and not seeing the actual questions as they asked, it give a different perception because I only hear the questions they didn't ignore and for the most part they seemed to roll with the stupider stuff that came up. I imagine if you saw the questions firing around you probably got a different picture of the people trying to participate in the chat.

I don't really care, to be honest. But, I don't see the point of telling a story that is primarily focused on telling a story and role-playing a character with joinable NPCs and not detailing the relationships that grow or fracture in the party. Apologies to Shevek up front for using his post as a jump off point for my ideas - I agree Romance story arcs are not required in all stories. With joinable NPCs I do want personality and interaction with them and if in the case of a particular NPC that might lead to a romance scenario I'm fine with that. Does it improve the story or a game? I think it can, but again because I see romance as one possible aspect of larger character relationships (PST would be much poorer without character relationships even if nothing in it is what we typically refer to as romances). IWD has no interparty relationships and many people dislike it (it also allows you to create whatever relationship you want in your minds eye, thought). Having prostitutes in games where paying them fades to black like BG and PST had don't make the game porno. Heck, being able to become a porn star in Fallout 2 doesn't make that game a porno. I'd agree that the PC could have a possibility of outside of party character being romanceable. Mind you most adventuring parties spend more time with each other than in a town, so again I think a joinable NPC should be a valid romance if it makes sense with the character. I think the problem with your argument is that I'd say - perhaps wrongly - that the largest section of people behind romance like it because it adds to the PC and NPCs story, not because they want to see pixilated sex with every character (Note that this is different from people wanting every character to be romanceable for "equality" purpose, which again isn't about sex every character alive but about making sure romance could be an option for their PC). Again, ultimately I think romance should be down to the character and what makes sense. And if Obsidian doesn't make any romances because it doesn't fit the NPCs and their relationship with the PC - I'm okay with that. Because in the end I want the characters to be well realized and romance can be a part of that and it can also not be.

Summoning magic: feral cat swarm

I seriously hope they would not trade in gold money, as that would be quite convenient... don't you think? Thinking about it a bit; Od Nua could be a haven for other adventuring parties as well - so maybe you end up trading with some of them (and fighting others?)

He's the giant blue/green guy from the Planescape: Torment trailer that was on some of the other BIS games (Fallout 2? BG:TotSC?) advertising PST who, afaik, didn't appear in the game. He was clearly trapped by Od Nua - turned to stone perhaps? - while he was on his way to appear in PST, explaining why he never made it past the trailer. If you notice, he even appears to have the collar around his neck as seen in the endless dungeon drawing theory> (Of course this theory is leaky like a sieve if the trailer giant *did* appear in PST and I've just forgotten it. Also:

"The Four Million Dollar Game" (with apologies to The Six Million Dollar Man)

I'm okay with the "endless" path having an end. Things that stretch on forever do so because no one has found the end yet for the most part. In that sense, I thought the purpose was a Durlag's Tower kind of deal. But whatever Obsidian does I'm okay with.