[Merged] Gods save us another romance thread

[Parmenides]

I just don't want it to turn into a mass effect where forum people go crazy about their favorite characters going on long campains with banners for their prefered/desired romances.

[Bos_hybrid]

Literally any part of the game drains resources from other parts, it's a really childish perspective to say that any feature MUST be something you'll enjoy. If one of the classes is fun for other people but unbearable for you, are you going to bitch about it too? Because designing and balancing a class takes a hell of a lot more time and effort than writing some dialogue.

 

I still laugh at this, 'only are opinion counts' thing you guys have when it comes to romances.

 

I'm also disappointed at the apparent view that writing is a throw away resource, it's not. Something done right takes time and creativity.

 

So people want romances, but they want them done right(ie not bio style). They also believe they don't cost much in the way of resources so it won't be a burden on development.

 

Straw man.

 

Find me the person who says all three of the above. You have some people who want romance in the game who would agree with you that BioWare does it badly. But you don't have anyone saying that romances don't cost resources to write, period, let alone to write well.

 

Plenty have people have, go back and look at the discussion in previous threads, including this one. Many don't believe it takes time and resources. I like to point out it does, and that PE has limited resources.

 

So in my mind there are three choices.

 

1. Romances that are tried to be done right, that drain significant resources.

 

2. Bio style romances, that are throw away. Still drain resources away from other areas, but no to the degree of option 1.

 

3. No romances.

 

You'd have to define "significant" and what it's being drained from? We can make silly statements like "would you rather have romances or would you rather have first person shooting mechanics?" or "would you rather have romances or would you rather have realistic physics for parkour?" You have to give an either or, this or that, for "draining resources" to mean anything.

 

Well obviously it's mainly the writing teams resource burden, but it will flow over into design and QA. What will get cut, I don't know, nothing maybe, or maybe a faction, or a branching pathway. I tend to err on the side of caution, and not want to see anything cut for romances.

 

But you has a writer must admit that good writing takes time, energy and creativity, it's not a 'we'll bang ok' and done process.

 

For example, I would much rather have writing time spent on romances than on discussions on religion. I would also much rather have writing resources spent on romances than on thieving and sneaking mechanics.

 

God no, thieving and sneaking mechanics in please. Definitely not at the expense of 'romance'. See different opinion, both are valid. Dev choice in what to prioritize.

 

To say, blanketly, "drain resources" is to put into people's mind that whatever their favorite parts of the game are could be cut for romances. But that's just fear-mongering.

 

But no one can predict what gets cut. No one here has a time machine. So a 'drain resources' is more appropriate than to say 'they are going to drop dual classing' and/or a crafting system, plus a branching pathway, to implement romances. Those would be lies, stating a drain on resources allows people to make up their own mind and decide what might get cut, and whether or not romances are worth that price. People are not idiots that can be feared into not wanting romances.

 

And you fall into what I'm about to address again below - the assumption that everyone thinks that BioWare's romances are universally (or even mostly) bad.

 

So you disagree?

 

You would like to see a Isabella romance in PE or a Chobot enconter? And how many would be satisfactory? 1,2,4,8?

 

I don't hate bioware games(well apart for DA2), I tend to think their romances can be tacky and fanservice (Garrus/Tali). But they are a major part of what fans expect of bioware games, and their games have huge resources, so I have no problem with them being in.

 

PE on the other hand has limited resources, so my opinion of them being in is vastly different. If it's announced as a stretch goal by Obs, I'll accept that it's been budgeted and it's inclusion isn't at the expense of something I would of prefered seeing.

 

Remember, just because you don't agree with a view, doesn't make it trolling, aggressive or any less valid.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Bos_hybrid

[metiman]

I'd just like to point out to Merin that there is a difference between an overgeneralization and a straw man. It really gets tiresome to constantly be reading the term everywhere. Strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman. Everyone who disagrees with you about romance minigames is not setting up a strawman. You might want to refresh yourself on precisely what a strawman actually is so that you may stop embarassing yourself.

[lord of flies]

I still laugh at this, 'only are opinion counts' thing you guys have when it comes to romances.

Get a load of this clown. Only my opinion counts? You're the one who wants things he will never voluntarily choose taken out because it will remove (solely by opportunity cost, I remind you) from the parts of the game he likes more.

