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

[HereticSaint]

Hey guys, I found the best RPG ever!

 

Constructive post by constructive poster. Rallying support to your cause.

Edited October 20, 2012 by HereticSaint

[HereticSaint]

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.

No.

Yes.

 

No.

 

Yes.

[qloher]

Jasede

Ok, can you for example reason me with facts why going a friendship route with a companion is not a minigame while romance is? It would be interesting for me to hear.

Edited October 20, 2012 by qloher

[Jasede]

I think I'd rather get banned than argue with the likes of you; I'll leave it to people that have more patience with your ilk. To me it'd be like trying to argue with people that insist the sun doesn't emit any heat.

[qloher]

Well, empty words and no facts, just as expected.

[HereticSaint]

I think I'd rather get banned than argue with the likes of you; I'll leave it to people that have more patience with your ilk. To me it'd be like trying to argue with people that insist the sun doesn't emit any heat.

 

Yes, because specifically leaving out a basic and important human emotion and interaction explicitely because you dislike it is exactly the same as arguing the sun doesn't emit heat. Hyperbole away! I haven't seen a single intelligent, constructive post from you (You much rather post stupid images while being passive aggressive, aka: act like a total fool), hell I don't think I've seen a post from you that was more than two sentences of ADHD.

Edited October 20, 2012 by HereticSaint

[jarpie]

I'm starting to think that the romance of Project Eternity will be like Avellone's responses to the issue -- evasive. Not that that bothers me.

 

What could they possibly say?

 

Obsidian has gotten some of it's staunchest support over the years from die-hard old schoolers (like RPG Codex people) who are, in general, hostile to many "modernizations" of RPGs. It would be bad form (and bad for their brand) to directly say anything that would upset these people - and romance is clearly a bad thing to bring up. I mean, I'm betting Sawyer is at least mildly regretful of being too upfront about not doing Vancian verbatim.

 

And Obsidian has gotten a big boost of new forum goers thanks to PE. And, clearly, a swath of them are clamoring for romance with the companions (NOTE - again, for those making assumptions without checking, I'm not one of them) so to blatantly say "no, we aren't including that" would upset a great number of forum goers and cause either a defection or a potential storm of negativity.

 

Rock. Hard place.

 

Best play? Stay non-committal, do what you were planning on doing from the start, and let the chips fall where they may after people get to play the game.

 

Will some people still be upset? Sure. But some people will always be upset - let them be upset for the GAME, not for the concepts behind a game not even really started in development yet.

 

Why is it so bad opposing "modernizations", like quest compass and arrows above NPCs head "I HAVE A QUEST!" or opposing magic map markers like in Skyrim? Or what's so bad opposing small party sizes, opposing cooldowns like in MMOs. When they revealed how exactly the cooldown will work, the complaints quieted down because it wasn't idiotc MMO cooldown.

 

We from the RPGCodex have seen basicly entire genre been abducted, beaten, tortured, shot back to the head, dissected, pissed and shat on and then finally cremated in the last decade mostly because of so-called "modernizations" and appealing for lowest common denominator - we now have a chance of getting a grand rpg from one of the best RPG developers of all time without publishers meddling.

 

We are (sometimes) abrasive because we are passionate about our precious genre and we dont want the game compromised because small subset wants it to be like those other modern rpgs with melodramatic relationship dramas - and what I read from the MCA's interview, the game wont be like that, none of the Obsidian's games have been melodramatic but we still dont want to see the forums filled with people who demands that kind of romances and romances for every possiblity.

 

That being said I do trust Obsidian to make the best game they can and make it how they want it, and according to MCA's interview it'll be more like PS:T than BG1 and BG2 from the story point-of-view.

Edited October 20, 2012 by jarpie

[kenup]

But you couldn't have the romance part in MotB if the character hadn't already be designed with the entire concept in mind. Which means it flows organically from the characters conception. Which leads me to what I keep repeating over and over: if romantic love is part of a certain NPC we can maybe not trust Obsidian, but definitely can trust Avellone and Ziets to make it into something mature and respectful that isn't the immature ****fest or soppy happy hugging circlejerk that we don't want to see.

 

Which basically means: there's 0 reason to ask for or demand romance or to even talk about it here.

Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways.

 

As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less.

Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames.

To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary!

You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****.

 

And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc.

 

And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that.

[HereticSaint]

I'm starting to think that the romance of Project Eternity will be like Avellone's responses to the issue -- evasive. Not that that bothers me.

 

What could they possibly say?

 

Obsidian has gotten some of it's staunchest support over the years from die-hard old schoolers (like RPG Codex people) who are, in general, hostile to many "modernizations" of RPGs. It would be bad form (and bad for their brand) to directly say anything that would upset these people - and romance is clearly a bad thing to bring up. I mean, I'm betting Sawyer is at least mildly regretful of being too upfront about not doing Vancian verbatim.

 

And Obsidian has gotten a big boost of new forum goers thanks to PE. And, clearly, a swath of them are clamoring for romance with the companions (NOTE - again, for those making assumptions without checking, I'm not one of them) so to blatantly say "no, we aren't including that" would upset a great number of forum goers and cause either a defection or a potential storm of negativity.

 

Rock. Hard place.

 

Best play? Stay non-committal, do what you were planning on doing from the start, and let the chips fall where they may after people get to play the game.

 

Will some people still be upset? Sure. But some people will always be upset - let them be upset for the GAME, not for the concepts behind a game not even really started in development yet.

 

What is it so bad opposing "modernizations", like quest compass and arrows above NPCs head "I HAVE A QUEST!" or opposing magic map markers like in Skyrim? Or what's so bad opposing small party sizes, opposing cooldowns like in MMOs. When they revealed how exactly the cooldown will work, the complaints quieted down because it wasn't idiotc MMO cooldown.

 

We from the RPGCodex have seen basicly entire genre been abducted, beaten, tortured, shot back to the head, dissected, pissed and shat on and then finally cremated in the last decade mostly because of so-called "modernizations" and appealing for lowest common denominator - we now have a chance of getting a grand rpg from one of the best RPG developers of all time without publishers meddling.

 

We are (sometimes) abrasive because we are passionate about our precious genre and we dont want the game compromised because small subset wants it to be like those other modern rpgs with melodramatic relationship dramas - and what I read from the MCA's interview, the game wont be like that, none of the Obsidian's games have been melodramatic but we still dont want to see the forums filled with people who demands that kind of romances and romances for every possiblity.

 

That being said I do trust Obsidian to make the best game they can and make it how they want it, and according to MCA's interview it'll be more like PS:T than BG1 and BG2 from the story point-of-view.

 

There's been one, maybe two poeple who have explicitely asked for Bioware like romance interactions, that's it.

 

Everyone else from the, "romance side", again, for the umpteenth time hasn't said there has to be romance, but leaving it out just because, "you don't like it, don't think it can be done right, or for some god awful reason think it will be like Biowares romances" isn't a good reason. If they decide it doesn't fit the narrative, that's a good reason. However, that isn't how a lot of the, "anti-romance" side have been treating it, at least a majority of the time.

 

So to cover this again:

 

- Want romance if it makes sense to the narrative

- Don't want Bioware type romance

 

Not really all that complex. If there isn't romance though, it should make just as much sense as if there is romance, just like if the main character were to not have any friendships, or something akin to that, it should be explained.

[HereticSaint]

But you couldn't have the romance part in MotB if the character hadn't already be designed with the entire concept in mind. Which means it flows organically from the characters conception. Which leads me to what I keep repeating over and over: if romantic love is part of a certain NPC we can maybe not trust Obsidian, but definitely can trust Avellone and Ziets to make it into something mature and respectful that isn't the immature ****fest or soppy happy hugging circlejerk that we don't want to see.

 

Which basically means: there's 0 reason to ask for or demand romance or to even talk about it here.

Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways.

 

As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less.

Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames.

To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary!

You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****.

 

And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc.

 

And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that.

 

I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example

 

Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility.

 

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.

 

Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright.

Edited October 20, 2012 by HereticSaint

[jarpie]

But you couldn't have the romance part in MotB if the character hadn't already be designed with the entire concept in mind. Which means it flows organically from the characters conception. Which leads me to what I keep repeating over and over: if romantic love is part of a certain NPC we can maybe not trust Obsidian, but definitely can trust Avellone and Ziets to make it into something mature and respectful that isn't the immature ****fest or soppy happy hugging circlejerk that we don't want to see.

