The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread

[Mrakvampire]

Are you saying it doesn't exist? Wow, thin-skins are another feature of the internet I can't abide.

 

What 'it' are you talking about?

[evdk]

Why the hell should I settle for less?

 

Hm... I don't know... Maybe because writers at the Obsidian with all do respect for their talent can't be compared to Dostoevsky?

That does not mean they get a free pass to be ****ty. If they can't get to Dostoevsky levels (and they can't) they should at least try. This "why even try when it can't be that good anyway" is a self defeating attitude and I won't have it.

[Mrakvampire]

they should at least try

 

Maybe it is you who should try to not create over-inflated expectations for a team that creates a GAME, not some kind of grounbreaking literature classic?

[Jarmo]

First, let me present the most awesome romance from DM of the Rings. (two pages worth)

Probably doesnt sway anyone (since it's so crpg and awful), but I'm with Aragorn here. Let me roleplay my character the way I want.

 

Then, as it was said before, not all movies & books are love stories or include romances.

Most do though, even most of the good ones (although your mileage will vary by your movie preferences).

(At least, most of the goody adventure movie adventurers have a love interest of some sort or another.)

 

And there's a reason for that, but I'm not sure even the movie makers know what it is.

And mostly it's not about full frontal nudity and long hot sex scenes.

 

It's actually most awkward in the family-proof films when there's this hot babe that's totally interested in the hero,

but the hero just avoids the whole thing without a valid cause. I prefered it so when I was 10, but not anymore.

 

--

 

And I prefer doing it badly or briefly over not at all. (in RL as well)

If the sword maiden is really married to her sword and unpersuadable,

then that's that and my rogue will just value her companionship and visit the brothel instead.

Just don't tell me I have to roleplay an eunuch or a celibat every time, because that's more fun. Because it's not.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Jarmo

[FlintlockJazz]

Honestly, I neither side knows whose got 'most' and I'd argue that there's probably more than two, most people probably aren't in a 'side'.

Indeed. You get the feeling that the same 5-10 people on each "side" tries to make up for lack of numbers by turning up the volume

 

 

That's the feeling I get as well, that the same people are shouting from the roof-tops to get their stance across, when Obsidian will make the call and the game will turn out, however it turns out.

 

Which will no doubt be incredible regardless.

 

Aye if there's one thing they take from this thread I hope its that they do what they think is best and play to their own strengths. Most people won't care as long as its good!

[evdk]

they should at least try

 

Maybe it is you who should try to not create over-inflated expectations for a team that creates a GAME, not some kind of grounbreaking literature classic?

I just want them to write the best story they can. I understand that it won't quite be "The Master and Margarita" level, but resigning myself to accepting Bioware/Bethesda level storytelling because "it's just games, man!" is something I just refuse to do. I don't see why anyone would think differently, unless they are combatfags and do not care (which is a opinion I can understand, I just don't believe this will be a combatfag game).

[BruceVC]

What I'm more concerned about is romancers / BSN weenies starting to gather on the forum like a hormone-fuelled horde of emo-locusts.

 

Is it necessary to abuse people every time that you don't like their opinion?

 

I also get annoyed by these negative characterizations of people by some when people suggest they want Romance\Sex. Its like anyone who wants Romance\Sex is a

" Biowarian, Sexual Deviant who doesn't understand what an RPG is" ( And for the record there is nothing wrong with liking Bioware)

 

 

@ Monte Carlo

 

You clearly are an intelligent and astute person. I am surprised you are so comfortable with blanket comments about people who want Romance\Sex. I would think this would be intellectually below you. You should consider what you say about people who just happen to have a difference of opinion about what constitutes an RPG?

[Mrakvampire]

I just want them to write the best story they can. I understand that it won't quite be "The Master and Margarita" level, but resigning myself to accepting Bioware/Bethesda level storytelling because "it's just games, man!" is something I just refuse to do. I don't see why anyone would think differently, unless they are combatfags and do not care (which is a opinion I can understand, I just don't believe this will be a combatfag game).

 

Bioware of BG2 times and Bioware of DA2 times - 2 different companies.

And about combatfag. Again, let us be honest. Icewind Dale was really very combat-oriented game. Very very different from PS:T. And both were created by Obsidian.

Think about it.