 

I'm also disappointed at the apparent view that writing is a throw away resource, it's not. Something done right takes time and creativity.

And game design is a throw away resource? Could you at least try to read my posts before writing your own? Just an idea I'm throwing out there.

[Merin]

But you has a writer must admit that good writing takes time, energy and creativity, it's not a 'we'll bang ok' and done process.

 

Any writing takes time. It takes as much time and planning to write romance as it does to write humor or action. Some writers might find certain kinds of subject matter easier or harder to write, but that's not a universal rule and just their own foibles and idiosyncrasies.

 

That said, any given scene takes as long or as short as the writer wants to devote to it.

 

For example, I would much rather have writing time spent on romances than on discussions on religion. I would also much rather have writing resources spent on romances than on thieving and sneaking mechanics.

 

God no, thieving and sneaking mechanics in please. Definitely not at the expense of 'romance'. See different opinion, both are valid. Dev choice in what to prioritize.

 

My point exactly. Different opinions on what is important, both are valid. We are on the same page there. And definitely what the developers want to do is of utmost priority.

 

And you fall into what I'm about to address again below - the assumption that everyone thinks that BioWare's romances are universally (or even mostly) bad.

 

So you disagree?

 

Vehemently.

 

You would like to see a Isabella romance in PE or a Chobot enconter? And how many would be satisfactory? 1,2,4,8?

 

Isabela is a sticking point with me, as is any BioWare game post ME2. But that's me. But picking out (if you think they are, or even if I agree they are) the worst examples doesn't represent the whole.

 

For that matter, though, I'd take the Diane Allers romance over no romance, yes. I have no problem with Seth Green, Keith David, Felicia Day or Jessica Chobot being in BioWare games.

 

I enjoy the majority of BioWare's romances... with the caveat that DA2 and ME3 are not games I particularly enjoyed, overall (though, to be fair, ME3 was the ending almost solely.)

 

Remember, just because you don't agree with a view, doesn't make it trolling, aggressive or any less valid.

 

Disagreement doesn't equal trolling or aggressive or invalid.

 

And the sky is blue and water is wet.

 

Saying anymore on that and I'll just come across as defensive.

 

I'd just like to point out to Merin that there is a difference between an overgeneralization and a straw man. It really gets tiresome to constantly be reading the term everywhere. Strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman. Everyone who disagrees with you about romance minigames is not setting up a strawman. You might want to refresh yourself on precisely what a strawman actually is so that you may stop embarassing yourself.

 

I already defined it earlier in the thread, but just for you...

 

a straw man is setting up a weak and easily defeated argument that doesn't actually represent what your opponent said.

 

And the constant, repeated examples of people saying "you just want to have sex with your companions" is a straw man. For whatever reason, role-playing a sexual encounter is not as accepted as role-playing murdering people - and therefore painting your opponent as someone who's "just looking for virtual sex" is a way to discredit them without addressing their actual stated desires of wanting to have romance options.

 

It's not a matter of people agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion. People are free to have whatever opinion they like on things that are a matter of opinion (what is the best song, what color is prettiest, what game is most enjoyable, are romances in RPGs worth it) - what they are not allowed "opinions" on are things that are quantifiable facts...

like, say, if someone actually said they wanted to have sex with the companions in a game.

If you want, we could also branch into how it's a false dichotomy to keep insisting it's "no romance" or "cheesy sexy scenes" with no options in-between possible.

 

I didn't actually start posting in this thread to advocate for romances to be included in PE. I took the poll and and posted my one post about what my choices in the poll were. Then, after reading pages and pages of one-sided rudeness, I posted asking for the smugness to be taken down a notch. Then, after pages more, I called out someone on how they were posting.

 

If you can find me one post where I tell someone that they are wrong and romances must be in the game, I'll apologize. If you can find me a quote of me saying that people are wrong because they don't want romances in the game, I'll say you are right.

 

Until then -

and you'll love this -

you saying that I'm telling everyone who disagrees with me about including romances in the game that they are setting up straw men arguments...

IS a straw man.

[metiman]

As long as we keep in mind that we should be willing to sacrify any feature that draws significant resources from story features or gameplay design...

 

Only if it is not a core value of cRPGs. Are you arguing that romance is inherent to what makes an RPG an RPG?

