Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir

[Monte Carlo]

because they're usually so awful that they just seem like wasted development time. Giving you Bastila as a romance option but, no means to skewer her just reeks of bad design, for instance.

 

This is another good point beyond my innate hatred of romances in CRPGs.

 

Development time writing soppy romances versus, say, a new exploding head animation, witty one-liner or interesting magic item? Hmmm.

[Tigranes]

Yes, I hear that the overland map is very friendly to modders. It's very easy to adapt it to a SP mod, or even to a PW, apparently.

 

And definitely, romances are generally a waste of development time: furthermore, you can't say "don't do it if you don't like it", because that's like saying, "if you don't like romance in your movie, fast-forward it" or "if you don't like this battle in the book, just skip over it". It is more power to the consumer to have these options, sure, but that doesn't mean that the cultural product as a whole is permitted to become a bloated all-in-one package: we consume holistically and knowledge that Aerie wants to bone me and that she keeps trying to talk about her poor wings all with sappy music does affect how I see that character and my role-playing.

 

I rather suspect Bastila could not be skewered because the devs were so in love with her, but that's another story.Romance should really only be an option when a great deal of effort goes into it and it is the focus of the game. Despite my Aerie example, BG2 remains the only really 'legitimate' game to have a romance, because they invested so much into it including quests, and they were committed enough so that there was a lot of dialogue from that character even if you killed off the romance. NWN2 sorta, as well. Just like rideable mounts or anything else where the same reason is given, if you want to do it, (try) to do it properly.

[Kissamies]

Awesome. Can't wait for this one. I hope the level range is reasonable. Something like 5-15 at most, maybe. I don't like going through great many levels in 15 hours, especially with multiple characters.

[Volourn]

"furthermore, you can't say "don't do it if you don't like it", because that's like saying, "if you don't like romance in your movie, fast-forward it" or "if you don't like this battle in the book, just skip over it"."

 

Um.. Not the same thing. Games - espicially RPGs - are about options. There's always going to be optional stuff. If you don't like romances simply don't do them. It's not a movie; you aren't forced to do everything. If you are watching a movie, a romance is probably hgonna be a big part of it while romances in games the majority of games are just extra 'fluff' just like the optional dungeons.

[taks]

i have to admit that i got it on with elanee this past time through the OC. i didn't even realize it was an option till she suddenly wanted to knock boots while we were on the castle walls talking about stuff. generally speaking, i'd prefer to skip them or not have them at all. something about slaying orcs in the morning and "she loves me, she loves me not" in the evening just don't sit right... oh, that and i'm playing an orc right now (my son's choice).

 

taks

[RangerSG]

"furthermore, you can't say "don't do it if you don't like it", because that's like saying, "if you don't like romance in your movie, fast-forward it" or "if you don't like this battle in the book, just skip over it"."

 

Um.. Not the same thing. Games - espicially RPGs - are about options. There's always going to be optional stuff. If you don't like romances simply don't do them. It's not a movie; you aren't forced to do everything. If you are watching a movie, a romance is probably hgonna be a big part of it while romances in games the majority of games are just extra 'fluff' just like the optional dungeons.

 

Exactly. I've 'never' understood romance-hatred, except for a poorly done romance (like the NWN2 OCs, MotB was better, but still a bit sudden). They are 'not' mandatory. You don't 'have' to see them. It's an RP option that you can choose or not choose. And frankly, in an RP game, I would say MORE options for roleplay is always better than LESS, assuming they are done with quality. And since story is always more important to me than technical gadgets, if I hear "zots" as an excuse, I'm going to say; "WRITE MORE STORY!" Now if the writer doesn't think it will fit, fine. But if there was room for it in the plot, and it made sense, then it belongs. Period.

 

That said, I think it's probably unlikely given the nature of the party-building system in SoZ that it would fit. So I'm fine either way.

[Starwars]

What I generally don't like about romances is that they often feel like a design element that *is* sort of integral to the storyline of that particular character if a lot of time was spent on it. Or it's like in NWN2 where it's... strange on how these people offer yourself to you.

And I find myself often running into the whole romance thing, despite not wanting it. The worst offender was when I played Jade Empire with a female character, and that male romance guy ended up kissing my character, and I really had *no* idea that I had supposedly romanced him. I thought I had been generally nice, but I guess I had gone over the line somewhere. It was quite the WTF moment.

 

And of course we can turn these people down when they come to your character and say "Um... you're so special to me", but the thing is that it quite often feels like you're shutting down most of that characters development if you choose to turn them down. If there was more interesting content for turning people down, then it wouldn't be so much of a problem for me.

 

But it's still effort I'd like to see put into other aspects of the game/characters.

[Enoch]

In my experience, non-romantic in-depth interaction with NPCs > romantic in-depth interaction with NPCs. (And it isn't close.)

 

The former invokes actual curiosity in the player as to the character and how he/she/it fits into the gameworld as a whole. The latter invariably descends into a meta-gamey "quest for electronic nookie" with a character who has no reason to be attracted to you other than the fact that you have the big invisible "PROTAGONIST" sign floating above your head.