 

Which basically means: there's 0 reason to ask for or demand romance or to even talk about it here.

Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways.

 

As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less.

Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames.

To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary!

You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****.

 

And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc.

 

And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that.

 

I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example

 

Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility.

 

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.

 

Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright.

Jasede

Ok, can you for example reason me with facts why going a friendship route with a companion is not a minigame while romance is? It would be interesting for me to hear.

 

How about this, with romances you pretty much always have to choose the right responses or the romance cuts off but with friendships it doesnt. In BG2 you have praised for doing good romances you always have to choose the right response or romance is off.

[HereticSaint]

But you couldn't have the romance part in MotB if the character hadn't already be designed with the entire concept in mind. Which means it flows organically from the characters conception. Which leads me to what I keep repeating over and over: if romantic love is part of a certain NPC we can maybe not trust Obsidian, but definitely can trust Avellone and Ziets to make it into something mature and respectful that isn't the immature ****fest or soppy happy hugging circlejerk that we don't want to see.

 

Which basically means: there's 0 reason to ask for or demand romance or to even talk about it here.

Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways.

 

As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less.

Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames.

To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary!

You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****.

 

And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc.

 

And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that.

 

I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example

 

Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility.

 

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.

 

Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright.

Jasede

Ok, can you for example reason me with facts why going a friendship route with a companion is not a minigame while romance is? It would be interesting for me to hear.

 

How about this, with romances you pretty much always have to choose the right responses or the romance cuts off but with friendships it doesnt. In BG2 you have praised for doing good romances you always have to choose the right response or romance is off.

 

The problem is that isn't how real romances work, you don't say one wrong thing and then they always end. Friendships are the exact same way. If you say something stupid enough you could end either in a single sentence, that doesn't mean it's how it should -always- work.

Edited October 20, 2012 by HereticSaint

[qloher]

You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand.

Ok, I'm glad to see we are done with this unjust accusation.

But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game...

Don't we all?

...and are very aggressive about it.

Not more aggressive than the anti crowd.

All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****.

I can say exactly the same about your team.

And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies.

You still have not defined what "minigame" means and why is it a bad thing.

Check up my wrangle with Jasede for details. You like to say you have some good valid arguments, so show 'em to me.

You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able.

Nope.

What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler.

What you don't get is there are things called sub-plots, calling anything that is not directly tied up to the main quest a filler is silly.

Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved...

Did I ever argue that? I'm pretty sure I did not.

...and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc.

This I also never argued. Also the key word here is "in some way": romance can be crucial to the main plot, but doesn't necessary have to be so. It can be a subplot on it's own with ties to other plots.

And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that.

That are just lies.

Alistair's and Morrigan's romances from DAO were incorporated into the main plot tighter than any Obsidian romance up to date ever was. That is not saying it makes them automatically better solely throught the virtue of being so overarching plot-significant. Just stating the fact.

[Minttunator]

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.

 

You of all people accusing others of passive aggressive behaviour and ad hominem attacks is frankly hilarious.

 

HereticSaint, meet Strawman:

Here's my thing, I personally enjoy romance. I'm not saying it -HAS- to be in the game, I am saying that there shouldn't be this wall of people going, "OMG YOU WANT ROMANCE LOLOLOLOLOL BIOWARE LOLOLOLOL YOU FAP TO CARTOONS, LOLOLOLOL ETC". I'm saying they shouldn't leave it our BECAUSE of these people.

 

Because rape is cool:

But people are so conditioned to find rape such an abhorent crime that its even worse than death and cannibalism and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon, no matter how mature a world they want to develop.

 

Passive aggressive bullcrap:

The reason I even felt the urge to comment in this thread though was the absolute intolerance for any other opinion than their own that some people held such as kenup and evdk (and their seemingly free reign to indirectly flame towards and make condescending remarks towards other people).

 

Ad hominem:

I haven't seen a single intelligent, constructive post from you (You much rather post stupid images while being passive aggressive, aka: act like a total fool), hell I don't think I've seen a post from you that was more than two sentences of ADHD.

