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

[ComMcNeil]

Furthermore there is a reason why rape is not touched even with a ten-feet-pole by most. If one knows to be unable to treat it with the required seriousness and gravity that it deserves you risk downplaying the heinous act of physical and psychological violence that it is; at best, and portraying it as a desirable if not heroic act at the very worst. While I thankfully was spared the first-hand personal experience with it so far I still feel strongly about the topic and it resonates deeply within me and I find it disturbing on a very personal level.

 

i need to pick this up again

 

you see, many RPGs, or games in general, as you said, do not even hint at rape, most likely because of the reason you have just given.

But violence, death, torture, dismemberment and that stuff is totally ok in most games today, noone (outside of germany) gives any crap about a head being chopped off.

 

Given that murder is in most if not all contries of the wolrd, the worst crime to commit, I find that pretty silly...

[evdk]

If Obsidian wants to write npcs that have scripted relationships like New Vegas, more power to them. What I'm arguing is that there is no need to include paper dolls that my player characters can "choose your own adventure" through a creepy courtship process.

 

Trouble is, some (majority of?) people do not find that creepy at all.

 

 

i need to pick this up again

 

you see, many RPGs, or games in general, as you said, do not even hint at rape, most likely because of the reason you have just given.

But violence, death, torture, dismemberment and that stuff is totally ok in most games today, noone (outside of germany) gives any crap about a head being chopped off.

 

Given that murder is in most if not all contries of the wolrd, the worst crime to commit, I find that pretty silly...

 

Nobody needs to pick this up, ever. "Rape" is exactly the kind of mature content that causes me headaches whenever I hear the term.

Edited October 18, 2012 by evdk

[Loranc]

This is not a dating simulator. If they want romances between npcs or salty pirates away on the high seas for long months, well that's one thing. But the last thing PE needs is to degenerate into an adolescent vehicle aiming to satisfy lonely people who want their player characters to awkwardly flirt for a few minutes and then totally do it. Forcing romances into the game to tick a bioware created expectation box would be a poor choice.

 

If someone's enjoyment is based on the artificial relationship factor, I would strongly recommend any one of a thousand creepy Japanese dating "games".

Hyperbole. Helps people ignoring the message

 

You do know that the Obsidian guys included romance and flirting in crpgs before Bioware did?

 

Hyperbole is fun! Also, my referencing Bioware as an example of poorly implemented crpg romances does not invalidate the remaining portions of my statement. I could have replaced that with early Obsidian games. While not as egregiously painful, I still felt that they added nothing to the respective games. Fallout NV was done well in that npcs were given depth (including in some cases romantic preferences - Gannon, etc) but the player character didn't walk around trying to play house in the mojave.

 

You never tried to play house in the other IE crpgs either.... and their characters were far more in depth than the ones that were in Fallout New Vegas, in fact PS:T had by far some of the best characters and lore ever found in a crpg to date. So once again.... i'm not following.

 

First of all, assuming that I "don't read books" because I don't read romance novels in just about the strangest straw-man I've ever seen. My level of literacy or preference of reading is totally irrelevant. Besides, romance novels are pretty much the lowest form of fiction created. 50 shades of gray anyone?

 

A more apt comparison to including romancable party characters would be a "choose your own adventure:romance novel edition." "bite her lip, turn to page 12. Hide in her backyard and watch her sleep, turn to page 20".

 

If Obsidian wants to write npcs that have scripted relationships like New Vegas, more power to them. What I'm arguing is that there is no need to include paper dolls that my player characters can "choose your own adventure" through a creepy courtship process.

 

The main issue with your whole argument is that everything you have stated thus far has not been in PS:T or BG2. All of your issues with romance in crpg seems to stem from other games, because nothing you have written is comparable to either of those games.

[Crusty]

The big disconnect I'm finding with the pro-romancers here is that many of you probably share my stance in principle, but arguing for romances as a game feature in practice.

 

"It adds to companion depth"

 

"It adds to interaction"

 

"It adds to roleplaying decisions"

 

Whether or not this is the case, the prism you're viewing romance is as a game feature. Regardless of whether it would make sense for the characters, make sense for the narrative, or make sense for the themes.