 

I'm not saying it can't be done well-- just that, in my experience, it hasn't.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Enoch

[Volourn]

I find no difference between romance and non romance stuff. If anything, romances tend to lead to actual role-playing, and C&C compared to other stuff. meta gamey stuff is 100% laid on the feet of the player. Not the game.

[Xard]

hahaha, no

 

I think J.E nailed this down perfectly ages ago (someone else shall go to find the quotes though)

 

Apart from PS:T (well, MotB's Safiya romance was actually good too, don't know about Gann as I haven't done it) the very best romances I've seen in RPG's were in KotOR 2.

 

They were handled with grace and subtetly Zoma spoke earlier. All Bio romances (+ NWN2 OC) are like from some horribly scripted Hollywood flick

 

KotOR 2 and MotB are european or asian films

Edited June 12, 2008 by Xard

[Xard]

From teh codex:

 

Are the developers still reading this? I would like to make a suggestion: a combat system where your characters and companions can die (like in BG2 and real DnD), and don't just stand up and ask for healing after the combat is over like they now do in NWN2 and MotB. This would make the combat infinitely more interesting (assuming no "raise dead" wands lying around everywhere, in the most unbelievable places), as the player would have to worry a little about losing a party member, instead of just keeping one of them alive until the combat encounter is over. This improvement could be used to retroactively fix the original campaign and MotB as well, although of course it might cause some crashes when the companion required to recite her line would be dead in someone's magic container. But this would be a small price to pay for an update that made combat interesting, and possibly very interesting, even in the OC (and it would make MotB retroactively almost perfect). And it is an improvement: everyone here and elsewhere talks about BG2's combat being superior to NWN2's, and it's the only substantial difference between the two systems.

 

 

We'd like to do this for SoZ (though it will definitely NOT retroactively affect MotB and the OC). Can't make any promises yet, but we'd like to.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE MAKE THIS HAPPEN

 

 

oh, and unquestionable WINRAR decision that's already been made:

 

We are tuning this game to be more hardcore and more challenging than previous NWN2 campaigns. Especially considering the non-linear nature of the game, you should be able to find something to challenge you throughout the game.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2008 by Xard

[Tigranes]

Volo, my answer to your point is already in my previous post. I'd reiterate myself, but no time, sorry. Basically, for me, Viconia was your typical drow who was quite forthright about her 'alternative' set of morals and standards: but her romance was obviously designed to show 'another side' of her who was struggling with this, and felt pain herself, etc, etc. Whether this was tastefully done or simply was another Drizzt depends on the person, but that's not the point. The point is, Viconia as a character is inevitably changed and how we perceive her as a 'person' is very much altered by this: and, unless you go in with the mindset saying "I HATE ALL ROMANCES AND I WILL BLINDLY CLICK THE 'NO' OPTION WITHOUT EVEN READING WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY", you are going to be exposed to some of that. For my part, I like well-written romances so I looked at what Viconia had to say, but eventually cut it off because I didn't like that one. Of course, now my view of Viconia is changed irrevocably, and in my point of view, for the worse.

 

Again, you can disagree and say Viconia was awesome because of her romance, but that's not the point. The point is that simply saying 'ignore romances' is like saying you've got an uncle who's a lawyer by day but a flamboyant Spanish dancer with the pseudonym of Pedro by night, and if you don't like it you can just pretend he's just a lawyer. I don't oppose romances as a whole, I just think that just like a badly implemented feature that is right there, a badly written romance can hurt the character as a whole. I think that makes perfect sense.

[RangerSG]

Volo, my answer to your point is already in my previous post. I'd reiterate myself, but no time, sorry. Basically, for me, Viconia was your typical drow who was quite forthright about her 'alternative' set of morals and standards: but her romance was obviously designed to show 'another side' of her who was struggling with this, and felt pain herself, etc, etc. Whether this was tastefully done or simply was another Drizzt depends on the person, but that's not the point. The point is, Viconia as a character is inevitably changed and how we perceive her as a 'person' is very much altered by this: and, unless you go in with the mindset saying "I HATE ALL ROMANCES AND I WILL BLINDLY CLICK THE 'NO' OPTION WITHOUT EVEN READING WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY", you are going to be exposed to some of that. For my part, I like well-written romances so I looked at what Viconia had to say, but eventually cut it off because I didn't like that one. Of course, now my view of Viconia is changed irrevocably, and in my point of view, for the worse.

 

Again, you can disagree and say Viconia was awesome because of her romance, but that's not the point. The point is that simply saying 'ignore romances' is like saying you've got an uncle who's a lawyer by day but a flamboyant Spanish dancer with the pseudonym of Pedro by night, and if you don't like it you can just pretend he's just a lawyer. I don't oppose romances as a whole, I just think that just like a badly implemented feature that is right there, a badly written romance can hurt the character as a whole. I think that makes perfect sense.

