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

[Living One]

Yeah but you see that's the point. Trying to appease to every demographic doesn't make anything more mature or deeper. It takes a feeling like romantic love and turns it into choose your own adventure minigame. Imagine if every movie had alternatives about every romantic relationship in them.

 

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames.

Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame.

 

I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make,

and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending.

 

That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices.

Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence.

And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what would reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Living One

[HereticSaint]

No, this is fallacious and I'm kind of sick of seeing this argument. It's like saying, "You can recruit this character, but you can't recruit this one? You need to be able to recruit everyone!"

 

You are mixing issues. No one is arguing for or against character recruitment and the analogy you make is deeply flawed.

 

1) My argument is such: Games with romancable NPCs typically must have more than one romancable npcs to react to player sex choice and sexual reference choice (the one exception to this is games where they make the PC for you - like Torment). This leads to a significant perspective shift into how the player then views the party. The player soon makes a mental note of npcs as "sexable" and "nonsexable." This has little to do with people crying over why you couldn't recruit Drizzt.

 

2) If anything, NPC availability is reflective of developer intent to accomodate PC creation. In other words, devs tend to make enough npcs of varying classes to accomodate player's of any class. If romances are included, then the same philosophy leads to the issue described above.

 

Or..." You have low Int/Cha dialogue here? It should be an option as a response in literally every statement made my the PC."

 

Umm, I don't quite know what you are saying there. But, Cain said thats how he wants low int to work EXTENSIVELY so...

 

No, you don't have to have every Half-Elven/Half-Human with purple eyes and white hair fantasy that people want for NPC's that can be romanced. That isn't a good reason to leave romance out, stop using it.

 

 

Give me a real argument and I might.

 

In fact, the very same thing could even be said about friendships if you want to go down that route.

 

Actually, no. Building friendships and rivalries is NOT the same as trying to find your next hot date. One could argue that one would NEED to build trust between party members to triumph. One cannot argue that you must attempt to bed every female in your party in order to defeat the dragon in the next room.

 

You say I'm mixing issues, I'm not. You just can't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll put it in much -simpler- terms for you: The playerbase who enjoys romance and at least wants it as a potential option to pursue is large enough that it is a worthwhile time and money investment wise. (Not saying it -HAS to be in there, combating the idea that it, 'has to not be in there')

 

Saying, 'you can't the absolute perfect romancable companion for everyone' is not a valid reason to not have romances.

 

Here's an anology for you, I'll reiterate this, it's like saying that companions shouldn't be in the game because not everyone is going to enjoy the companions that are in there. I'm doing what's called, 'drawing a parellel' in this example.

 

You also, again, clearly don't understand the friendship example. The point I was making, was again, that everyone may not like the friendships presented to them, that doesn't all of a sudden mean you cut out the feature.

 

It's unfortunate that I have to be so redundant but you are doing the exact same thing.. so there you go.

Edited October 19, 2012 by HereticSaint

[HereticSaint]

Yeah but you see that's the point. Trying to appease to every demographic doesn't make anything more mature or deeper. It takes a feeling like romantic love and turns it into choose your own adventure minigame. Imagine if every movie had alternatives about every romantic relationship in them.

 

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames.

Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame.

 

I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make,

and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending.

 

That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices.

Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence.

And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what woul reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget.

 

You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender.

 

If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep.

Edited October 19, 2012 by HereticSaint

[Living One]

Yeah but you see that's the point. Trying to appease to every demographic doesn't make anything more mature or deeper. It takes a feeling like romantic love and turns it into choose your own adventure minigame. Imagine if every movie had alternatives about every romantic relationship in them.

 

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames.

Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame.

 

I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make,

and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending.

 

That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices.

Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence.

And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what woul reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget.

 

You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender.

 

If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep.

1/5 for the trolling.

It's still the author who gets to decide what content gets in and what doesn't.Even if you have player choice,yes.

 

One would think that such a notion is quite simple to understand.

[HereticSaint]

Yeah but you see that's the point. Trying to appease to every demographic doesn't make anything more mature or deeper. It takes a feeling like romantic love and turns it into choose your own adventure minigame. Imagine if every movie had alternatives about every romantic relationship in them.