[jarpie]

I just want them to write the best story they can. I understand that it won't quite be "The Master and Margarita" level, but resigning myself to accepting Bioware/Bethesda level storytelling because "it's just games, man!" is something I just refuse to do. I don't see why anyone would think differently, unless they are combatfags and do not care (which is a opinion I can understand, I just don't believe this will be a combatfag game).

 

Bioware of BG2 times and Bioware of DA2 times - 2 different companies.

And about combatfag. Again, let us be honest. Icewind Dale was really very combat-oriented game. Very very different from PS:T. And both were created by Obsidian.

Think about it.

 

Wrong, they were created by Black Isle where lot of Obsidian's devs worked.

[Mrakvampire]

Wrong, they were created by Black Isle where lot of Obsidian's devs worked.

 

Does it make principal difference that you made this comment?

[Hoverdog]

Let's get something straight - although I despise CRPG romances, I can live with one or two unobtrusive ones if they can be utterly avoided.

 

What I'm more concerned about is romancers / BSN weenies starting to gather on the forum like a hormone-fuelled horde of emo-locusts.

 

Naturally I can only speak for myself, but I like to hope that most of the people that want to see romance make it into the game, want BG/2, PS:T etc. style romances, and not the BSN kind that has made some people have an aversion to the very idea of romance in a modern RPG.

 

Edit: Personally I don't hate on people who like BSN romances, to each their own and all, I just think obsidian could do better with this game.

PS:T romances =/= BG2 romances.

In the former the romances were subtle, delicate and tied with the story. They were more hinted at than full-scale sex affairs.

BG2, on the other hand, had the precursor of modern ego-stroking romances. Cheesy, obnoxious and poorly written, not to mention completely separated from the plot. They also made the romanceable characters' dialogues (aside from the romances themselves) non-existant.

[jarpie]

Wrong, they were created by Black Isle where lot of Obsidian's devs worked.

 

Does it make principal difference that you made this comment?

 

Somewhat yes because they were different companies ran by different people (in this case Black Isle was owned by Interplay).

[jarpie]

Let's get something straight - although I despise CRPG romances, I can live with one or two unobtrusive ones if they can be utterly avoided.

 

What I'm more concerned about is romancers / BSN weenies starting to gather on the forum like a hormone-fuelled horde of emo-locusts.

 

Naturally I can only speak for myself, but I like to hope that most of the people that want to see romance make it into the game, want BG/2, PS:T etc. style romances, and not the BSN kind that has made some people have an aversion to the very idea of romance in a modern RPG.

 

Edit: Personally I don't hate on people who like BSN romances, to each their own and all, I just think obsidian could do better with this game.

PS:T romances =/= BG2 romances.

In the former the romances were subtle, delicate and tied with the story. They were more hinted at than full-scale sex affairs.

BG2, on the other hand, had the precursor of modern ego-stroking romances. Cheesy, obnoxious and poorly written, not to mention completely separated from the plot. They also made the romanceable characters' dialogues (aside from the romances themselves) non-existant.

 

Exactly, this is what I've been saying before.

[Althernai]

(I'm being just a little facetious since he obviously means BG + BG 2, not just BG. BG 2 had romance, but essentially 4 out of 5 IE games did not feature a player interactive romantic subplot focused on wish fulfillment with companions out of the box)

Baldur's Gate 1 had the prototype of a romance in the expansion. Planescape: Torment had 2 possible romances with companions and one in the past (with Deionarra).

[Mrakvampire]

Cheesy, obnoxious and poorly written

 

Okay.

[BruceVC]

Wrong, they were created by Black Isle where lot of Obsidian's devs worked.

 

Does it make principal difference that you made this comment?

 

Somewhat yes because they were different companies ran by different people (in this case Black Isle was owned by Interplay).

 

You are nitpicking and being pedantic Jarpie, you know what he meant

[evdk]

Bioware of BG2 times and Bioware of DA2 times - 2 different companies.

Not to me, honestly. Certainly not by a relevant degree.

 

 

And about combatfag. Again, let us be honest. Icewind Dale was really very combat-oriented game. Very very different from PS:T. And both were created by Obsidian.

Think about it.

So? Alpha Protocol was made by Obsidian too, that does not mean I expect this game to be a first person spy thriller.