 

While I can see the point you're making. I don't buy it. And here's why. The NPC's in a RPG are influenced by the player's decision and develop in relation to what you do. In BG2, romanced and unromanced versions of the partners were considerably different personalities, no matter 'which' one you choose. Were the romances good, were they bad? That's pretty subjective. For the time, I think they were good. I'm sure they haven't aged well. And I think a lot of comparison between what was and what is now makes BG2 seem weak in comparison.

 

But that's beside the point. You can't say it "hurts the NPC entirely" because who they are romanced is DISTINCT from who they are non-romanced. So if you think that's weaker, then not taking the romance can't hurt the whole character, because the romanced version is not who they are anymore. To claim they are is to resort to metagaming, since your PC never took that route. BTW, I agree that Viconia is problematic on a number of reasons. And the whole "Elf priestess" fetish in BG2 made for some real samey feel to them.

 

As for the KotOR2 romances...there's too much cut content still with those PCs to really get a good gage. Sorry. Even if I an read what was 'supposed' to have been there, it's not the same when I can't see it. Safiyra was fascinating, absolutely.

[Tigranes]

Were the romances good, were they bad? That's pretty subjective.

 

Agreed, and that's why that's not the point, as I said, and as you say.

 

Anyway, I can see your side as well. I've got to go out, but perhaps I can pick up on this again in a few hours.

[Humodour]

From teh codex:

 

Are the developers still reading this? I would like to make a suggestion: a combat system where your characters and companions can die (like in BG2 and real DnD), and don't just stand up and ask for healing after the combat is over like they now do in NWN2 and MotB. This would make the combat infinitely more interesting (assuming no "raise dead" wands lying around everywhere, in the most unbelievable places), as the player would have to worry a little about losing a party member, instead of just keeping one of them alive until the combat encounter is over. This improvement could be used to retroactively fix the original campaign and MotB as well, although of course it might cause some crashes when the companion required to recite her line would be dead in someone's magic container. But this would be a small price to pay for an update that made combat interesting, and possibly very interesting, even in the OC (and it would make MotB retroactively almost perfect). And it is an improvement: everyone here and elsewhere talks about BG2's combat being superior to NWN2's, and it's the only substantial difference between the two systems.

 

 

We'd like to do this for SoZ (though it will definitely NOT retroactively affect MotB and the OC). Can't make any promises yet, but we'd like to.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE MAKE THIS HAPPEN

 

 

oh, and unquestionable WINRAR decision that's already been made:

 

We are tuning this game to be more hardcore and more challenging than previous NWN2 campaigns. Especially considering the non-linear nature of the game, you should be able to find something to challenge you throughout the game.

 

 

 

All for great justice!

[Humodour]

I never liked creating more than one character. Playing with multiple own made characters is kinda like playing multiple solitaires at the same time.

 

No.

 

It's not.

[Pope]

So how many characters will we be able to create?

This isn't going to be answered anytime soon right?

[kirottu]

I never liked creating more than one character. Playing with multiple own made characters is kinda like playing multiple solitaires at the same time.

 

No.

 

It's not.

 

Yes it is, because my taste of things is clearly superior compared to yours.

[Tale]

I hope there'll be romance options available for all of my player made characters. And with each other. That way I could create a harem.

[Musopticon?]

A harem of male dwarven champions!

 

Oh wait...

Edited June 13, 2008 by Musopticon?

[Humodour]

So how many characters will we be able to create?

This isn't going to be answered anytime soon right?

 

I want 4 to 6.

 

I never liked creating more than one character. Playing with multiple own made characters is kinda like playing multiple solitaires at the same time.

 

No.

 

It's not.

 

Yes it is, because my taste of things is clearly superior compared to yours.

 

No reason to get excited, the thief he kindly spoke.

[Pope]

So how many characters will we be able to create?

This isn't going to be answered anytime soon right?

 

I want 4 to 6.

I'd be content with 4, but they could decide to go with 3 and allow one cohort for a total of 4.

[Enoch]

3 seems ideal to me. Generates quirkier parties than the F-W-C-R lineup that most people will default to with 4 chars, and gives us more room for interesting joinable NPCs.

[Atreides]

Is the single selected character still going to be doing all the talking with NPCs or can the other chars (probably with better specialized social skills) be able to back up/chip in the conversation?

 

Would be nice if halfway through my (main) wiz's conversation I can switch to my rogue to intimidate/bluff and back to wiz again etc. Not scripted, but I choose to do it while maintaining the dialogue tree.

[Tale]

Is the single selected character still going to be doing all the talking with NPCs or can the other chars (probably with better specialized social skills) be able to back up/chip in the conversation?

 

Would be nice if halfway through my (main) wiz's conversation I can switch to my rogue to intimidate/bluff and back to wiz again etc. Not scripted, but I choose to do it while maintaining the dialogue tree.

From what I've gleamed, I feel comftorable in saying no. You choose which one you want to be your conversation character on the overland map and that's the only one you can use.