Amentep

spoilers: First one seems to be artificial and not appealing - much like donating to a church to improve your reputation (even if you're a homicidal maniac) in BG2. If a game was to have sleeping-around options (say, prostitutes) it might make sense, but I'm not sure its an appealing form of resource management (although certainly plays with choice and consequence) I think a way for divorce and consequences in such would be important if characters could get married. Let the NPC spouse get killed a lot = divorce. One thing I didn't like about divorce in Fallout 2 was that there wasn't really any consequence (besides a monetary / item loss penalty, as I recall). After the shotgun wedding, you'd figure dad would have come out with both guns shooting down the line in the game. in a recent radio interview, romances are still being discussed. Hahahahahahah, Feargus is funny.

Actually I agree that too much micromanagement can kill a game (I'm not a big fan of inventory tetris or food mechanics), which is why I say its a minor thing. On the other hand if blacksmithing is a skill it could be a way to add value to that skill without its value being in improving degrading armor (which I don't mind that much but some people think is to much micromanagement).

The problem was that Anders was changed. He had almost no connection to the Anders from the earleir game. There was NOTHING to indicate anders was anything otehr than straight. So to not only change his character but also personality - it was see by many as betrayl. If the devs want ot give the "masses" a gay/bi character so be it. But they could have made a new character, not buther an old one. Not that it affected me, I hate Anders. Eh, Anders was changed by taking on the Justice spirit so I took all of the changes in the character to be because he really *wasn't* the same person anymore. Still hated him, though.

Who is to say your character, by how you've grown them, isn't someone that knows 'what this is'? That's always been the point of the lore skill, to me, in part at least. That idea that you have to go to this person to find out about X makes a person wonder at some point, if they know, the knowledge exists, so why couldn't your character be the sort that researches such things, and thus have such knowledge themselves - provided you built them in such a way? Not to discount your point on going to the local shop for a scroll/identification, mind you, because that is a legitimate point. I don't find identifying it with a skill you've chosen to invest in is a bad thing at all, it's not boring, it's a way of defining your character. A lore skill check is used for far more than identifying an item besides. It's not very realistic that your character knows every legendary item ever created in the universe of PE with a maximum lore skill. Of course, this could be true for more ordniary magical item (like the mentioned longsword +1 or armor +5% fire protection) but in my opinon not for the real legendary items. It would be much more fascinating if you have to reveal the hidden information about them little by little (like a quest). I really don't like super-human characters who know everything in the universe. I agree, but I think the high lore character in this case might be used to advance the quest in a different way. Low lore character goes to shop; shop can't identify it. Refers to specialist, specialist sends party on quest to retrieve items that he needs, eventually can detail the item. High lore character can't identify the relic but knows of an item that might have something about such an artifact so essentially sends himself out on the same quest (in this case unlike the specialist who may be able to give the low lore character options on which item to get first, the high lore character has to find each item to reveal the need for the next item). Once the high lore character gets all the items they can identify the relic with the bonus that now that the high lore character has researched this type of relic he may now be able to identify other relics from the same time period or culture.

Its a minor thing - certainly not of major import - but I've always been vaguely bugged by the fact most games allow you to loot items from any sized opponent and immediately wear them. Wizardry seemed to address this by having different clothing for small party members which created the problem of never finding the right size clothes making them extremely vulnerable. I've often wondered if a system which forced you to "fit" looted armor and clothing would work within a video game (maybe it already has in a game I haven't played) and wondered what others would think of such a system. I'd include within this fitting system a way to customize the armor some (engrave it maybe) or change colors on clothing to fit what you're looking for aesthetically so you have the best of style and function. Anyone else interested in such a thing, or is it just too much detail where it isn't needed?

Plus if they put in a lore check they have to make it do something or no one would ever use it. And if you're wanting to play as a learned sage (maybe talky or magician) being able to "know stuff" would be your thing in the game and I think that kind of character really calls for a lore skill. But that doesn't mean that your PC is automatically an expert and I could see even with a lore skill in play a benefit to someone with more arcane knowledge (as both a trainer for character who want to be know it all and those who can help identify for those who don't have an egghead in their group). You can even still have quest related knowledge gathering; the PC could recognize that they need certain rare books to identify a particularly arcane item and starts the quest off there.