 

The reason why even people who are anti-romance like the way they were handled in Planescape: Torment was because they were woven into the core narrative themes of the game. Romances were used as a storytelling device. Not as a "let's make characters deep by letting you enter into a relationship with them" device.

 

It's why I throw terms around like "wish fulfillment" and other people resort to the "dating sim" argument. Because when you try to argue for romances as a game feature, you inevitably follow the mindset wherein romance is the end goal, not the means. And why would romance be the end goal? To provide the player the satisfaction of fulfilling a romantic fantasy within the context of the game. Wish fulfillment.

 

I mean, there was that guy earlier talking about how romances should be more naturalised in PE and then got a laundry list of Dating Sim gameplay features, with several pro-romancers nodding your heads going "good post!"

 

I really do hope people get what I'm trying to say here, because I'm not even against the concept of romance for PE. Though, I suspect I'll just get the usual "lol forever alone" or "you must hate love" or "but romance is in 90% of mature stories" retorts.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Crusty

[nikolokolus]

*eats popcorn*

[Ieo]

@Loranc (and others),

 

You missed my reply. I'm curious what you'd have to say about that as a resource limit--because unlike making up random numbers, a time frame really was given by the devs for writing a companion's content. (Copy-pasting the whole thing for expediency, I guess.)

 

By adding in romance there is nothing that would have to be sacrificed. There are no development constraints or publisher time frames. They have more than enough time to make this game wonderful. I don't understand the argument that if they added x they'd have to lose y, truth is there is no give/take here. They have the money, the time, and the means to add as much or as little as they want to this game.

 

The time is what I disagree with. But it depends on what level of inclusion:

Consider that PS:T had one writer--I think PE's scene has changed a bit with Ziets added, who knows what writing he will do--but Avellone wrote PS:T all by his lonesome. If it takes Avellone up to 3 months according to Feargus/Cain (forget who) for a character of considerable depth, that's up to 24 months of writing right there for 8 characters.

 

If we want a deep and meaningful romance track for character A, that could take up the majority of the character writing cycle, or 3 months.

If we also want a deep and meaningful non-romance track for character A, that would take the usual cycle, 3 months.

So in total, for a romance-optional character covering both types of content equally, 6 months--before the writer can move onto character B.

 

Unless Obsidian hires a bunch more writers, I don't see how that kind of content creation can be done in their short development timetable. But I don't want them to hire more writers; I really don't trust them as I would Avellone (I know nothing about Ziets since I hated NWN1 and didn't bother with NWN2 due to its famous bugs). I dunno...

 

So the other option is purely linear--

If we want a deeper romance for A, maybe we'll do 1 month non-romance "friend" content and then 2 months for romance content.

If we want a more light "romance" with B, maybe we'll start out with the flirting for a month and then a sex scene and then 2 months of normal banter.

If we want a late-blooming romance for C, maybe we'll do 2 months of "friend" content and then 1 month romance content.

 

I hope you see where I'm going with this. Basically, in this kind of linear content dev, there would be uneven representation that would be more obvious since we only have 8 companions.

 

The only other equation I can think of for the current situation is--

Avellone and Ziets split writing duties, 4 characters each.

Even cutting to 2 months development per character, if aiming for equal non/romance content each, that comes out to 16 months.... Hmm.

 

 

Also, weaving romances into the main narrative makes me very leery; I wouldn't like any party relationship to be requisite or hold over significant content in the main storyline, romance or not--that is to say, I wouldn't want a romance to be required for a potentially preferred "happy" ending, for example. Of course, companion relationships should color the rest of world interaction and the epilogues.

[Loranc]

The big disconnect I'm finding with the pro-romancers here is that you're arguing for romances as a game feature.

 

"It adds to companion depth"

 

"It adds to interaction"

 

"It adds to roleplaying decisions"

 

Whether or not this is the case, the prism you're viewing romance is as a game feature. Regardless of whether it would make sense for the characters, make sense for the narrative, or make sense for the themes.