 

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames.

Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame.

 

I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make,

and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending.

 

That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices.

Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence.

And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what woul reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget.

 

You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender.

 

If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep.

1/5 for the trolling.

It's still the author who gets to decide what content gets in and what doesn't.Even if you have player choice,yes.

 

One would think that such a notion is quite simple to understand.

 

Exactly, it's the author who gets to decide, not you, not me. Yet people are stonewalling romance, saying that it shouldn't be in the game and I'm simply retorting in kind.

 

But apparently, you don't understand this, 'simple notion either', because you are voicing your opinion just as loudly.

 

I do appreciate how this thread, once again turned into, 'the anti romance people are allowed to voice their opinions, but the people who want romances are not'.

 

Oh, and since you did it, 0.000001/10,000 for the trolling.

Edited October 19, 2012 by HereticSaint

[Living One]

Yeah but you see that's the point. Trying to appease to every demographic doesn't make anything more mature or deeper. It takes a feeling like romantic love and turns it into choose your own adventure minigame. Imagine if every movie had alternatives about every romantic relationship in them.

 

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames.

Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame.

 

I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make,

and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending.

 

That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices.

Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence.

And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what woul reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget.

 

You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender.

 

If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep.

1/5 for the trolling.

It's still the author who gets to decide what content gets in and what doesn't.Even if you have player choice,yes.

 

One would think that such a notion is quite simple to understand.

 

Exactly, it's the author who gets to decide, not you, not me. Yet people are stonewalling romance, saying that it shouldn't be in the game and I'm simply retorting in kind.

 

But apparently, you don't understand this, 'simple notion either', because you are voicing your opinion just as loudly.

I was responding to your specific post and the specific conversation it was part of.Not my fault if you come up with poor analogies.

 

And I still have to see a convincing argument in favor of romances from you guys.Not a single one that hasn't been criticized by well thought out counter-points by various posters(Ieo and Crusty in particular).

Edited October 19, 2012 by Living One

[jarpie]

No, this is fallacious and I'm kind of sick of seeing this argument. It's like saying, "You can recruit this character, but you can't recruit this one? You need to be able to recruit everyone!"

 

You are mixing issues. No one is arguing for or against character recruitment and the analogy you make is deeply flawed.

 

1) My argument is such: Games with romancable NPCs typically must have more than one romancable npcs to react to player sex choice and sexual reference choice (the one exception to this is games where they make the PC for you - like Torment). This leads to a significant perspective shift into how the player then views the party. The player soon makes a mental note of npcs as "sexable" and "nonsexable." This has little to do with people crying over why you couldn't recruit Drizzt.

 

2) If anything, NPC availability is reflective of developer intent to accomodate PC creation. In other words, devs tend to make enough npcs of varying classes to accomodate player's of any class. If romances are included, then the same philosophy leads to the issue described above.

 

Or..." You have low Int/Cha dialogue here? It should be an option as a response in literally every statement made my the PC."

 

Umm, I don't quite know what you are saying there. But, Cain said thats how he wants low int to work EXTENSIVELY so...

 

No, you don't have to have every Half-Elven/Half-Human with purple eyes and white hair fantasy that people want for NPC's that can be romanced. That isn't a good reason to leave romance out, stop using it.

 

 

Give me a real argument and I might.

 

In fact, the very same thing could even be said about friendships if you want to go down that route.

 

Actually, no. Building friendships and rivalries is NOT the same as trying to find your next hot date. One could argue that one would NEED to build trust between party members to triumph. One cannot argue that you must attempt to bed every female in your party in order to defeat the dragon in the next room.

 

You say I'm mixing issues, I'm not. You just can't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll put it in much -simpler- terms for you: The playerbase who enjoys Cowtipping and at least wants it as a potential option to pursue is large enough that it is a worthwhile time and monetary investment.

 

Saying, 'you can't the absolute perfect cow for everyone' is not a valid reason to not have Cowtipping.

 

Here's an anology for you, I'll reiterate this, it's like saying that companions shouldn't be in the game because not everyone is going to enjoy the companions that are in there. I'm doing what's called, 'drawing a parellel' in this example.

