Amentep

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...

Ahh, the Vampiric Wolves east of Beregost. Yes, those were cruel. Encounters like that are why games should offer us tactical retreat (running away) as an option. I'd like tactical retreat ("Brave Sir Robin ran away..."). I don't mind walking into a video game situation where I'm clearly outmatched as long as its possible to extricate myself by means other than a reload.

I dunno, I think there has to be some consequence of attacking someone in full sight. That said there's something about creating a system that allows the evil player to kill a character without worrying about appraisal (essentially assassinating them). None of the "you stole an item from a locked box in an empty room and now your universal reputation -1" stuff (also known as the "donate to the church for good / wack an NPC system")

And of course, sticking things in the holes of your party members is even more important, right? While I disagree with SanguineAngel's proposition that "Adding romances...is a relatively trivial matter...", they also didn't mention sex at all in their post so your conclusion is a bit skewed I think.

Jell-O?

Every update makes me more interested!

Wasn't it IWD2 that did a limited version of that with the Wilderness Lore skill, IIRC, letting you use it to get an idea of what monsters might be in the area. I really liked that because it allowed me to plan better when going into a new area.

I think its hard to not have things fall into some sort of commonality for how we expect creatures to look. For example most of the Elder Scrolls critters look similar to existing creatures (maybe just not at the right size). But as long as they work within the physicality of the world, I'm cool with a wider range of creature to pull from - similar to exisiting animals, similar to extinct animals, tweaks to make freaky animals and so forth.

My hope is that there are traps and that there's more flexibility in dealing with them than always having a thief in the group.