Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2

[qloher]

Ok, a nice clear summarization, let's go with it.

I tried to provide you with the link from the forum's search engine for my posts but apparently it's not possible.

 

Let me summarise what I've been saying and arguing: I have been arguing with the time on how long it takes them write companions and how long development time they have, I have argued with the budget which is very limited...

I've done some math on the matter and came to a conclusion it take a week to wright one romance while also writing something entirely different on the background. I do not think one week per one author is such a terrible cost. Also considering the budget issue, from $4 millions on Kickstarter I'm pretty sure at least $2 millions came from the romance crowd. Even if only $1 million, still don't you think those people may deserve some slack to be cut? $50.000 from $4.000.000 maybe? That equals 1.25% from the budget. Is that too much to ask? (To ask, not to demand - an elaboration just in case someone is thinking to go there again).

...I have argued with the "Not all fiction must have romances" (which they still don't)...

That is not a good argument. With this kind of logic it is possible to attack virtually anything.

...and have asked why this specific game should...

Because we want this specific game to be perfect in every way.

...and haven't gotten any other arguments than "because we want it" or "it makes them deeper!"...

And how are those bad arguments? The second one in particular.

I have argued with the type of the crowd it brings here (which haven't been countered).

Frankly I couldn't care less about what crowds go where. The game in itself is the first, the second and the third priority. What crowds it may or may not bring to the forum is a priority #4891.

I have time and time again have said that if they do romances and they are done like in PS:T for example, I could live with that...

So what is the problem?

Edited October 20, 2012 by qloher

[evdk]

We'll compare who results to ad hominem first, the most and who actually posts constructive, intelligent, well thought out, legitimate posts that don't reek of self importance. I already know who's going to sound more reasonable and mature out of that pile.

Please do, I'd love to know how I rate!

 

On an unrelated note, is there a possibility that you scale back on the constant quoting a maybe trim the the quote pyramids down a bit. This thread is unreadable as it is.

[l3loodangel]

Are you looking to break any ground in terms of the design mechanics, such as moral choices or relationships? What are you looking to do that isn't generally done?

 

Chris Avellone: There's been a lot of focus with companion mechanics in terms of like "how do I romance this person?" I'd like to think that there are other types of relationships that you can have with a companion, whether it's friendship, rivalry, hatred, or revenge. Romances end up being an easy target, but I think there's a lot more you can do with companion relationships. Also, I think a lot of games have fallen into the hole of the evil choice is always a psychotic option. There's a whole spectrum of other stuff you can do in conversation that I'm looking forward to doing. Sometimes depending on the franchise it does make sense that you have these really extreme morality bars, because that's the nature of the franchise.

With this world I think it's going to be a little bit more subtle. The whole premise of the lore and the magic system is that souls get inherited, and then when you pass away the souls wait for a time and then come back to another body. The question is how much of your own behavior is being governed by your own free will or the influence of the soul inside you and all of its history? I think that can raise some interesting questions for both the player character and the companions.

 

[ComradeGoby]

We'll compare who results to ad hominem first, the most and who actually posts constructive, intelligent, well thought out, legitimate posts that don't reek of self importance. I already know who's going to sound more reasonable and mature out of that pile.

Please do, I'd love to know how I rate!

 

On an unrelated note, is there a possibility that you scale back on the constant quoting a maybe trim the the quote pyramids down a bit. This thread is unreadable as it is.

 

Don't worry komrade! The master of minigames will bestow judgement upon you.

 

Saying everything in a RPG is a minigame is just. What.

[HereticSaint]

We'll compare who results to ad hominem first, the most and who actually posts constructive, intelligent, well thought out, legitimate posts that don't reek of self importance. I already know who's going to sound more reasonable and mature out of that pile.

Please do, I'd love to know how I rate!

 

On an unrelated note, is there a possibility that you scale back on the constant quoting a maybe trim the the quote pyramids down a bit. This thread is unreadable as it is.

 

Don't worry komrade! The master of minigames will bestow judgement upon you.

 

Saying everything in a RPG is a minigame is just. What.

 

Have you seen the posts he was responding to? Do you understand the context of why he said that?

 

Doesn't seem so, I could be wrong though.

 

Point is, good romance dialogue and interaction is not a mini-game.

Edited October 20, 2012 by HereticSaint

[Meshugger]

Hey, adding to the neat Bardic-Necro-Love concept, I found this...

 

 

Obviously, being a drooling undead minion might pose a few minor romance-type problems, but surely it's only fair we consider it.