[evdk]

(I'm being just a little facetious since he obviously means BG + BG 2, not just BG. BG 2 had romance, but essentially 4 out of 5 IE games did not feature a player interactive romantic subplot focused on wish fulfillment with companions out of the box)

Baldur's Gate 1 had the prototype of a romance in the expansion. Planescape: Torment had 2 possible romances with companions and one in the past (with Deionarra).

Two possible romances that we nicely subtle and tied to the themes of the games instead of in your face and absolutely unrelated to anything (more like a checklist item done). And Deionarra should count in this discussion, she's essentially walking (well, floating) backstory.

[Crusty]

(I'm being just a little facetious since he obviously means BG + BG 2, not just BG. BG 2 had romance, but essentially 4 out of 5 IE games did not feature a player interactive romantic subplot focused on wish fulfillment with companions out of the box)

Planescape: Torment had 2 possible romances with companions and one in the past (with Deionarra).

 

Yes, but the romances served a thematic and narrative purpose, they weren't there so players could "roleplay" shacking up with their party members.

 

Which has been my entire point ever since getting into this debate.

 

When people go "I want romances because they let me roleplay" or "they mean deep character interaction", they're arguing for romance as a game feature and as a wish fulfillment fantasy, not as a natural extension of a game's narrative themes. I'm against that shallowness.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Crusty

[Mrakvampire]

So, ok. We have here 'cheese, obnoxius, poorly written' romances of BG2 and 'truly masterpiece' romances of PS:T.

 

I think that the issue is not with romances, yes? You just don't want PE to have anything in common with BG and be something like PS:T 2?

[evdk]

So, ok. We have here 'cheese, obnoxius, poorly written' romances of BG2 and 'truly masterpiece' romances of PS:T.

 

I think that the issue is not with romances, yes? You just don't want PE to have anything in common with BG and be something like PS:T 2?

We've already been told it won't be that wonderfully weird. But I certainly would prefer if narratively PE took its lessons from PS:T, yes. Just pretend there was no combat in Torment (but steal the unique spells, those were good).

[Monte Carlo]

I shall clarify.

 

People who want romances in CRPGs: I'll never really understand you, but you don't overly bother me. Welcome, I am sure we will agree on lots of other things and find common ground.

 

Promancers: You are squee-laden obsessives with a creepy level of interest in relationships with virtual characters that defy rational behaviour. You despoil every environment you touch. You write bad fan-fiction. You need to stay on BSN.

 

I hope this clears up my position.

[evdk]

I shall clarify.

 

People who want romances in CRPGs: I'll never really understand you, but you don't overly bother me. Welcome, I am sure we will agree on lots of other things and find common ground.

 

Promancers: You are squee-laden obsessives with a creepy level of interest in relationships with virtual characters that defy rational behaviour. You despoil every environment you touch. You write bad fan-fiction. You need to stay on BSN.

 

I hope this clears up my position.

Yes, clearly you are an internet bully misrepresenting the wonderful BSN and using rumours to hurt others. Did I get that right?

[Hoverdog]

So, ok. We have here 'cheese, obnoxius, poorly written' romances of BG2 and 'truly masterpiece' romances of PS:T.

 

I think that the issue is not with romances, yes? You just don't want PE to have anything in common with BG and be something like PS:T 2?

No, you're wrong (again).

BG2 had a great, open world, with lots of developed quests, some extremely well-done and tough fights, and one of the best cities in gaming history - but the writing was poor and childish at times. PST was the best game ever in terms of narrative, plot, story and writing, but not combat.

P:E is Sawyer's baby, not MCA's () - and it will be more of BG than of PST. That's fine - the writing hjust needs to be better than Biowore's.

[Monte Carlo]

I shall clarify.

 

People who want romances in CRPGs: I'll never really understand you, but you don't overly bother me. Welcome, I am sure we will agree on lots of other things and find common ground.

 

Promancers: You are squee-laden obsessives with a creepy level of interest in relationships with virtual characters that defy rational behaviour. You despoil every environment you touch. You write bad fan-fiction. You need to stay on BSN.

 

I hope this clears up my position.

Yes, clearly you are an internet bully misrepresenting the wonderful BSN and using rumours to hurt others. Did I get that right?

 

I'm not sure I get your post, but then again I'm not that clever.