 

Well, at least you've edited this one by now:

4chan called. They want their forum idiot back.

 

Yeah, real intelligent posts that don't reek of self importance there, chief. Keep it up.

[qloher]

Jasede

Ok, can you for example reason me with facts why going a friendship route with a companion is not a minigame while romance is? It would be interesting for me to hear.

 

How about this, with romances you pretty much always have to choose the right responses or the romance cuts off but with friendships it doesnt.

That is not a problem of romance as an idea. That is just an example of some questionable game mechanics used to manage romances in past games. Things can be done differently this time.

In BG2 you have praised for doing good romances you always have to choose the right response or romance is off.

I'm pretty sure I personally have never prised BG2 romances simply because I never actually played BG2.

[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.

 

You of all people accusing others of passive aggressive behaviour and ad hominem attacks is frankly hilarious.

 

HereticSaint, meet Strawman:

Here's my thing, I personally enjoy romance. I'm not saying it -HAS- to be in the game, I am saying that there shouldn't be this wall of people going, "OMG YOU WANT ROMANCE LOLOLOLOLOL BIOWARE LOLOLOLOL YOU FAP TO CARTOONS, LOLOLOLOL ETC". I'm saying they shouldn't leave it our BECAUSE of these people.

 

Because rape is cool:

But people are so conditioned to find rape such an abhorent crime that its even worse than death and cannibalism and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon, no matter how mature a world they want to develop.

 

Passive aggressive bullcrap:

The reason I even felt the urge to comment in this thread though was the absolute intolerance for any other opinion than their own that some people held such as kenup and evdk (and their seemingly free reign to indirectly flame towards and make condescending remarks towards other people).

 

Ad hominem:

I haven't seen a single intelligent, constructive post from you (You much rather post stupid images while being passive aggressive, aka: act like a total fool), hell I don't think I've seen a post from you that was more than two sentences of ADHD.

 

Well, at least you've edited this one by now:

4chan called. They want their forum idiot back.

 

Yeah, real intelligent posts that don't reek of self importance there, chief. Keep it up.

 

I'm not going to debate with someone who takes things out of context and completely leaves out the posts I responded to. Thanks for the post though.

 

As an aside I would enjoy you doing the same for your side, make sure you get all the stupid images they post, how they talk about how they don't care if they get banned as long as they scare us off, call us, 'Biotards', infer we want to have sex with sock puppets, etc.

Edited October 20, 2012 by HereticSaint

[jarpie]

But you couldn't have the romance part in MotB if the character hadn't already be designed with the entire concept in mind. Which means it flows organically from the characters conception. Which leads me to what I keep repeating over and over: if romantic love is part of a certain NPC we can maybe not trust Obsidian, but definitely can trust Avellone and Ziets to make it into something mature and respectful that isn't the immature ****fest or soppy happy hugging circlejerk that we don't want to see.

 

Which basically means: there's 0 reason to ask for or demand romance or to even talk about it here.

Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways.

 

As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less.

Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames.

To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary!

You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****.

 

And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc.

 

And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that.

 

I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example

 

Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility.

 

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.

 

Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright.

 

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 have argued with the "Not all fiction must have romances" (which they still don't) and have asked why this specific game should, and haven't gotten any other arguments than "because we want it" or "it makes them deeper!", I have argued with the type of the crowd it brings here (which haven't been countered).

 

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 but I still would prefer not to have them.

 

When some of us have criticized Bioware writers, you run in for their defense so what we should think of that when you first say you dont want the romances they do and then defend them?

[jarpie]

But you couldn't have the romance part in MotB if the character hadn't already be designed with the entire concept in mind. Which means it flows organically from the characters conception. Which leads me to what I keep repeating over and over: if romantic love is part of a certain NPC we can maybe not trust Obsidian, but definitely can trust Avellone and Ziets to make it into something mature and respectful that isn't the immature ****fest or soppy happy hugging circlejerk that we don't want to see.

 

Which basically means: there's 0 reason to ask for or demand romance or to even talk about it here.

Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways.

 

As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less.

Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames.

To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary!

You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****.

 

And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc.

 

And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that.

 

I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example

 

Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility.

 

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.

 

Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright.