 

You also, again, clearly don't understand the friendship example. The point I was making, was again, that everyone may not like the Cowtipping presented to them, that doesn't all of a sudden mean you cut out the feature.

 

It's unfortunate that I have to be so redundant but you are doing the exact same thing.. so there you go.

 

With same arguments one could easily claim that they should add Cowtipping to the game.

 

Like I said earlier, not every fiction has to have romances.

Edited October 19, 2012 by jarpie

[HereticSaint]

Yeah but you see that's the point. Trying to appease to every demographic doesn't make anything more mature or deeper. It takes a feeling like romantic love and turns it into choose your own adventure minigame. Imagine if every movie had alternatives about every romantic relationship in them.

 

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames.

Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame.

 

I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make,

and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending.

 

That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices.

Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence.

And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what woul reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget.

 

You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender.

 

If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep.

1/5 for the trolling.

It's still the author who gets to decide what content gets in and what doesn't.Even if you have player choice,yes.

 

One would think that such a notion is quite simple to understand.

 

Exactly, it's the author who gets to decide, not you, not me. Yet people are stonewalling romance, saying that it shouldn't be in the game and I'm simply retorting in kind.

 

But apparently, you don't understand this, 'simple notion either', because you are voicing your opinion just as loudly.

I was responding to your specific post and the specific conversation it was part of.Not my fault if you come up with poor analogies.

 

And I still have to see a convincing argument in favor of romances from you guys.Not a single one that hasn't been criticized by well thought out counter-points by various posters(Ieo and Crusty in particular).

 

What you do or do not deem convincing is not particularly my concern. I've seen plenty of worthwhile opinions and facts as to why romances would be a good thing, hell I've seen some good counter points (Because I'm actually open minded), but not enough good ones to simply say, 'no romance, no, never ever'.

 

Also, to an extent what the player wants to do and does -should- have an impact on the game, that's why it's a game and not a movie. It really isn't that difficult to understand man.

Edited October 19, 2012 by HereticSaint

[HereticSaint]

No, this is fallacious and I'm kind of sick of seeing this argument. It's like saying, "You can recruit this character, but you can't recruit this one? You need to be able to recruit everyone!"

 

You are mixing issues. No one is arguing for or against character recruitment and the analogy you make is deeply flawed.

 

1) My argument is such: Games with romancable NPCs typically must have more than one romancable npcs to react to player sex choice and sexual reference choice (the one exception to this is games where they make the PC for you - like Torment). This leads to a significant perspective shift into how the player then views the party. The player soon makes a mental note of npcs as "sexable" and "nonsexable." This has little to do with people crying over why you couldn't recruit Drizzt.

 

2) If anything, NPC availability is reflective of developer intent to accomodate PC creation. In other words, devs tend to make enough npcs of varying classes to accomodate player's of any class. If romances are included, then the same philosophy leads to the issue described above.

 

Or..." You have low Int/Cha dialogue here? It should be an option as a response in literally every statement made my the PC."

 

Umm, I don't quite know what you are saying there. But, Cain said thats how he wants low int to work EXTENSIVELY so...

 

No, you don't have to have every Half-Elven/Half-Human with purple eyes and white hair fantasy that people want for NPC's that can be romanced. That isn't a good reason to leave romance out, stop using it.

 

 

Give me a real argument and I might.

 

In fact, the very same thing could even be said about friendships if you want to go down that route.

 

Actually, no. Building friendships and rivalries is NOT the same as trying to find your next hot date. One could argue that one would NEED to build trust between party members to triumph. One cannot argue that you must attempt to bed every female in your party in order to defeat the dragon in the next room.

 

You say I'm mixing issues, I'm not. You just can't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll put it in much -simpler- terms for you: The playerbase who enjoys Cowtipping and at least wants it as a potential option to pursue is large enough that it is a worthwhile time and monetary investment.

 

Saying, 'you can't the absolute perfect cow for everyone' is not a valid reason to not have Cowtipping.

 

Here's an anology for you, I'll reiterate this, it's like saying that companions shouldn't be in the game because not everyone is going to enjoy the companions that are in there. I'm doing what's called, 'drawing a parellel' in this example.

