Amentep

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.

I think Minsc and Viconia really are more cases of those characters being made to fit the setting when all of the possibilities of the setting weren't in the context / confines of the game. Not really sure about Kivan. But I'd like to think since the system is being built from the ground up that they would be able to create a robust system that allows for each NPC to have their own feel without breaking the rules they just created.

Well, this is one of the things which puzzles me. I mean...are you saying people really want Shepard to get busy with a blue alien? Because that doesn't make any sense. At all. It does nothing to propel the story or game. Its an option for the player to define their character if they choose to do so. Most side-quests don't propel the story forward (does getting Nirali Bhatia's body back to Suresh (or choosing to ignore him or side with the agent) actually propel the story forward? Or does it simply offer a way to define the PC and the world they live in?) I think when we see passion - and maybe I'm wrong - for romances its an outgrowth of passion for one's PC and the investment in that character. The problem with most romances is "they just seem to happen" (which, iirc, is actually female Shepard's response in the Liara romance at one point). However, using Jade Empire as an example, I kind of felt that it was natural for the male PC to want 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 - 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. 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.

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). Its 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. Again 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 its 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? I think your use of "you" here is confusing, since we'd be talking about the character in game and not the player, but it seems to be you think that its the player who has the "relationship" with the companion in game.

However as a stretch goal, if Obsidian could figure how much it'd cost might work. But I don't think they could since the game probably won't be 100% nailed down until the kickstarter is over, so you wouldn't know how many named NPCs there are. So yeah, its a nice idea but I kinda agree it'd be difficult if not impossible to do.

Well certainly it has to fit into the game; I could see tattoos as something that could work *if* there is a monk (unarmed, unarmored) type class as a way they could still have a large number of options, for example.

My hope would be that the game itself would make following the quests to resolution urgent through engaging me in the story. While it would be neat to see a game take into account partial or absent actions on a quest after a certain time, I'd imagine that each level of added scrutiny would up the complexity of the game. That said if quests are going to be time sensitive I hope the game gives us a clear direction to go in (something that I kind of felt Fallout lacked*) *Its been years since I played the game, but my memory was it wasn't difficult to miss things and thus miss where to go to get the waterchip - but my memory may be cheating.

I wouldn't be against it, but I don't think it'd be necessary for me to have, either.

My brother in PnP came up with the novel solution of using the bodies of the goblins we'd just killed to set off traps. Good times, good times...