Amentep

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.

Oh I understand, I just kind of worried the discussion is getting a bit heated and trying to be fair to all sides. Actually there were several good pages in the back of the last thread where some good discussions were going on I thought and too often I think we all get caught up in storming the hill and start going off on the other poster and not just what they're saying. Or something. And to be fair (again, because I can't help myself) one person's reason may not meet the justification threshold of another. That said I haven't seen a sign of the anti-crown being disrespected; I know Monte Carlo got some posts cut but not having seen the content I certainly can't speak to the justification of such actions.

I didn't say "wrong" but "strange" since I'm not sure one's appreciation (or lack thereof) for Tolkien translates in any relative way to video game writing or video game romance writing. If you like Tolkien and he hates Tolkien but you both like some other game (lets say, for the sake of argument, SSI's Pool of Radiance from 1988 since I think you both mentioned "Gold Box" games) does that validate or invalidate your respective opinions about romance in video games? It seems to me - and I accept I may be wrong - that ultimately it doesn't. So it seems a strange argument to make that tries to debate the debater and not the subject up for debate. 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.

To be fair, while this time around as I recall it was an "anti" poster who brought up Bioware, since this topic has a long history in the PE forums (can a month be long enough for a long history?) some posters who are "pro" have started by listing Bioware romances from the ME / DA series, so its not uncommon for BIO to get pulled in from either side in these discussions. I think that there have been knee jerk reactions from both sides as well, so not every post has been part of a solid discourse on the pros / cons of romance as a type of between party (or outside party) relationship.

Thing is, if you read the whole review, he's talking about some of Tolkien's more influential literary admirers when he talks about the "fans" and pointing out problems with their pro-LOTR comments and how he believes that they're unjustly praising Tolkien by overlooking things that they themselves would criticize in other works. Ah, that wasn't clear in the parts you quoted. By all means - literary critics can be critical of each other. Still a bit on the harsh side, but more understandable. Yeah, I had trouble getting something that I felt would represent his article without posting the whole thing.

Samwise and Frodo at least... I kid, I kid...

Wasn't really trying to change your opinion; I just felt it strange to single out a posters not-liking Tolkien's writing as a reason to discredit his opinion (at least that's how I took what you were saying). People have disliked his writing since the books came out and it continues today. I'm well disposed to him and I still find getting through LOTR a bit of a chore (like Melville who I also like but not an easy writer to read due to the impenetrability of the prose). Thing is, if you read the whole review, he's talking about some of Tolkien's more influential literary admirers when he talks about the "fans" and pointing out problems with their pro-LOTR comments and how he believes that they're unjustly praising Tolkien by overlooking things that they themselves would criticize in other works.

I've heard a good deal of praise about the Ars Magica PnP game over the years, but reviews of Black Chicken Studios' other games are sparse so a bit of a toss-up for me atm. Still thought it might be of interest around here so...here it is for the curious.

Eh, Wilson goes on to praise James Branch Cabell's Poictesme. He liked some of the classic fantasies. He hated Lovecraft. He tended to favor symbolists though. Point was not everyone liked/likes Tolkien.

From literary critic Edmund Wilson's review printed in The Nation in 1956. Point is, not everyone thinks Tolkien is "good writing". Just like not everyone thinks video game romance is good writing (to try vainly to approach the topic of the thread).

The 'problem' I have with her comment is that it is indicative of the problem in general with Bioware games: the parts of the game seem to be unconnected with each other. RPGs really need to have each part of the game influence each other, the dialogue needs to influence the combat and both need to be influenced by the same stats for instance. Bioware games have increasingly segregated the dialogue and combat to the point that you can be using blood magic in front of an entire city and no one seems to mention it in conversation. The writers should be working with the designers and those implementing the combat mechanics to make sure everything works and makes sense in the world they are building, for instance TNO's ability to switch classes was written into Planescape's story as his using his 'forgetfulness' and even justified questlines and the like. If you are able to skip combat to get straight to the dialogue or vice versa with no impact then something is wrong with the RPG you're supposed to be making. That's my opinion anyway, take from it what you will. I'd also make an argument that as a writer, its part of your job to understand the media you're working for and making your writing fit the medium. This is why novelists don't always make the best choice to script the movie based on their book; you have to be able to shift gears and understand how the medium you're writing for works. To pull this back to the topic of romance, I think this illustrates the way romances are perceived as a problem; it has to do with different views of what the medium is capable of and how it can (or fails to) handle certain elements of drama (then filtered through the scope of the game and its design and then lastly just personal preferences).

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.