Jasede

Ok, can you for example reason me with facts why going a friendship route with a companion is not a minigame while romance is? It would be interesting for me to hear.

 

How about this, with romances you pretty much always have to choose the right responses or the romance cuts off but with friendships it doesnt. In BG2 you have praised for doing good romances you always have to choose the right response or romance is off.

 

The problem is that isn't how real romances work, you don't say one wrong thing and then they always end. Friendships are the exact same way. If you say something stupid enough you could end either in a single sentence, that doesn't mean it's how it should -always- work.

 

That's how romances WORK IN GAMES like in the Baldur's Gate 2 which romances you have praised so you made my point for me, thank you!

[kenup]

I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example

 

Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility.

 

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.

Go ahead and make that list. You'll just dub everything to what suits you.

 

romances open as a possibility.

And this here is the problem you miss. If someone was asking for a Love Story, I wouldn't like the idea, but they are not asking for add ons. They are not asking for endless possibilities.

 

This is what a plot involving romance may look like from afar:

 

"A dragon appeared and the hero killed the dragon to save his lover."

 

And here is what most of you want:

 

"A dragon appeared and the hero killed it. While on the journey to the dragon's lair, the hero had a chance to get involved in a romance with companion 1 or companion 2 or companion 3."

 

Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright.

And that is just an elaboration of the above. You group bioware and japanese visual novels together. And again Japanese visual novels, which involve romance, they have that weaved in the plot, not as minigames. Despite how perverted they might be, they have more cohesive writing than bioware. You would be served better by them, than by adding minigames in PE or any other game, that is not about personal fantasies coming true.

Edited October 20, 2012 by kenup

[HereticSaint]

But you couldn't have the romance part in MotB if the character hadn't already be designed with the entire concept in mind. Which means it flows organically from the characters conception. Which leads me to what I keep repeating over and over: if romantic love is part of a certain NPC we can maybe not trust Obsidian, but definitely can trust Avellone and Ziets to make it into something mature and respectful that isn't the immature ****fest or soppy happy hugging circlejerk that we don't want to see.

 

Which basically means: there's 0 reason to ask for or demand romance or to even talk about it here.

Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways.

 

As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less.

Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames.

To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary!

You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****.

 

And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc.

 

And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that.

 

I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example

 

Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility.

 

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.

 

Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright.

 

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 have argued with the "Not all fiction must have romances" (which they still don't) and have asked why this specific game should, and haven't gotten any other arguments than "because we want it" or "it makes them deeper!", I have argued with the type of the crowd it brings here (which haven't been countered).

 

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 but I still would prefer not to have them.

 

When some of us have criticized Bioware writers, you run in for their defense so what we should think of that when you first say you dont want the romances they do and then defend them?

 

Just because something brings a certain crowd doesn't mean it should be left out for that reason alone. That's an awful reason, just as bad as explicitely putting in a feature to draw in a crowd. I think romances could very well be worth the development time and resources necessary to make them, I also think that about a lot of other features, but those aren't being contested currently. Not all fiction needs romance, but not all fiction needs friendships, or combat, or anything else, again not a good reason.

 

As for Bioware, I haven't defended Bioware besides two examples:

 

A) I've said Dragon Age: Origins is a good game, which I believe, I enjoyed it. I'm not saying it's great, but I think it is good.

 

and

 

B) I think Dragon Age 2 is ages better than Dungeon Siege 3, I said that for very specific responses where people were saying, "Dragon Age 2 is the worst piece of garbage ever".

[HereticSaint]

I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example

 

Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility.

 

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.

Go ahead and make that list. You'll just dub everything to what suits you.

 

romances open as a possibility.

And this here is the problem you miss. If someone was asking for a Love Story, I wouldn't like the idea, but they are not asking for add ons. They are not asking for endless possibilities.

 

This is what a plot involving romance may look like from afar:

 

"A dragon appeared and the hero killed the dragon to save his lover."

 

And here is what most of you want:

 

"A dragon appeared and the hero killed it. While on the journey to the dragon's lair, the hero had a chance to get involved in a romance with companion 1 or companion 2 or companion 3."

 

Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright.

And that is just an elaboration of the above. You group bioware and japanese visual novels together. And again Japanese visual novels, which involve romance, they have that weaved in the plot, not as minigames.