 

Somehow, i missed this the last time i read this thread, thank you!

 

I am feeling more inspired than before. Our necrophiliac bard should have some difficulties in his harem, otherwise it will simply be boring. As a fun twist of fate, there's a couple of undead that are cheating on our bard. Lately, Slossy Susie has been spending too much time with Sammy the Skeleton. Sammy is no good do'er. He steals coins and whatnot from the living and aspires to be the top skeleton on Bone Hill. He also dates Heather the headless and One-eyed Elinor, but for some reason, this Skeleton has a more powerful spell over her than our bard's necromancy. He makes her believe that she's the one for him.

 

How will our bard prevail? Just being nice doesn't help, since Susie likes the more dangerous type (also, Sammy has such a nice thin, smooth figure that our bard can never have). None of the spells helps either. What will our bard do? Kill them both in passion and face justice from the High Lich council? Fool her that he's just as a good high roller as Sammy? Or just settle for the sad fact that no matter what great secrets of magic that you unravel, there's no more powerful spell as the spell of true love? And if the last option is selected, how will our bard cope with the rest of the harem? None of them are as exciting and good in the sack as good 'ole Slossy Susie.

 

Marvellous roleplaying options ahead i tell you!

[kenup]

I absolutely 100% disagree with your assertion that romance can only be in the plot if it dominates the plot. Now, before you flip out and try to turn this around on me, this isn't the same as saying that it has to be in the background as a mini-game either. There can be a happy medium, a happy medium that would take just as much time to develop and flesh out as a real, deep, meaningful friendship.

 

If you are against romances for any reason other than the potential of people who enjoy later Bioware games from coming to play this game and frequent this forum then you should also be against friendships. Why? Because, again... they can take just as many resources and just as much time to get fleshed out and done correctly. Neither romance, nor friendship has to dominate the plot, that doesn't mean either of them have to default into mini-games.

First off, see guys, that's what I'm talking about. You don't understand why we don't want them. Where in my example does romance dominate the plot? It's weaved into the plot. It has to affect it somehow, it's not just being snarky for one line(which will still help define the character). I also didn't say that it's the best or worst plot with romance possible. You want romances. That 's' at the end is very important. We want a good story, if that involves, without making it into a love story, a romantic or other kind of relationship between the main character and some one else, that we will accept it. What you guys want is romances with different characters as added content. That is the first thing that makes them into minigames.

 

Further than that, being deep and complex is irrelevant. Complexity doesn't make things good or bad. It's implementation that matters. Besides which, I still wait for examples of what makes a relationship deep. Writing many romances takes time and resources which could be focused on one thing, that being the plot, to make it actually good.

 

Lastly, every relationship affects the characters involved, and if those characters are involved in the plot in some way they are affecting the plot. An enemy has a relationship with the pc; that relationship is hostile and it's going to affect the plot accordingly. A good friend may come and save you at the right time, even if he couldn't before. A lover might sacrifice herself in order to save the protagonist in the beginning or the end of the story and that affects the plot. Neither the friend or the lover dominate the story, but the relationship has an affect.

Edited October 20, 2012 by kenup

[HereticSaint]

I absolutely 100% disagree with your assertion that romance can only be in the plot if it dominates the plot. Now, before you flip out and try to turn this around on me, this isn't the same as saying that it has to be in the background as a mini-game either. There can be a happy medium, a happy medium that would take just as much time to develop and flesh out as a real, deep, meaningful friendship.

 

If you are against romances for any reason other than the potential of people who enjoy later Bioware games from coming to play this game and frequent this forum then you should also be against friendships. Why? Because, again... they can take just as many resources and just as much time to get fleshed out and done correctly. Neither romance, nor friendship has to dominate the plot, that doesn't mean either of them have to default into mini-games.

First off, see guys, that's what I'm talking about. You don't understand why we don't want them. Where in my example does romance dominate the plot? It's weaved into the plot. It has to affect it somehow, it's not just being snarky for one line(which will still help define the character). I also didn't say that it's the best or worst plot with romance possible. You want romances. That 's' at the end is very important. We want a good story, if that involves a romantic or other kind of relationship between the main character and some one else, that we will accept. What you guys want is romances with different characters as added content. That is the first thing that makes them into minigames.

 

Further than that, being deep and complex is irrelevant. Complexity doesn't make things good or bad. It's implementation that matters. Besides which, I still wait for examples of what makes a relationship deep. Writing many romances takes time and resources which could be focused on one thing to make it actually good.