[Bos_hybrid]

My point exactly. Different opinions on what is important, both are valid. We are on the same page there. And definitely what the developers want to do is of utmost priority

 

So what is the problem with people voicing their opinion against romances? That in truth is what I find most fascinating in these topics.

 

I have no problem with Seth Green, Keith David, Felicia Day or Jessica Chobot being in BioWare games.

 

And this has to do with the Chobot romance how? Chobot was placed to get a whole bunch of men & women drooling over the fact that Shep can bone CGI Chobot. Nothing more.

 

There is no need for that in storytelling or RPGs.

[jarpie]

So people want romances, but they want them done right(ie not bio style). They also believe they don't cost much in the way of resources so it won't be a burden on development.

 

Straw man.

 

Find me the person who says all three of the above. You have some people who want romance in the game who would agree with you that BioWare does it badly. But you don't have anyone saying that romances don't cost resources to write, period, let alone to write well.

 

So in my mind there are three choices.

 

1. Romances that are tried to be done right, that drain significant resources.

 

2. Bio style romances, that are throw away. Still drain resources away from other areas, but no to the degree of option 1.

 

3. No romances.

 

You'd have to define "significant" and what it's being drained from? We can make silly statements like "would you rather have romances or would you rather have first person shooting mechanics?" or "would you rather have romances or would you rather have realistic physics for parkour?" You have to give an either or, this or that, for "draining resources" to mean anything.

 

For example, I would much rather have writing time spent on romances than on discussions on religion. I would also much rather have writing resources spent on romances than on thieving and sneaking mechanics.

 

To say, blanketly, "drain resources" is to put into people's mind that whatever their favorite parts of the game are could be cut for romances. But that's just fear-mongering.

 

And you fall into what I'm about to address again below - the assumption that everyone thinks that BioWare's romances are universally (or even mostly) bad.

 

 

I think it is worth while for the people who like romance to discuss with the people who don't. It's good for the ones who think everyone agrees that romance in games is always done badly get to break outside of their bubble and talk to those who disagree with them.

 

So everyone that's opposite you is in a bubble ? Heh, hits keep coming.

 

Straw man. I never said that those who disagree with me live in a bubble. I said, as bolded above, that those who think "everyone agrees that romance in games is always done badly" are in a bubble... a bubble of talking too frequently with those who agree with them that romances are always done badly.

 

That's not a judgment on their opinion as opposed to mine. That's an objective judgment on every post that states "romances are always done badly" as if there is a general consensus, let alone universal one.

 

By empirical evidence in this thread alone you have many people who list games they felt the romances were good in.

 

Misrepresenting what I say doesn't make you clever. It makes you look confused, as if you don't understand what I'm saying.

Or, barring that, it makes you look petty.

 

I'm gonna say this as clearly as I can.

 

Writing romances could take...let's say 30 hours. Now, that 30 hours of writing time comes off from something else, such as other companions, quests and story. They only have certain amount of time writing time because they have to pay salary for it.

 

People who dont want romances doesnt want it to drain the writing hours from the before mentioned other areas.

 

Clear? Good.

[Merin]

My point exactly. Different opinions on what is important, both are valid. We are on the same page there. And definitely what the developers want to do is of utmost priority

 

So what is the problem with people voicing their opinion against romances? That in truth is what I find most fascinating in these topics.

 

There is no problem with people saying "I don't like romances in games" or "I don't think romances in games has ever been done well" or "I'd rather almost anything else be in the game before romances." No more problem with it than with people saying "I love romances in games" or "I think most romances in games have been done fine" or "I need romances in the game more than almost anything else."

 

Opinions on good or bad, what should be included or not based on personal preference stated as such, are valid.

 

If you think I'm saying that you can't say you don't want romances in the game, then I apologize for whatever I said that made you think that. Make your voice heard!

 

I have no problem with Seth Green, Keith David, Felicia Day or Jessica Chobot being in BioWare games.

 

And this has to do with the Chobot romance how? Chobot was placed to get a whole bunch of men & women drooling over the fact that Shep can bone CGI Chobot. Nothing more.

 

There is no need for that in storytelling or RPGs.

 

Jessica Chobot's character was added to ME3 for practically the same reason that Tom Cruise is cast in a motion picture - name recognition and celebrity are draws.

 

Seth Green, Keith David and Felicia Day were all included in BioWare games in similar ways. Characters designed to look like the actor, using the actor's voice.