 

You also, again, clearly don't understand the friendship example. The point I was making, was again, that everyone may not like the Cowtipping presented to them, that doesn't all of a sudden mean you cut out the feature.

 

It's unfortunate that I have to be so redundant but you are doing the exact same thing.. so there you go.

 

With same arguments one could easily claim that they should add Cowtipping to the game.

 

Like I said earlier, not every fiction has to have romances.

 

No, not really. Cow tipping isn't something that can be used to complement or develop a compelling story (if you disagree, please site me this mighty novel or game that has a focus on cow tipping).

 

Not every fiction has to have romance, but that doesn't mean that there's a reason to explcitely leave it out, either. If you want to disagree with that, then expect me to try and gather counter points to refute it. This isn't a, 'you get to say what you want that's anti-romance while I sit here quietly thread'. It's meant to be, at least in part a debate of the value and the potential incorperation of romance.

Edited October 19, 2012 by HereticSaint

[jarpie]

No, this is fallacious and I'm kind of sick of seeing this argument. It's like saying, "You can recruit this character, but you can't recruit this one? You need to be able to recruit everyone!"

 

You are mixing issues. No one is arguing for or against character recruitment and the analogy you make is deeply flawed.

 

1) My argument is such: Games with romancable NPCs typically must have more than one romancable npcs to react to player sex choice and sexual reference choice (the one exception to this is games where they make the PC for you - like Torment). This leads to a significant perspective shift into how the player then views the party. The player soon makes a mental note of npcs as "sexable" and "nonsexable." This has little to do with people crying over why you couldn't recruit Drizzt.

 

2) If anything, NPC availability is reflective of developer intent to accomodate PC creation. In other words, devs tend to make enough npcs of varying classes to accomodate player's of any class. If romances are included, then the same philosophy leads to the issue described above.

 

Or..." You have low Int/Cha dialogue here? It should be an option as a response in literally every statement made my the PC."

 

Umm, I don't quite know what you are saying there. But, Cain said thats how he wants low int to work EXTENSIVELY so...

 

No, you don't have to have every Half-Elven/Half-Human with purple eyes and white hair fantasy that people want for NPC's that can be romanced. That isn't a good reason to leave romance out, stop using it.

 

 

Give me a real argument and I might.

 

In fact, the very same thing could even be said about friendships if you want to go down that route.

 

Actually, no. Building friendships and rivalries is NOT the same as trying to find your next hot date. One could argue that one would NEED to build trust between party members to triumph. One cannot argue that you must attempt to bed every female in your party in order to defeat the dragon in the next room.

 

You say I'm mixing issues, I'm not. You just can't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll put it in much -simpler- terms for you: The playerbase who enjoys Cowtipping and at least wants it as a potential option to pursue is large enough that it is a worthwhile time and monetary investment.

 

Saying, 'you can't the absolute perfect cow for everyone' is not a valid reason to not have Cowtipping.

 

Here's an anology for you, I'll reiterate this, it's like saying that companions shouldn't be in the game because not everyone is going to enjoy the companions that are in there. I'm doing what's called, 'drawing a parellel' in this example.

 

You also, again, clearly don't understand the friendship example. The point I was making, was again, that everyone may not like the Cowtipping presented to them, that doesn't all of a sudden mean you cut out the feature.

 

It's unfortunate that I have to be so redundant but you are doing the exact same thing.. so there you go.

 

With same arguments one could easily claim that they should add Cowtipping to the game.

 

Like I said earlier, not every fiction has to have romances.

 

No, not really. cow tipping isn't something that can be used to complement or develop a compelling story (if you disagree, please site me this mighty novel or game that has a focus on cow tipping).

 

Not every fiction has to have romance, but that doesn't mean that there's a reason to explcitely leave it out, either. If you want to disagree with that, then expect me to try and gather counter points to refute it. This isn't a, 'you get to say what you want that's anti-romance while I sit here quietly thread'. It's meant to be, at least in part a debate of the value and the potential incorperation of romance.

 

What about..necrophilia then? Apparently Wikipedia has a list ready: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia_in_popular_culture and we can use exactly the same arguments you have.