 

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.

[Melhelix]

Huh. This all seems very different from the start of part one of this thread. Back then the focus was primarily on well written, personable relationships, and now it seems to have distilled and fermented into yes/no, good/evil absolutes. I find that interesting.

[HereticSaint]

Huh. This all seems very different from the start of part one of this thread. Back then the focus was primarily on well written, personable relationships, and now it seems to have distilled and fermented into yes/no, good/evil absolutes. I find that interesting.

 

Personally, I'm fine with whatever Obsidian decides, if it isn't at all impacted by the forums. Which I think will be how they go, but am I entirely sure? Not really.

 

I do think it's silly that there are people who go, "No, there absolutely must be no romances, no matter what." which, even if not meant has been said many times.

[jarpie]

But you couldn't have the romance part in MotB if the character hadn't already be designed with the entire concept in mind. Which means it flows organically from the characters conception. Which leads me to what I keep repeating over and over: if romantic love is part of a certain NPC we can maybe not trust Obsidian, but definitely can trust Avellone and Ziets to make it into something mature and respectful that isn't the immature ****fest or soppy happy hugging circlejerk that we don't want to see.

 

Which basically means: there's 0 reason to ask for or demand romance or to even talk about it here.

Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways.

 

As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less.

Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames.

To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary!

You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****.

 

And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc.

 

And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that.

 

I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example

 

Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility.

 

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.

 

Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright.

 

Did you go through my posts yet?

[HereticSaint]

But you couldn't have the romance part in MotB if the character hadn't already be designed with the entire concept in mind. Which means it flows organically from the characters conception. Which leads me to what I keep repeating over and over: if romantic love is part of a certain NPC we can maybe not trust Obsidian, but definitely can trust Avellone and Ziets to make it into something mature and respectful that isn't the immature ****fest or soppy happy hugging circlejerk that we don't want to see.

 

Which basically means: there's 0 reason to ask for or demand romance or to even talk about it here.

Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways.

 

As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less.

Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames.

To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary!

You don't demand, in the way you separate it from asking, because you are not in a position to demand. But that doesn't change the fact that you have things that you want to be in a game and are very aggressive about it. All you do is cry when we present evidence against you. When we give valid arguments all you do is dismiss us as naysayers and other bull****.

 

And yes all you want is minigames in order to indulge yours -and others'- romantic fantasies. You arguements are based on making x number of npcs romance-able, y styles of npcs romance-able and z number of possible sexual preference npcs to be romance-able. What you don't get is that romance, as well as other things, have to have some place in the plot. They are not filler, they can't be filler. Romantic love is an emotion, it must be used to advance the characters involved and through that affect the plot in some way not to give options for different sexual orientations, stimulations etc.

 

And you can't freaking tell us that you want PST or MotB romances, when romances there were weaved into the narrative and plot and they weren't there to indulge into anyone's fantasy. Then you support and defend bioware and their writers, when they have never done that.

 

I'd really enjoy a posting history of you, jarpie, Jasede, evdk and Living One, for example

 

Posted up against qloher, Kymriana, me and a few others who want romances open as a possibility.

 

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.

 

Also, stop telling me, and others what we do and do not want. I understand perfectly what I want, as an adult. I want a deep, complex interaction with characters based on romance, (not Bioware, not Japanese dating sim) if it doesn't fit, alright. If it isn't there because a bunch of people such as yourself yell loudly for no reason (acting a million times more entitled than us, by the way) then that isn't alright.

 

Did you go through my posts yet?

 

I don't really feel the need to. From what I remember, in the last thread we reached some vague agreement that romances could potentially be alright if done for the right reasons and done correctly, but then that all fell apart when the next thread started. When I put your name in there I was explicitely going, "This guy is always bad and unconstructive", I was merely trying to be more fair to both sides. I do think we can both be reasonable about the subject, that just isn't necessarily what happened for the last few pages before this...and maybe further back in the thread? I don't know.

 

If you mean more from a validity and refutement standpoint, half the posts I made in the last thread were never refuted, I don't exactly expect people to sift through them all. If I feel the need for a specific argument to be brought up again I'll repost it and you should do the same.