 

The reason why even people who are anti-romance like the way they were handled in Planescape: Torment was because they were woven into the core narrative themes of the game. Romances were used as a storytelling device. Not as a "let's make characters deep by letting you enter into a relationship with them" device.

 

It's why I throw terms around like "wish fulfillment" and other people resort to the "dating sim" argument. Because when you try to argue for romances as a game feature, you inevitably follow the mindset wherein romance is the end goal, not the means. And why would romance be the end goal? To provide the player the satisfaction of fulfilling a romantic fantasy within the context of the game. Wish fulfillment.

 

I really do hope people get what I'm trying to say here, because I'm not even against the concept of romance for PE. Though, I suspect I'll just get the usual "lol forever alone" or "you must hate love" or "but romance is in 90% of mature stories" retorts.

 

I've been saying it from the start the type of romance I would love to see would be the type that was found in PS:T, and several people even those were against romance agreed that this would be fine. So I totally agree that if the romance doesn't fit the character or the story than I don't want it forced in there, however I know that this opinion is not shared.

[nikolokolus]

words, words, words, blah, blah, blah, hyperbole, invective, parry, riposte, regurgitate, words, words, words ...

[Gecimen]

I NEVER said "romance is mature". Please start by learning to read.... pfff...

You didn't? what is this then?

What we are asking is a mature cRPG to include romance because mature topics include romance amongst other concepts.

 

I'll repeat, please, learn to read. It's not saying all romance is mature. And I must say, all romance can not be considered mature. But the state of maturity in itself involves various levels of romance.

[Loranc]

@Loranc (and others),

 

You missed my reply. I'm curious what you'd have to say about that as a resource limit--because unlike making up random numbers, a time frame really was given by the devs for writing a companion's content. (Copy-pasting the whole thing for expediency, I guess.)

 

By adding in romance there is nothing that would have to be sacrificed. There are no development constraints or publisher time frames. They have more than enough time to make this game wonderful. I don't understand the argument that if they added x they'd have to lose y, truth is there is no give/take here. They have the money, the time, and the means to add as much or as little as they want to this game.

 

The time is what I disagree with. But it depends on what level of inclusion:

Consider that PS:T had one writer--I think PE's scene has changed a bit with Ziets added, who knows what writing he will do--but Avellone wrote PS:T all by his lonesome. If it takes Avellone up to 3 months according to Feargus/Cain (forget who) for a character of considerable depth, that's up to 24 months of writing right there for 8 characters.

 

If we want a deep and meaningful romance track for character A, that could take up the majority of the character writing cycle, or 3 months.

If we also want a deep and meaningful non-romance track for character A, that would take the usual cycle, 3 months.

So in total, for a romance-optional character covering both types of content equally, 6 months--before the writer can move onto character B.

 

Unless Obsidian hires a bunch more writers, I don't see how that kind of content creation can be done in their short development timetable. But I don't want them to hire more writers; I really don't trust them as I would Avellone (I know nothing about Ziets since I hated NWN1 and didn't bother with NWN2 due to its famous bugs). I dunno...

 

So the other option is purely linear--

If we want a deeper romance for A, maybe we'll do 1 month non-romance "friend" content and then 2 months for romance content.

If we want a more light "romance" with B, maybe we'll start out with the flirting for a month and then a sex scene and then 2 months of normal banter.

If we want a late-blooming romance for C, maybe we'll do 2 months of "friend" content and then 1 month romance content.

 

I hope you see where I'm going with this. Basically, in this kind of linear content dev, there would be uneven representation that would be more obvious since we only have 8 companions.

 

The only other equation I can think of for the current situation is--

Avellone and Ziets split writing duties, 4 characters each.

Even cutting to 2 months development per character, if aiming for equal non/romance content each, that comes out to 16 months.... Hmm.

 

 

Also, weaving romances into the main narrative makes me very leery; I wouldn't like any party relationship to be requisite or hold over significant content in the main storyline, romance or not--that is to say, I wouldn't want a romance to be required for a potentially preferred "happy" ending, for example. Of course, companion relationships should color the rest of world interaction and the epilogues.