 

At least what gets me and probably some others up in arms is that some of the "pro-romance" crowd thinks that romances should be in every RPG by-default which is probably because they do not have imagination to imagine game without one, as they are so used to having romances.

 

You can't deny the fact that if Obsidian would come out and say, yes there will be romances, there would be that certain obsessive crowd swallowing the forum with demands that every possible gender combination should presented, oh and every possible race.

[Crusty]

 

What about..necrophilia then?

 

Well, if you think about TNO...

[HereticSaint]

No, this is fallacious and I'm kind of sick of seeing this argument. It's like saying, "You can recruit this character, but you can't recruit this one? You need to be able to recruit everyone!"

 

You are mixing issues. No one is arguing for or against character recruitment and the analogy you make is deeply flawed.

 

1) My argument is such: Games with romancable NPCs typically must have more than one romancable npcs to react to player sex choice and sexual reference choice (the one exception to this is games where they make the PC for you - like Torment). This leads to a significant perspective shift into how the player then views the party. The player soon makes a mental note of npcs as "sexable" and "nonsexable." This has little to do with people crying over why you couldn't recruit Drizzt.

 

2) If anything, NPC availability is reflective of developer intent to accomodate PC creation. In other words, devs tend to make enough npcs of varying classes to accomodate player's of any class. If romances are included, then the same philosophy leads to the issue described above.

 

Or..." You have low Int/Cha dialogue here? It should be an option as a response in literally every statement made my the PC."

 

Umm, I don't quite know what you are saying there. But, Cain said thats how he wants low int to work EXTENSIVELY so...

 

No, you don't have to have every Half-Elven/Half-Human with purple eyes and white hair fantasy that people want for NPC's that can be romanced. That isn't a good reason to leave romance out, stop using it.

 

 

Give me a real argument and I might.

 

In fact, the very same thing could even be said about friendships if you want to go down that route.

 

Actually, no. Building friendships and rivalries is NOT the same as trying to find your next hot date. One could argue that one would NEED to build trust between party members to triumph. One cannot argue that you must attempt to bed every female in your party in order to defeat the dragon in the next room.

 

You say I'm mixing issues, I'm not. You just can't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll put it in much -simpler- terms for you: The playerbase who enjoys Cowtipping and at least wants it as a potential option to pursue is large enough that it is a worthwhile time and monetary investment.

 

Saying, 'you can't the absolute perfect cow for everyone' is not a valid reason to not have Cowtipping.

 

Here's an anology for you, I'll reiterate this, it's like saying that companions shouldn't be in the game because not everyone is going to enjoy the companions that are in there. I'm doing what's called, 'drawing a parellel' in this example.

 

You also, again, clearly don't understand the friendship example. The point I was making, was again, that everyone may not like the Cowtipping presented to them, that doesn't all of a sudden mean you cut out the feature.

 

It's unfortunate that I have to be so redundant but you are doing the exact same thing.. so there you go.

 

With same arguments one could easily claim that they should add Cowtipping to the game.

 

Like I said earlier, not every fiction has to have romances.

 

No, not really. cow tipping isn't something that can be used to complement or develop a compelling story (if you disagree, please site me this mighty novel or game that has a focus on cow tipping).

 

Not every fiction has to have romance, but that doesn't mean that there's a reason to explcitely leave it out, either. If you want to disagree with that, then expect me to try and gather counter points to refute it. This isn't a, 'you get to say what you want that's anti-romance while I sit here quietly thread'. It's meant to be, at least in part a debate of the value and the potential incorperation of romance.

 

What about..necrophilia then? Apparently Wikipedia has a list ready: http://en.wikipedia....popular_culture and we can use exactly the same arguments you have.

 

At least what gets me and probably some others up in arms is that some of the "pro-romance" crowd thinks that romances should be in every RPG by-default which is probably because they do not have imagination to imagine game without one, as they are so used to having romances.

 

You can't deny the fact that if Obsidian would come out and say, yes there will be romances, there would be that certain obsessive crowd swallowing the forum with demands that every possible gender combination should presented, oh and every possible race.

 

If necrophelia was used in a compelling and interesting way I wouldn't necessarily mind it.