I think kill XP is fine in some games. I also feel that making the XP based on completing a quest rather than on how many things you kill to complete the quest is fine as well. Ideally as long as I feel my character is progressing in the world, I'm not sure I terribly care how much how I actually get the XP as long as its consistant and logically implemented and not doled out in a fashion that I feel like I played 20 hours as a kid with a wooden sword and then suddenly became a knight with a vorpal blade...

You can easily have sex without romances being involved. You can also have romances without sex being involved. I think the latter is where most of Obsidian's past coverage of the subject has gone (with the possible exception of NWN2 with the tacky Elf stalker "romance", which felt completely out of place). While i loved Nwn 2 and mask of the betrayer even more, the romance options were , well.. terrible. Only Gann was decent. Stalker Elf, Self-righteous Paladin and Baldy Bald Wizard not so much... did i mention the wizard was bald? Very frigid too but mostly BALD. Nothing wrong with bald women. I think, reading through a good bit of the thread that one worry that comes up is the idea of the "tail wagging the dog" that romances are suddenly the most important thing in the game. I think also this ties into a problem with many recent romances in RPGs where pretty much saying "hi" to a romanceable companion starts the romance. I don't think this is the right way to go about it. If they're going to include romances with companions, I think it should be something that the player has to consciously start (or, if initiated by the NPC has to be after a number of conditions are met - not just adding them to the party like pretty much all of the romances in DA2).

Well I think ME1 is the best game but for combat...well to be honest I thought the combat was fun in all of the games*. *Note I have a high tolerance in this regard and results may not be typical

Week last couple of weeks in the US Boxoffice + a deserved R rating was probably stacking the odds against the film a good bit. I'm not sure I buy the idea that the Stallone film from a 17 years back really had any effect which I've heard some people mention. I also gather from what I've read of US critics that they largely didn't get it.

I watched Dredd over the weekend. It was pretty good; liked how they forshadowed a lot of what happened AND gave an excuse for the use of slow-motion in action sequences within the story.

I'm not keen on "Chosen One" plots, because it seems to me an overused narrative hook rather than being inherently bad. At least disguise it a bit.

I think Chris Avellone's blog entry Project Eternity and characterization has probably a good detail for how to think through companions in an RPG. This quote jumped out at me -

Keeping in mind my game-making naivete, what things do you think might help this sort of thing? What is it which alerts npcs to a situation? I can't imagine at the very least that this couldn't be tweaked, right? Tweaking is actually what I suggest; I think the problem is that the finer you get with the reputation system (and looking at what characters could have seen) the more difficult it will be to account for the variety of states it could create.

I don't think someone asked the question: why do people don't want romances in game? My impression on this is Romances tend to be PC centric to the point of overriding character logic; NPCs throw themselves at the PC and romance only fails if the PC chooses not to. Unlike books or movies, video games world simulation doesn't fit easily with building a romance properly; in books or film the narrative can jump around and give the illusion of time within a romance; games don't do this easily (but some games do play around with time jumps in narrative) Building proper choice and consequence (and reflection of romantic choices in game) will take development from some other part of the game (probably romances will take the place of other quests). Given an idea that there might be a 1-to-1 ratio, if three characters are created as romanceable then it replaces three quests and the choice and consequence of those quests. But from a gameplay perspective those three quests might have been available to all character whereas the romances will be monogamous most likely (note some quests may become class or character specific, so I'm not sure 1-to-1 mapping is really an appropriate way to look at it) Focus - most RPGers are focused on the story and world building and don't see that romances as improving that aspect Loot - video games have a lack of dowery gifts, making the monty hauler feel sad for wasting their time marrying when they could have been beating up goblins for jink (okay, I'm joking on this one) Any game development has limited resources - this one probably moreso than others. Its understandable that people are going to feel passionate about getting things in the game that they feel use the resources in ways that will maximize their enjoyment.

"I saw a mudcrab the other day, horrible creatures." "I used to be a mudcrab spotter like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee"

To be fair, though, don't areas, pacing and quest option (and possibly skills and character generation) discussions also lead to telling Obsidian the story you want to hear? Each of them are tied closely or lightly to the world and therefore the story (and how its told and who with). I think people are throwing things out there they'd like to see - and we all understand that Obsidian if going to make the final decisions for what they think is important and give the vast majority of us things we'll like.