 

I chose not to reply because I just don't agree that you have to sacrifice one thing for the other. A bit hard headed on this subject. I think at this point they actually have more money than what they need to make the game they promised us on the Kick starter, that's why I don't conclude that anything has to be lost, because I honestly believe they are over by at least 1 million dollars for the budget of the game. (Keep in mind that they have no engine to build, and very few things to build from the ground up.) I could be wrong about this, I don't make the argument that my estimation is without flaw, but I just truly believe they won't have to sacrifice anything to add romance to the game. (With that being said they should only add it if it fits the characters, and it shouldn't be a forced add.)

[Snerf]

This is not a dating simulator. If they want romances between npcs or salty pirates away on the high seas for long months, well that's one thing. But the last thing PE needs is to degenerate into an adolescent vehicle aiming to satisfy lonely people who want their player characters to awkwardly flirt for a few minutes and then totally do it. Forcing romances into the game to tick a bioware created expectation box would be a poor choice.

 

If someone's enjoyment is based on the artificial relationship factor, I would strongly recommend any one of a thousand creepy Japanese dating "games".

Hyperbole. Helps people ignoring the message

 

You do know that the Obsidian guys included romance and flirting in crpgs before Bioware did?

 

Hyperbole is fun! Also, my referencing Bioware as an example of poorly implemented crpg romances does not invalidate the remaining portions of my statement. I could have replaced that with early Obsidian games. While not as egregiously painful, I still felt that they added nothing to the respective games. Fallout NV was done well in that npcs were given depth (including in some cases romantic preferences - Gannon, etc) but the player character didn't walk around trying to play house in the mojave.

 

You never tried to play house in the other IE crpgs either.... and their characters were far more in depth than the ones that were in Fallout New Vegas, in fact PS:T had by far some of the best characters and lore ever found in a crpg to date. So once again.... i'm not following.

 

First of all, assuming that I "don't read books" because I don't read romance novels in just about the strangest straw-man I've ever seen. My level of literacy or preference of reading is totally irrelevant. Besides, romance novels are pretty much the lowest form of fiction created. 50 shades of gray anyone?

 

A more apt comparison to including romancable party characters would be a "choose your own adventure:romance novel edition." "bite her lip, turn to page 12. Hide in her backyard and watch her sleep, turn to page 20".

 

If Obsidian wants to write npcs that have scripted relationships like New Vegas, more power to them. What I'm arguing is that there is no need to include paper dolls that my player characters can "choose your own adventure" through a creepy courtship process.

 

The main issue with your whole argument is that everything you have stated thus far has not been in PS:T or BG2. All of your issues with romance in crpg seems to stem from other games, because nothing you have written is comparable to either of those games.

 

The Aerie relationship in BG2 added nothing to the game (IMO!) and was creepy (IMO!).

[Amentep]

I agree Romance story arcs are not required in all stories. With joinable NPCs I do want personality and interaction with them and if in the case of a particular NPC that might lead to a romance scenario I'm fine with that. Does it improve the story or a game? I think it can, but again because I see romance as one possible aspect of larger character relationships (PST would be much poorer without character relationships even if nothing in it is what we typically refer to as romances). IWD has no interparty relationships and many people dislike it (it also allows you to create whatever relationship you want in your minds eye, thought).

 

Again. Nope. Romances are a story telling device they are not THE story telling device.

 

And I never said they were THE story telling device - I said that I see romance as one possible aspect of larger character relationships

 

There can be rivalries, friendships, relatives, and so on. These are all story telling devices NOT features. Perhaps to relationship dynamic that should be explored more is, oh I dunno, fellow adventurers. Instead of playing a game of blind date with your party maybe they should explore the dynamics of a group of people struggling to survive against insumountable odds not of people struggling to fight insurmountable hormones.