 

Lastly, every relationship affects the characters involved, and if those characters are involved in the plot in some way they are affecting the plot. An enemy has a relationship with the pc; that relationship is hostile and it's going to affect the plot accordingly. A good friend may come and save you at the right time, even if he couldn't before. A lover might sacrifice herself in order to save the protagonist in the beginning or the end of the story and that affects the plot. Neither the friend or the lover dominate the story, but the relationship has an affect.

 

Please don't interpret me wanting something as me wanting to force it into the game. You are basically trying to represent the two as one and the same.

 

While we are at this point, I could just as easily say you don't understand why we want them in. We could both, at any point say that for not understanding the other one is ignorant (or worse) or at that point try to misrepresent their position and use the excuse, "Well they don't understand".

 

I don't want romances with other characters anymore or less than I want friendships, rivalries and other interesting character interactions with NPC's. I however, see absolutely no reason to not voice my opinion when others are voicing theirs in the opposite direction of what I feel is healthy and constructive in the game. In the end will either of us decide if something is in the game or not? Probably not. If there is a chance it will, I want my opinion to be known, and still would even if I was literally the only person with said opinion.

 

To make my point, people have said that good romances would need an unreasonable amount of resources directed at them to be effective and wouldn't be worth the end cost. This is absolutely untrue, especially when compared to other similar social interactions between characters. Being in a close relationship with someone shouldn't change anything more than a friendship would besides other potential romances, if any. A lot of the friendship dialogue could easily be used in the romances or slightly modified as well, which also could easily reduce the amount of time required to write said dialogue lines. (Quick side note, I'm not saying this is how it should or should not be, pointing out why this is a bad argument to not have them)

 

As for something being deep and complex being irrelevant? Um, no, it isn't. If a game tasks me with killing a dragon it isn't the same as a game asking me to gather rat teeth, just by default, even if they both have equivilant effort put into the writing.

 

Yes, all relationships impact the plot and that's exactly why there's no reason why it should be arbitrarily left out on the whims of some people. I feel the same way for the inclusion, just so you know. I already said, the reason I'm posting is to form a balanced opinion if anything is drawn from the forums. If anything, to me at least, it would take more writing to make sense of why my character cannot have a deep relationship with anyone than it would to actually write a relationship.

Edited October 20, 2012 by HereticSaint

[kabaliero]

The Wall of Text crits you for 99998 damage. You die.

[kenup]

-snip-

And again you don't understand why we want them out. Or you do and you don't want to admit the real reason you want them. Any interaction in the game is NOT a social interaction, not for the people playing anyway, it's part of the narrative. The characters socialize. You can immerse yourself all you want while you play, but you are not socializing. And a writer, one that doesn't **** at the thought of the characters they write, can't just write down whatever idea comes to their head. They have to take their time to think it through, them and their peers have to review it before implementing it. And that costs time, money and other resources like QA.

 

Complexity is irrelevant. The endings to ME3 were complex, they anyone with a brain asking WTF just happened. But they are crap and full of plotholes. Depth can't be grouped together with complexity either cause they don't go hand in hand. And you still fail to tell me what is depth, and why is it so paramount.

 

If you want a story that involves a romantic relationship, go ahead and make a thread proposing your premise of that story. But once again you ask for romances not a certain premise or plot. You are asking for added content, as in additions and features.

Edited October 20, 2012 by kenup

[HereticSaint]

-snip-

And again you don't understand why we want them out. Or you do and you don't want to admit the real reason you want them. Any interaction in the game is NOT a social interaction, not for the people playing anyway, it's part of the narrative. The characters socialize. You can immerse yourself all you want while you play, but you are not socializing. And a writer, one that doesn't **** at the thought of the characters they write, can't just write down whatever idea comes to their head. They have to take their time to think it through, them and their peers have to review it before implementing it. And that costs time, money and other resources like QA.

 

Complexity is irrelevant. The endings to ME3 were complex, they anyone with a brain asking WTF just happened. But they are crap and full of plotholes. Depth can't be grouped together with complexity either cause they don't go hand in hand. And you still fail to tell me what is depth, and why is it so paramount.

 

If you want a story that involves a romantic relationship, go ahead and make a thread proposing your premise of that story. But once again you ask for romances not a certain premise or plot. You are asking for added content, as in additions and features.

 

If you assert I am asking for romances. Then that means pretty much everything else in the game, ranging from friendships, to tactical combat, to diversity in gameplay choices are all things I'm asking for as well.