 

Now you may go, 'That's all we are saying about romance' and my refute to that, is I believe that Obsidian can and I believe that enough people would specifically enjoy such a feature that it would be worthwhile in terms of cost both in regards to time and money.

 

Before you go, 'wish fulfillment, etc', again, I believe that Obsidian can do it in a way that is compelling and interesting. If you are saying, 'it shouldn't -HAVE- to have it' great, neither am I. But I am also not going to sit by while people say, 'There should never ever be romance in PE, no matter what, it isn't worth the time or money to develop, it's bad, biodrone, etc'.

 

As for people who want everything, that doesn't matter. Again, the same could be said about the companions in general. (There could very well be many people who hate them all, or at least most of them and want more options beyond creating their own and the base ones).

Edited October 19, 2012 by HereticSaint

[Living One]

 

 

Exactly, it's the author who gets to decide, not you, not me. Yet people are stonewalling romance, saying that it shouldn't be in the game and I'm simply retorting in kind.

 

But apparently, you don't understand this, 'simple notion either', because you are voicing your opinion just as loudly.

I was responding to your specific post and the specific conversation it was part of.Not my fault if you come up with poor analogies.

 

And I still have to see a convincing argument in favor of romances from you guys.Not a single one that hasn't been criticized by well thought out counter-points by various posters(Ieo and Crusty in particular).

 

What you do or do not deem convincing is not particularly my concern. I've seen plenty of worthwhile opinions and facts as to why romances would be a good thing, hell I've seen some good counter points (Because I'm actually open minded), but not enough good ones to simply say, 'no romance, no, never ever'.

Why are you arguing only with one side if you are so neutral then,mmh?

 

Also, to an extent what the player wants to do and does -should- have an impact on the game, that's why it's a game and not a movie. It really isn't that difficult to understand man.

Who said otherwise?And why are you even bringing up this point as if it was relevant to the discussion?

Edited October 19, 2012 by Living One

[Fear]

If necrophelia was used in a compelling and interesting way I wouldn't necessarily mind it.

 

Finally someone is speaking my language. Anyone else in favor of this, or just the two of us?

[HereticSaint]

Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence.

And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what woul reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget.

 

You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender.

 

If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep.

1/5 for the trolling.

It's still the author who gets to decide what content gets in and what doesn't.Even if you have player choice,yes.

 

One would think that such a notion is quite simple to understand.

 

Exactly, it's the author who gets to decide, not you, not me. Yet people are stonewalling romance, saying that it shouldn't be in the game and I'm simply retorting in kind.

 

But apparently, you don't understand this, 'simple notion either', because you are voicing your opinion just as loudly.

I was responding to your specific post and the specific conversation it was part of.Not my fault if you come up with poor analogies.

 

And I still have to see a convincing argument in favor of romances from you guys.Not a single one that hasn't been criticized by well thought out counter-points by various posters(Ieo and Crusty in particular).

 

What you do or do not deem convincing is not particularly my concern. I've seen plenty of worthwhile opinions and facts as to why romances would be a good thing, hell I've seen some good counter points (Because I'm actually open minded), but not enough good ones to simply say, 'no romance, no, never ever'.

Why are you arguing only with one side if you are so neutral then,mmh?

 

Also, to an extent what the player wants to do and does -should- have an impact on the game, that's why it's a game and not a movie. It really isn't that difficult to understand man.

Who said otherwise?And why are you even bringing up this point as if it was relevant to the discussion?

 

I never said I was neutral, please don't try to misrepresent my position on the matter. For the rest, you once again don't understand. It's up to you if you want to keep quoting me, but I'm not going to try and rephrase the same thing fifty times because you somehow can't decipher a meaning from it.

[Living One]

Side stories and player choice aren't an excuse to shoehorn random storylines inside a game.The ones that make sense for the narrative/enhance it should take precedence.

And the author still railroads you to some extent.Always.Not sure why that would be a reason to give priority to player-desired content over what woul reasonably be best.This would still hold true even if they had a 10 mil USD budget.

 

You're right, player choice isn't an excuse for anything. We should all simply be watching a narrative, where we make no choices at all, including ones within dialogues and are simply restricted in every aspect of the game as to what we can or cannot do. You shouldn't be able to choose the skills you get, your attribute point allocation or even your race or gender.