 

I want dynamic relationships; rivalries, friendships, relatives and more. I don't think every NPC should be romanceable. I even think that there are plenty of scenarioes and NPCs where romance makes no sense for the characters involved (even whole games - again if PE has no romances I'll not have an issue so long as the characters are well realized).

 

I think we're closer on this than you think; the biggest difference is I see romances as one potential tool for Obsidian to use from the toolbox to create interesting characters in the game whereas you seem to not want it in the toolbox at all.

 

Having prostitutes in games where paying them fades to black like BG and PST had don't make the game porno. Heck, being able to become a porn star in Fallout 2 doesn't make that game a porno.

 

Maybe its just me in my playthrough, but I didn't see tons of oppurtunities to have hot loving with Ignus or get kinky with Morte. Again, I am talking about party romances.

 

And I'm not arguing you should have a loving relationship with Ignus, Morte, Vhailor...

 

What I am arguing is that if you create a character where it might make sense for that character to fall for the PC (even if they are dirty and sweaty all the time).

 

I disagree. Frankly, if you guys are out killing things and bathing in blood and sweat that does not necessarily lead to candlelit dinners and long walks on the beach.

 

People who work together fall in love all the time, regardless of where they work. It also a lot of time doesn't work out which I'd also be for - I don't think just because a character is romanceable that the romance should only fail because the PC decides to fail it (or picks badly phrased dialogue that kills it because its unclear what it meant).

 

I think that there could be NPCs who the PC can start a romance with that will fail; I think they should be able to flirt with NPCs who'll never romance them. And I think there should be NPCs who'll never, in no way, romance a PC. I think some NPCS should be able to romance each other if both are in the party without any assistance from the PC. If it makes sense for the character involved.

 

Again my position is for romance to be one possible character defining relationship PCs and NPCs but not the only one and not even a required one.

 

I think the problem with your argument is that I'd say - perhaps wrongly - that the largest section of people behind romance like it because it adds to the PC and NPCs story, not because they want to see pixilated sex with every character (Note that this is different from people wanting every character to be romanceable for "equality" purpose, which again isn't about sex every character alive but about making sure romance could be an option for their PC).

 

Again, DISAGREE. Romances do not ADD. They are a story telling choice . You can add to the relationship the player has with his party in other ways. I would argue that ensuring the player has sufficient intercourse options actually DETRACTS from suspension of disbelief and takes away from immersiveness.

 

I'd disagree with you here unless you are of the opinion that character interactions entirely detract from the game. A properly written and motivated romance option should not, to my mind, detract from the game in ways that any other type of PC / NPC relationship would.

[Crusty]

words, words, words, blah, blah, blah, hyperbole, invective, parry, riposte, regurgitate, words, words, words ...

 

Regenerating stamina. Unfortunately.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Crusty

[Infinitron]

I feel the best "romances" are the ones that are established before the story begins.

 

Let's say NPC X and NPC Y are married. What stresses does their relationship go through as they adventure with you? How does it affect them? That's interesting and worth exploring.

 

How did they meet and fall in love? Meh, I don't need to experience that. Not in detail, anyway.

 

See: Sun and Jin in LOST, or Adam and Megan in Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Infinitron

[Ruka]

The Aerie relationship in BG2 added nothing to the game (IMO!) and was creepy (IMO!).

 

It showed that she was very dependent on people also upset at what "mankind" was and could do to themselves.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Ruka

[jarpie]

Not all mature fiction include romance at all.

 

I read all kinds of fiction and I must say the ones that can be considered mature 90% of the time includes romance even if it's a only soldier writing a letter to his fiancee. Can you please exemplify which mature fiction doesn't include romance "at all"? Or even better I'll give you 5 opposite examples for each of yours.

 

What about Aflred Bester's Demolished Man? Or Philip K. D Ick's The Man in the High Castle? Those mature enough for you?

 

edit: WTF, I can't write name D*ck?

Edited October 18, 2012 by jarpie

[kenup]

I NEVER said "romance is mature". Please start by learning to read.... pfff...

You didn't? what is this then?

What we are asking is a mature cRPG to include romance because mature topics include romance amongst other concepts.