 

You could even romance Felicia's character, and there were plenty of people begging for a Joker romance.

 

The only difference I can see is tha Jessica Chobot is not really considered by most to be an actress, and some people saw it as some way to get IGN to give ME3 a better review (like ME3 got bad reviews from any of the major game sites.)

 

Did you need those celebrities for the story? No.

 

But no given movie "needs" Tom Cruise for the story, either.

 

I'm gonna say this as clearly as I can.

 

Writing romances could take...let's say 30 hours. Now, that 30 hours of writing time comes off from something else, such as other companions, quests and story. They only have certain amount of time writing time because they have to pay salary for it.

 

People who dont want romances doesnt want it to drain the writing hours from the before mentioned other areas.

 

Clear? Good.

 

...

 

Yeah, that's pretty clear.

 

And, what, you think I didn't understand that this was the argument that some people were making?

 

Because... yeah, I got it. I'm fairly certain pretty much everyone gets it. Who's not getting that this is one of the major arguments?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Merin

[The Sharmat]

I thought Keith David was in games because he was a good voice actor? I mean, does he actually command some sort of fan following that likens him to a mini-Tom Cruise?

[pseudonymous]

I thought Keith David was in games because he was a good voice actor? I mean, does he actually command some sort of fan following that likens him to a mini-Tom Cruise?

 

Wouldn't a mini-Tom Cruise be Tom Cruise? (He's really short)

Edited September 22, 2012 by pseudonymous

[evdk]

Chobot!=Cruise. Cruise can at the very least at least act convincingly. The Chobot's character was a shallow pandering waste of space and her acting was an embarrassment. I fully expected her to lick some computer periphery at some time, it was so bad and obviously just there to generate interest from the main stream gaming crowd in the quest for the magical 10M sales figure.

[ohmygodsquad]

I just don't see the appeal of the romances, or at least romances as they've developed in modern RPGs. It honestly annoys me if I'm just trying to find out a characters story and all of a sudden there's a big wall that comes up because I have to bone them to unlock their next chapter. Look at Jack in ME2, if you're playing as a female there's a point where she pretty much just stops having anything to say and you only get the rest of her story if you romance her as a male. I'm not mad that I couldn't romance her as a female, I honestly wasn't looking to. It was just abrupt and I'd like another option to continue it.

 

Then there's the other extreme which is the DA2 method of going here's 2 dudes and 2 girls and they want you regardless of gender, race, or morality. I'd rather have characters with a set sexual preference and standards that fit with their background. If you don't meet them, tough luck, no romance. But that shouldn't stop you from gaining their trust and learning their story.

 

Throw on top of that the whole idea that romances culminate in sex and it all seems like a lot of adolescent pandering.

 

If you're going to do romances give me something akin to Annah or Fall from Grace in Planescape, subtle and bittersweet.

 

Also, I doubt that anyone bought ME3 because of Chobot, that was just a travesty.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ohmygodsquad

[Aotrs Commander]

My point exactly. Different opinions on what is important, both are valid. We are on the same page there. And definitely what the developers want to do is of utmost priority

 

So what is the problem with people voicing their opinion against romances? That in truth is what I find most fascinating in these topics.

 

There is no problem with people saying "I don't like romances in games" or "I don't think romances in games has ever been done well" or "I'd rather almost anything else be in the game before romances." No more problem with it than with people saying "I love romances in games" or "I think most romances in games have been done fine" or "I need romances in the game more than almost anything else."

 

Opinions on good or bad, what should be included or not based on personal preference stated as such, are valid.

 

If you think I'm saying that you can't say you don't want romances in the game, then I apologize for whatever I said that made you think that. Make your voice heard!

 

I think why the parts of this debate that get heated and somewhat aggressive is sometimes the WAY in which some people voice their disagreement; it's okay, for example, to say "I don't like the romances, I'd rather not have them in the game, and spend the reources/time somewhere else", nobody should have a problem with that. But it's less so to say "I don't like romances, and I'm going cast aspersions on those of you that do", as some of the more...vocal opponents have implied (or atimes - and not necessarily here, but in other threads - have come outright and said). For a kickoff, all that leads to is annoying the other side, who get defensive, and then the other guys get defensive and it degenerates into people arguing about how they're arguing (which is usually barely just this side of civil) at best or outright flame wars and bans at worst. (And note, so I'm being explicitly clear, this equally applies to both sides; I stated this way around as it has been my experience in these threads that it modally happens that way around, but that is far from absolute.)