 

If you don't want romances as an option, then why don't you go ahead and make a thread and propose your premise of that story and how it makes sense to explicitely leave that out. I'll be waiting.

 

Also, I'm rather sure we both understand what depth is and why it's relevant. Shallowness is a bad thing. The Bioware romances in Dragon Age 2 are shallow, a primary example would be Isabella. It isn't difficult to understand.

 

Everything is irrelevant. According to you, clearly. Also, stop saying what I do and do not want. Clearly you don't understand, in fact you did exactly what I said you would do in the post you quoted of me and didn't even bat an eyelash while doing it. Which isn't only hilarious, but also kind of sad. So, you say I don't understand you because (Insert reason here), I say you don't understand me because (insert reason here).

 

Glad that all worked out.

Edited October 20, 2012 by HereticSaint

[jarpie]

Ok, a nice clear summarization, let's go with it.

I've done some math on the matter and came to a conclusion it take a week to wright one romance while also writing something entirely different on the background. I do not think one week per one author is such a terrible cost. Also considering the budget issue, from $4 millions on Kickstarter I'm pretty sure at least $2 millions came from the romance crowd. Even if only $1 million, still don't you think those people may deserve some slack to be cut? $50.000 from $4.000.000 maybe? That equals 1.25% from the budget. Is that too much to ask? (To ask, not to demand - an elaboration just in case someone is thinking to go there again).

 

I'm really interested on how you came up with the "week to write romance", especially if you want it to be substansial. Most of what goes into writing characters is actually the dialogue and since romance is what? I think it's dialogue and there can only be so much dialogue per character it's bound to limit on how much other kind dialogue there will be.

 

How have you exactly calculated that it's going to take a week? Can I see the formula? and how do you know who pledged and what they want? Also they wont get the full 4 million since Kickstarter, Amazon and Paypal will take their cut so the budget will be 3 - 3,5 million at most, depending on whether they pay the rewards from the pledges or from their own pockets, if they pay the rewards from the pledges, it'll cost them probably about 500k, possibly more (it cost about 700k for DFA to manufacture and send the rewards).

 

That is not a good argument. With this kind of logic it is possible to attack virtually anything.

Because we want this specific game to be perfect in every way.

 

I remember one pro-romance (not necessarely you) arguing that mature fiction has romances, which I countered with examples of mature fiction which doesnt have romances and that's why I asked why should all fiction have romances and why should this game specifically. Still no proper counter-argument since it clearly doesn't fit every fiction and game.

 

And explain to me also how would romances make this game perfect? Would it be less perfect if it doesn't have romances and romances wouldn't fit it?

 

And how are those bad arguments? The second one in particular.

 

Care to explain how romances make characters more deeper than say..."Brothers in Arms"-camaraderie? Would characters actually be any deeper if one of them would have romance instead of friendship or rivalry? What makes having romance for companion more special than say... friendly competition between friends (you and companion)?

 

This comes to my first point in this reply (and several postings before this one), the writers basicly have to devote any given companion to one route; be it friendship, rivalry, romance etc and if they do several routes which player can choose from, they can spend less time writing all given routes and they all will be dilluted.

 

Would you rather have companion which is shallow with many different possibilities or deeply done in one? If devs write romance for one character, they have to also write another route or the players who doesnt want to have romance have no reason to interact with the said companion/NPC.

 

Lot of players can enjoy the friendship-route but those who just enjoy romances are much fewer.

 

Frankly I couldn't care less about what crowds go where. The game in itself is the first, the second and the third priority. What crowds it may or may not bring to the forum is a priority #4891.

 

So you wouldn't mind forum being swalloved with endless threads and arguments which companion is hotter? Case-in-point, check what happened to the BSN romance-subforum.

 

So what is the problem?

 

My problem is with those who comes in and writes messages presuming that romances are in by-default even though devs haven't stated in one way or another.

 

Anyway, MCA clearly implied that game probably wont have romances so I don't see point in arguing.

 

MCA:

There's been a lot of focus with companion mechanics in terms of like "how do I romance this person?" I'd like to think that there are other types of relationships that you can have with a companion, whether it's friendship, rivalry, hatred, or revenge. Romances end up being an easy target, but I think there's a lot more you can do with companion relationships.

Edited October 20, 2012 by jarpie

[HereticSaint]

If you read that from a non biased perspective it doesn't imply that there won't be romances. It implies that games don't need romances to have worthwhile interactions (changing deep, complex to worthwhile, because people clearly don't understand what I've been meaning), which I agree with.