 

I'll repeat, please, learn to read. It's not saying all romance is mature. And I must say, all romance can not be considered mature. But the state of maturity in itself involves various levels of romance.

Don't play with words. "Mature topics include romance" means that "romance" can be or is a mature topic. But what is a mature romance? And how are many "romance" options mature? Give me an example of a mature romance vs immature one in cRPGs.

Edited October 18, 2012 by kenup

[Snerf]

Whoa, I don't even know where to begin with this. First of all, as the Obsidian dnd game shows, pirate violence is awesome.

 

Combat is central to Infinity engine crpgs as a method of problem solving. Other methods include dialogue or stealth. Having two of your party members bat eyelashes and sleep together hardly provides a way to advance the plot or solve various issues in the world.

 

Snerf, I think they were just making an extreme argument to try to illustrate how you sound to anyone who wants even some romance in their title.

 

However, I'm going to go out on a limb and try to explain why some want a level of romance between characters... (though my argument is for in-depth relationships of all types including 'brothers in arms, sword-brothers/sisters, rivals, and lovers(even if it isn't physical, because this isn't a cinematic game and who cares if the text on the screen goes 'and they shared a bedroll'?).)

 

Lets look at Firefly:

Wash and Zoe are married. How they interact with each other tells us a lot about their personalities and character and drives a part of the story. ("Captain, I need you to take the helm. I need this man to tear all my clothes off." "Work, work, work...") Their relationship is not the be-all-end-all of the story. Mal and Inara have that unspoken THING hovering off to the side. Always there. Always tension. They are not lovers, but the hint at romance flavours their characters. Mal and Jayne... they are not rivals, not brothers in arms, they're just business partners.

 

Relationships between party members matter because they DO flavour the story. Would people like the chance for a romance/rivalry/sword-brother(sister) to evolve as people travel together facing death and danger along the way? Why YES, I think a whole LOT of people do. Does this mean that most of them want a Japanese Dating Sim or a clumsy attempt at it that has become popular in other studios? Nope. Some do, maybe. But not everyone. Those that want some depth in relationships are not just wanting to bump uglies... they want to watch characters evolve in how they treat each other... and they want it to be in believable ways, which can and does include romance or rivalry.

 

This, at least, is my take. It's all I really want. Do I want the chance for a character I create to find their soul-mate? Sure. Do I want a sword-brother who I know I can trust no matter what happens to always have my back? HECK yes. Both of those things matter. (And yes, I want a rival... because I feel a good rival can drive and draw the hero to new and better heights when done well.) I don't think anything that I've said I wanted would 'take away' from the game at all.

 

But that's just my take. /shrug

 

Let's stick with your Firefly references, because Firefly is awesome. If PE is Firefly, and Mal is my sole PC, I don't care if Wash and Zoe are in a relationship. That's on the side as part of the plot/setting.

 

However, if I'm controlling a party of the whole crew, I don't want to have dialogue tree options allowing the player to pretend to be Wash or Zoe and awkwardly "develop" the relationship. I'm not saying relationships shouldn't exist in the game world, simply that as a player, the act of using actions or dialogue to pursue these cardboard relationships adds nothing to my gameplay experience.

[Amentep]

words, words, words, blah, blah, blah, hyperbole, invective, parry, riposte, regurgitate, words, words, words ...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gq44rH4Wgw

[Gorth]

The reason why even people who are anti-romance like the way they were handled in Planescape: Torment was because they were woven into the core narrative themes of the game. Romances were used as a storytelling device. Not as a "let's make characters deep by letting you enter into a relationship with them" device.

 

I want dynamic relationships; rivalries, friendships, relatives and more. I don't think every NPC should be romanceable. I even think that there are plenty of scenarioes and NPCs where romance makes no sense for the characters involved (even whole games - again if PE has no romances I'll not have an issue so long as the characters are well realized).

 

Wow, no less than two people who more or less share my point of view in each their own way... *faints*

 

Maybe there is hope for the internet yet?