 

We shouldn't have a problem debating pro- or anti-romances, even passionately, if we all try to remain extra polite (more than usual, because this is clearly a thorny subject people are passionate about) and everyone is entitled to their opinions (which are all equally valid), but let me appeal to everyone and say, let's just do it really politely, okay? Some people have made snide remarks (not entirely unjustified!) about how these debates at BSN get unpleasant, yes? Well, let's set a better example, then shall we? (And then we can all feel smug and superior that Obsidian fans can be more civilised than Bioware fans or something. Despite the fact probably most of us are both...!)

Edited September 22, 2012 by Aotrs Commander

[kenup]

Chobot!=Cruise. Cruise can at the very least at least act convincingly. The Chobot's character was a shallow pandering waste of space and her acting was an embarrassment. I fully expected her to lick some computer periphery at some time, it was so bad and obviously just there to generate interest from the main stream gaming crowd in the quest for the magical 10M sales figure.

I didn't even know Chobot existed until after Shepard meeting her ME3 character. Wasn't surprised by it though.

[Aotrs Commander]

I didn't even know Chobot existed until after Shepard meeting her ME3 character. Wasn't surprised by it though.

 

I didn't even know who Aller's voice actress was until after I finished the game for the first time. Nor did I particularly care either way. (And, besides, at which point, I had other axes to grind...!)

[Monte Carlo]

No more problem with it than with people saying "I love romances in games" or "I think most romances in games have been done fine" or "I need romances in the game more than almost anything else."

 

With respect, yes there is. It's like saying "I love eggs in my beer. I think eggs in beer have been done fine." Or, "I need eggs in my beer more than almost anything else."

 

Because to me a CRPG romance is as useful as cracking an egg into a perfectly good pint of beer: slightly icky, tasteless and surplus to requirement. If old-school role-playing games of yore had been infused with romances then my argument would be void. So I will reiterate: out of the classic, glory-day CRPGs this project is utterly and unambiguously designed to emulate, there was only BG2 that had romances. I'll say it again: there were four only. They were minor additions. They were easily avoided.

 

In short, there was a tiny and unobtrusive corner of the game where the people who like eggs in their beer could do their thing.

 

The astonishing and frankly terrifying success of Bioware's erstatz-emo soap opera romance approach is an unholy taint. It is literally like Ebola for gaming. And the hotzone / infection vectors have reached our shores. The poll is suggesting that my, albeit extreme, view is echoed by many.

 

So a compromise: let this game have a similar level of egg-in-beer activity to BG2. Then could we all be happy? Because as the cliche goes, I think we are united on more than we are divided by.

 

With respect and best regards,

 

MC

[Reddie]

I agree, and that's why I see Project Eternity as a perfect opportunity. There is a talentend writing squad on board that don't have to give a flying fish about drawing audience with fanservice. They *can* create interesting romance subplots, and I would like them to because it may be the only shot at this ever in the gaming industry.

 

What makes you think Avellone wants to write Biowarian romances? I don't know what his position is on romance/sex minigames, but I certainly don't think it can be assumed that he would want to write the game equivalent of romance novels or melodramatic soap opera stuff.

 

And now please go back and read my posting again in context, where I write that Obsidian would be perfect for writing non-biowarian romance.

 

I'd like to think that he would think it is as stupid and frivolous as those of us in the anti-romance faction and if that's the case I wouldn't go expecting some kind of well written romances. They'll probably just get some female staff member or intern to write them up. Surely MCA has more important things to write.

And I surely hope it will be other way around. Given that they did put plenty of romances into their own games, they will likely ignore any romance bashing and just do it their way Now, I just want these romances to be better.

 

As far as romantic sub-plots, this is not something you can ask for. Either love will be an integral (and non-skippable) part of the main story or it won't be. It can't just be shoehorned in. At least not without ruining the rest of the story. I haven't heard anyone in this thread complain about Deionnara in PS:T. That was a genuine part of the central plot. It fit in perfectly and there was no cutscene of TNO doing her from behind while he yanked on her ghostly pony tail or the text equivalent.