 

If they ruled anything out explicitely at this point I'd be surprised.

Edited October 20, 2012 by HereticSaint

[jarpie]

If you read that from a non biased perspective it doesn't imply that there won't be romances. It implies that games don't need romances to have worthwhile interactions (changing deep, complex to worthwhile, because people clearly don't understand what I've been meaning), which I agree with.

 

If they ruled anything out explicitely at this point I'd be surprised.

 

]I'd like to think that there are other types of relationships that you can have with a companion, whether it's friendship, rivalry, hatred, or revenge.[/b]

[HereticSaint]

If you read that from a non biased perspective it doesn't imply that there won't be romances. It implies that games don't need romances to have worthwhile interactions (changing deep, complex to worthwhile, because people clearly don't understand what I've been meaning), which I agree with.

 

If they ruled anything out explicitely at this point I'd be surprised.

 

]I'd like to think that there are other types of relationships that you can have with a companion, whether it's friendship, rivalry, hatred, or revenge.[/b]

 

Saying, "There's lots of options" isn't the same as saying, "There's lots of options and we aren't going to have romances as one of them".

 

For an example of something they've explicitely ruled out, attacking while prone is one of them.

Edited October 20, 2012 by HereticSaint

[kenup]

-snip-

And again you don't understand why we want them out. Or you do and you don't want to admit the real reason you want them. Any interaction in the game is NOT a social interaction, not for the people playing anyway, it's part of the narrative. The characters socialize. You can immerse yourself all you want while you play, but you are not socializing. And a writer, one that doesn't **** at the thought of the characters they write, can't just write down whatever idea comes to their head. They have to take their time to think it through, them and their peers have to review it before implementing it. And that costs time, money and other resources like QA.

 

Complexity is irrelevant. The endings to ME3 were complex, they anyone with a brain asking WTF just happened. But they are crap and full of plotholes. Depth can't be grouped together with complexity either cause they don't go hand in hand. And you still fail to tell me what is depth, and why is it so paramount.

 

If you want a story that involves a romantic relationship, go ahead and make a thread proposing your premise of that story. But once again you ask for romances not a certain premise or plot. You are asking for added content, as in additions and features.

 

If you assert I am asking for romances. Then that means pretty much everything else in the game, ranging from friendships, to tactical combat, to diversity in gameplay choices are all things I'm asking for as well.

 

If you don't want romances as an option, then why don't you go ahead and make a thread and propose your premise of that story and how it makes sense to explicitely leave that out. I'll be waiting.

 

Also, I'm rather sure we both understand what depth is and why it's relevant. Shallowness is a bad thing. The Bioware romances in Dragon Age 2 are shallow, a primary example would be Isabella. It isn't difficult to understand.

 

Everything is irrelevant. According to you, clearly. Also, stop saying what I do and do not want. Clearly you don't understand, in fact you did exactly what I said you would do in the post you quoted of me and didn't even bat an eyelash while doing it. Which isn't only hilarious, but also kind of sad. So, you say I don't understand you because (Insert reason here), I say you don't understand me because (insert reason here).

 

Glad that all worked out.

And then you tell everyone that we make ad hominems? Right.....

 

You know you didn't argue any of my points. You just generalized; and put character interactions in the same category as pawns on a battlefield? Not to diminish tactical combat of course, but they are not the same thing. And the rest of your post doesn't say anything, It's just "I'm right you are wrong." without anything to back it up.

Edited October 20, 2012 by kenup

[HereticSaint]

-snip-

And again you don't understand why we want them out. Or you do and you don't want to admit the real reason you want them. Any interaction in the game is NOT a social interaction, not for the people playing anyway, it's part of the narrative. The characters socialize. You can immerse yourself all you want while you play, but you are not socializing. And a writer, one that doesn't **** at the thought of the characters they write, can't just write down whatever idea comes to their head. They have to take their time to think it through, them and their peers have to review it before implementing it. And that costs time, money and other resources like QA.

 

Complexity is irrelevant. The endings to ME3 were complex, they anyone with a brain asking WTF just happened. But they are crap and full of plotholes. Depth can't be grouped together with complexity either cause they don't go hand in hand. And you still fail to tell me what is depth, and why is it so paramount.

 

If you want a story that involves a romantic relationship, go ahead and make a thread proposing your premise of that story. But once again you ask for romances not a certain premise or plot. You are asking for added content, as in additions and features.