 

On a serious note, the above two sentences pretty much sums up a few posts of mine where I've tried to explain the same thing. Context is sometimes everything.

[Snerf]

Not all mature fiction include romance at all.

 

I read all kinds of fiction and I must say the ones that can be considered mature 90% of the time includes romance even if it's a only soldier writing a letter to his fiancee. Can you please exemplify which mature fiction doesn't include romance "at all"? Or even better I'll give you 5 opposite examples for each of yours.

 

What about Aflred Bester's Demolished Man? Or Philip K. ****'s The Man in the High Castle? Those mature enough for you?

 

PS, Man in the High Castle is fantastic. Oh but wait, I forgot that I don't read books. Silly me

[bobobo878]

To those who oppose any kind of romances, know that they sell games and we need the game to sell if we want more games from Obsidian.

Well said. If they add the option to sex the companion characters in PE, HUNDREDS of refugees dislocated by the closure of BSN's romance subforums will buy the game.

[evdk]

Not all mature fiction include romance at all.

 

I read all kinds of fiction and I must say the ones that can be considered mature 90% of the time includes romance even if it's a only soldier writing a letter to his fiancee. Can you please exemplify which mature fiction doesn't include romance "at all"? Or even better I'll give you 5 opposite examples for each of yours.

 

What about Aflred Bester's Demolished Man? Or Philip K. ****'s The Man in the High Castle? Those mature enough for you?

 

PS, Man in the High Castle is fantastic. Oh but wait, I forgot that I don't read books. Silly me

You could've listened to an audio book.

[Loranc]

words, words, words, blah, blah, blah, hyperbole, invective, parry, riposte, regurgitate, words, words, words ...

 

Regenerating stamina. Unfortunately.

 

In case anyone was wondering what hyperbole meant. *Journal updated* *You gained 100 experience*

 

Hyperbole

 

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

This article is about the term used in rhetoric. For the mathematical term, see Hyperbola.

Hyperbole (/haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-pur-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερbολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.[2]

Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. An example of hyperbole is: "The bag weighed a ton".[3] Hyperbole helps to make the point that the bag was very heavy, although it is not probable that it would actually weigh a ton.

In rhetoric, some other opposites of hyperbole are meiosis, litotes, understatement, and bathos (the 'letdown' after a hyperbole in a phrase).

[edit]References

[Ieo]

I chose not to reply because I just don't agree that you have to sacrifice one thing for the other. A bit hard headed on this subject. I think at this point they actually have more money than what they need to make the game they promised us on the Kick starter, that's why I don't conclude that anything has to be lost, because I honestly believe they are over by at least 1 million dollars for the budget of the game. (Keep in mind that they have no engine to build, and very few things to build from the ground up.) I could be wrong about this, I don't make the argument that my estimation is without flaw, but I just truly believe they won't have to sacrifice anything to add romance to the game. (With that being said they should only add it if it fits the characters, and it shouldn't be a forced add.)

 

It is pretty hard-headed when you refuse to read the post and respond only in dollar terms and not in terms of time, which was my argument based on what the devs actually said as a constraint on the number of companions. Unless people are fine with hiring more writers from someplace like Bioware. Really, your refusal to even address an argument based in fact is very disappointing and doesn't cast your stance in a favorable light.

 

Though if Avellone needed two years to properly write equal-exclusive content for non/romance, I'd be fine with that, I suppose.

 

Found the interview:

Nick K: “Romances, are you planning on developing them in Project: Eternity as well?”

 

Feargus Urquhart: “Romances take a lot of effort, and I don’t want to be cagey on romances at all. We don’t want to make them a stretch goal, it’s just a question of if we feel comfortable with the funding. We have to do them right. Some people were giving us flak about, you know, the goal to get to the first companion, class, race, and things like that. They weren’t completely wrong in their criticism, but we don’t have nefarious reasons behind it. If it’s a pretty in depth companion Chris Avellone, who is a pretty quick writer, is looking at 2 or 3 months just for writing it up.”

 

So if one compromise is to have equal and parallel or exclusive non/romance content per companion, address that.