 

Not only it is something I can ask for - just like any other thing, really - but I am pretty sure that if there will be romance subplot, it will be optional. Deionnara's example is pretty good: she was a lover of one of Nameless One's previous incarnations. Nothing forces the player to treat her like that, and if he doesn't want - it's not a game breaker.

[evdk]

 

Not only it is something I can ask for - just like any other thing, really - but I am pretty sure that if there will be romance subplot, it will be optional. Deionnara's example is pretty good: she was a lover of one of Nameless One's previous incarnations. Nothing forces the player to treat her like that, and if he doesn't want - it's not a game breaker.

This is disingenuous as all hell. The TNO's relationship with Deionnara is not what is currently understood as a romance in anRPG game and nor was it treated as romance in PS:T as far as I remember. So using it as an example of how it's been done right before is a ****ty debating tactic.

[Delterius]

Not only it is something I can ask for - just like any other thing, really - but I am pretty sure that if there will be romance subplot, it will be optional. Deionnara's example is pretty good: she was a lover of one of Nameless One's previous incarnations. Nothing forces the player to treat her like that, and if he doesn't want - it's not a game breaker.

This is disingenuous as all hell. The TNO's relationship with Deionnara is not what is currently understood as a romance in anRPG game and nor was it treated as romance in PS:T as far as I remember. So using it as an example of how it's been done right before is a ****ty debating tactic.

 

I haven't played PS:T (woe to me) but one thing that sounds of note is how TNO's a defined protagonist. When you're a blank slate, some base and superficial characteristics are often pinned to your character to justify the romance, such as being attractive no matter what - causing people like me to perceive the romances as even more superficial than they are.

[Monte Carlo]

Yes, that's true, but Deionnara wasn't a romance, she was a plot hook.

 

I'd like to hear a developer's view on this, but given that the passions run deep on both sides of this debate they might make like Switzerland until after the Kickstarter.

[Monkcrab]

I would be very happy with a romance, although not in the form it has became in cRPGS. A love story is a love story is a love story, and I think there honestly is a place for love in any medium that tries to discuss human psychology at any length. Love is one of the few forces on this planet that can make someone decide to die for something else, and one of the few things that could make people kill in the name of things they love without thinking twice. Why would we not want to discuss that, and the darker sides of that, especially in a world where memories can transcend lives and thus turning love into a potential tool for mental manipulation of all sorts? Would Ravel be as compelling a villain if it doesn't turn out that all she did, she did for love?

 

Unfortunately, love stories in cRPGs have came to mean 'read through dialogues and pick the most supportive options to earn a 'relationship' and usually sex scenes', with sex scenes being the conclusion or, at least, the most important aspect of the romance that gives players the feeling of having participated in it. Far be it from me to discuss where the influence is, but the end result is that there is a backlash against love stories in games as 'sex minigames'. Honestly, not happy with that trend either.

 

Can you have a romance system where, instead of 'playing psychiatrist to get character info and completion rewards', love is used depict complex ranges of human behavior and lead us into making difficult moral questions? I think we can. I think that in this entire industry, if there's anyone who can pull it off, it's the guys at Obsidian.

 

If they don't want to make it part of the story they want to tell, great! It's not a huge priority for me, either, even though it would make me happy.

 

If they want to include romance, let's give them a chance.

[Sabin Stargem]

Go for romance options. That can add depth to the characters, and gives the game another way to hook players into the world.

[Reddie]

This is disingenuous as all hell. The TNO's relationship with Deionnara is not what is currently understood as a romance in anRPG game and nor was it treated as romance in PS:T as far as I remember. So using it as an example of how it's been done right before is a ****ty debating tactic.

 

That's the whole point here. To have a romance unlike what currently consitutes romances in cRPG. So, conclusion from what you say is, that i proved this point. Then my debating tactic must be quite right, actually

 

Yes, that's true, but Deionnara wasn't a romance, she was a plot hook.

 

She was a romance storyline used as plot hook. Which a very desirable thing in my opinion.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Reddie

[evdk]

 

That's the whole point here. To have a romance unlike what currently consitutes romances in cRPG. So, conclusion from what you say is, that i proved this point. Then my debating tactic must be quite right, actually

 

 

Actually, if all you really need is have this kind of romance (that was no romance at all IMHO) in PE, then knock yourself out, I think I can stand 10 lines of dialogue.