 

If you assert I am asking for romances. Then that means pretty much everything else in the game, ranging from friendships, to tactical combat, to diversity in gameplay choices are all things I'm asking for as well.

 

If you don't want romances as an option, then why don't you go ahead and make a thread and propose your premise of that story and how it makes sense to explicitely leave that out. I'll be waiting.

 

Also, I'm rather sure we both understand what depth is and why it's relevant. Shallowness is a bad thing. The Bioware romances in Dragon Age 2 are shallow, a primary example would be Isabella. It isn't difficult to understand.

 

Everything is irrelevant. According to you, clearly. Also, stop saying what I do and do not want. Clearly you don't understand, in fact you did exactly what I said you would do in the post you quoted of me and didn't even bat an eyelash while doing it. Which isn't only hilarious, but also kind of sad. So, you say I don't understand you because (Insert reason here), I say you don't understand me because (insert reason here).

 

Glad that all worked out.

And then you tell everyone that we make ad hominems? Right.....

 

You know you didn't argue any of my points. You just generalized; and put character interactions in the same category as pawns on a battlefield? Not to diminish tactical combat of course, but they are not the same thing. And the rest of your post doesn't say anything, It's just "I'm right you are wrong." without anything to back it up.

 

I'm not going to debate with you when you are telling me what my stance is. Don't misterpret that as a, "I'm leaving this topic" either, because I'm not. You didn't actually refute any of my post from the one you quoted of me quoting you, hell how could you when you are taking what I said and changing it to whatever you want it to be.

Edited October 20, 2012 by HereticSaint

[JohanKris]

What also amazes me is the way one particular person is trying to diminish romances by calling them minigames. I'm sorry, but everything is a minigame in a Role Played Game. Dialogue minigames, quest minigames, combat minigames, leveling minigames, shopping minigames etc., etc. To say minigames are evil is basically to undermine the whole genre.

 

Might not be directed at me, but since I called it a mini-game I will indulge. First, you now compare what normally is a few dialoge options separate from the main game with things that are integral features. Quests is the whole meat of the game and at best (that we seen in games this far) romance is 1-2 quests out of 50-100s in a game. In fact all things you mentioned as "mini-games" are big and integral features of a roleplaying game, things that are so important that they are not even listed as features. Just like you don't list "wheels" as a feature on your car.

 

To call mini-games evil (which I didn't, so I guess this was not to me!) is obviously a bit to far and to call romance (like I did) for a mini-game is not entirerly correct. In a classic sense it isn't. It is in fact either just a few conversations checks were you just choose "I like you" "I agree with you" options or baked in with a companion quest (i.e. Something from my past haunts me). Content-wise it is less than 5% of the game, probably closer to 1%, although I just found those numbers in my ass.

[Andwit25]

I want to see romances in game.

 

If I understand correctly P.E. will feature a completely player created character, who has been more or less a blank slate until the game start. And in such a game a single predefined romance subplot with a predefined NPC simply does not work. In a game like Alpha Protocol or the Witcher, with their predefined characters, such restrictions make sense.

 

In a game that lets you create o toon from scratch, which/if any romance a player pursues should be left up for them, so options for all common tastes should be available, and feel about equally important.

 

Considering that romances increase the replay value of a game immensely (I played DA2 four times just so I could see all four romance arcs available to a male Hawke) while at the same time being rather cheap to make ,about the quarter the amount needed for a whole NPC if I recall correctly (and in an Infinite Engine game they are even cheaper since you need less animations/VO) they seem to be resources well spend.

 

The only things that I don´t want are forced romances or that deciding/being unable to complete a romance robs the player of a big percentage of a NPC´s interactions. (DA2 was actually pretty good in this regard no matter it´s many shortcomings)

[Meshugger]

Necromantic romance is the only solution.

[HereticSaint]

Necromantic romance is the only solution.

 

How do we go about this?

 

I'm hoping you have this all planned out already, right?

 

 

 

Right?

[Gorth]

Thread pruned a bit. Lets see if we can tone down the personal aggravations before I need to get my hands "dirty" and start singling out individuals for limits on posting capabilities?

[Monte Carlo]

Jesus just ban me already.

[kenup]

Why were my posts deleted? I'm not trolling(not in the ones in this thread at least), I swear!

Edited October 20, 2012 by kenup

[Meshugger]

Necromantic romance is the only solution.

 

How do we go about this?

 

I'm hoping you have this all planned out already, right?

 

 

 

Right?

 

See post #256