Here was my thinking from the previous page - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60404-merged-gods-save-us-another-romance-thread/page__st__180#entry1200360

Perhaps I'm missing your point here, but fighting/killing in a game and romance/sex in a game either happen or they don't happen in the game - just like in fiction, television or movie. I'm not sure what kind of "advanced technology" would be needed...unless you're trying to argue that people who want romance/sex in a game to actually be able to romance/have sex with characters in the game, in which case your analogy to fighting/killing isn't analogous as the player isn't actually able to fight/kill characters in the game as it stands now either. Or perhaps I misunderstand? And its something they like to read about, if the sales of 50 Shades of Grey is anything to go by. And to watch, if the fact the porno business is still around. Not really the point I think; I gather there is noone is asking for Project Eternity to be a game solely about romancing and having sex (anymore than they are asking that it solely be about killing people, or setting traps, or representing Tolkein's version of elves and dwarves (all topics that have come up here).

I can usually read faster than most Voice Actors can act their lines, so unless I'm feeling particularly magnanimous (or I'm having eye problems), I turn on subtitles, read what they're saying and skip the dialogue. Since VO is rather expensive, I'd rather the money be spent elsewhere for this game.

At the risk of repeating myself... For my part - and again I'm not going to be torn up if romances aren't in the game - I like party interactions. Party interactions can create interesting relationships between the NPCs and PC or other NPCs (interparty banter or squables or quests). It is a way so your Orc Fighter isn't just a meat shield and your wizard isn't a fireball battery. They're characters with some personality traits. In specific situations I see no problem with those relationships being romantic in nature. This would have to fit the scope and focus of the game and I'd rather have many other things in the game...but if it is part of the character design for NPCs and it fits the game...why not have it as one more avenue with which to define your character as well as the NPCs? Like most side-quests, romances aren’t going to propel the story forward (in Mass Effect getting Nirali Bhatia's body back to Suresh (or choosing to ignore him or side with the agent) doesn't affect the story, but offers a way to define the PC and the world they live in. Romances should be similar; they define the PC or NPC (and possibly their culture(s)) in different ways and gives the player options for what kind of character they want to be. Using Jade Empire as an example, I kind of felt that it was natural for the male PC to consider a romantic relationship with Dawn Star - who very easily could have been a romantic figure in his life for years since they've grown up together. Or not as well; the PC could very well see Dawn Star as a childhood friend and never think of her that way. But again the player gets an opportunity to stake out that part of the background of their character. The problem with most romances is "they just seem to happen" (which, iirc, is actually female Shepard's response in the Liara romance in Mass Effect at one point). There are some other problems as well (the NPCs never seem to say “no” unless the player makes choices to kill the romance). I don’t think those couldn’t be surmounted if thought out well. In that sense romances should be able to be developed so they make sense with the character. I think romances could never get to the point of sex and be perfectly appropriate. I also think characters should be able to flirt with characters who shoot them down - ultimately its a part of NPCs building to create this kind of choice for what the NPC would want. I think a big problem with romances is that they're PC-centric to the point of over-riding character logic (and I get that often this is why many players consider them to be constantly poorly implemented). The PC is a black hole from which no romanceable character can escape if they get too close. Of course, if the player wanted to they could incorporate this into the background of the character whether the game supported it or not (using the idea that video games can't naturally incorporate *everything* the PC does, did or wants into the structure of the game) which is reason why most people feel its unnecessary to the game. And I'd agree that it is unnecessary; but as an option it can be something players have to feel like their character is a fleshed out figure I have no problem with it.

I never liked going into a house that has no other people around it, killing the inhabitants and having everyone know you did it (and without even the decency of CSI: Project Eternity breaking out!) Although in one sense this is a problem with a global reputation so maybe it can be improved through a different kind of reputation system?

"...And I may have accidentally back-stabbed some people in the past, but if they couldn't see me coming, well, that's their loss." While I never ended up playing a character where it was that important, I think for my mind being able to kill the companion in a fight would be good. It'd be nice if you couldn't bring the character back (probably not going to happen). And I'd really not like the player to be able to force NPCs to suicide ("take off all your armor and go kick that bear...")

I loved character backgrounds in Arcanum as well. I'm kinda neutral on the method of stat generation (rolling or point buy) but I did like character backgrounds.

I dunno, I understand your reluctance to have them if you haven't liked them. And I'll agree that limitations in video games make them difficult to work "logically" (Jaheria going after the PC within days or weeks of her husbands death for example). And yet I also thought some of the romances made sense, like Dawn Star in JE or Safiya from MotB, and worked well within the game context.