 

If people want to do something else they need to just play a different game, or go play a sandbox game like Minecraft. Yep.

1/5 for the trolling.

It's still the author who gets to decide what content gets in and what doesn't.Even if you have player choice,yes.

 

One would think that such a notion is quite simple to understand.

 

Exactly, it's the author who gets to decide, not you, not me. Yet people are stonewalling romance, saying that it shouldn't be in the game and I'm simply retorting in kind.

 

But apparently, you don't understand this, 'simple notion either', because you are voicing your opinion just as loudly.

I was responding to your specific post and the specific conversation it was part of.Not my fault if you come up with poor analogies.

 

And I still have to see a convincing argument in favor of romances from you guys.Not a single one that hasn't been criticized by well thought out counter-points by various posters(Ieo and Crusty in particular).

 

What you do or do not deem convincing is not particularly my concern. I've seen plenty of worthwhile opinions and facts as to why romances would be a good thing, hell I've seen some good counter points (Because I'm actually open minded), but not enough good ones to simply say, 'no romance, no, never ever'.

Why are you arguing only with one side if you are so neutral then,mmh?

 

Also, to an extent what the player wants to do and does -should- have an impact on the game, that's why it's a game and not a movie. It really isn't that difficult to understand man.

Who said otherwise?And why are you even bringing up this point as if it was relevant to the discussion?

 

I never said I was neutral, please don't try to misrepresent my position on the matter. For the rest, you once again don't understand. It's up to you if you want to keep quoting me, but I'm not going to try and rephrase the same thing fifty times because you somehow can't decipher a meaning from it.

It' normal that people don't understand you.I'll let you guess why,while just giving you the hint that the reason isn't you are saying particularly complex things.

Bye,dude.

[FlintlockJazz]

If necrophelia was used in a compelling and interesting way I wouldn't necessarily mind it.

 

Finally someone is speaking my language. Anyone else in favor of this, or just the two of us?

 

Wait, they haven't already confirmed its in the game? But that was the only reason I pledged!

[kabaliero]

If necrophelia was used in a compelling and interesting way I wouldn't necessarily mind it.

 

Finally someone is speaking my language. Anyone else in favor of this, or just the two of us?

 

<chant> Lich girl! Lich girl! </chant>

Edited October 19, 2012 by kabaliero

[Zere]

These forums really makes me sad some times. Hopefully Obsidian isn't reading and keeps just working on their own.

[HereticSaint]

These forums really makes me sad some times. Hopefully Obsidian isn't reading and keeps just working on their own.

 

You can have a hug if it'll make you feel better. You have to pay the travel expenses though.

[Fear]

Lich girl, that's a start, but I also want to see the ghost of a nubile teenage boy for a companion, as well as a homosexual zombie. All romance-able of course! Nothing less.

[Zere]

Obsidian is about to make a project from lost art of the CRPG-games, and people most concerning thing about the game is romance, sex and boobplates?

[BSoda]

Obsidian is about to make a project from lost art of the CRPG-games, and people most concerning thing about the game is romance, sex and boobplates?

It's the most heated debate for sure, atm...but I hardly think it's the "most" important point of concern for anyone here.

[HereticSaint]

Obsidian is about to make a project from lost art of the CRPG-games, and people most concerning thing about the game is romance, sex and boobplates?

 

It's not my largest concern, I just don't feel the need to voice my opinion on a lot of other matters because it's rather cut and dry if Obsidian are going to have those features or not and if they have them then I feel like they will do a good job with them.

 

 

Lich girl, that's a start, but I also want to see the ghost of a nubile teenage boy for a companion, as well as a homosexual zombie. All romance-able of course! Nothing less.

 

This should've been a stretch goal. Too late now, unfortunately, so we must bide our time, watching, waiting...

Edited October 19, 2012 by HereticSaint

[kabaliero]

Lich girl, that's a start, but I also want to see the ghost of a nubile teenage boy for a companion, as well as a homosexual zombie. All romance-able of course! Nothing less.

I'd rather leave all the kiddie ghosts and flaming homos for EA games though.