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

[jarpie]

@Jarpie, well thank you. *awkward silence* Aaaand what part of that post was dealing with my arguments and statements ?

To take your arguments - well the ones I can see as arguments:

 

-

So I ask again since you brought it up, if writing romances would mean to disregard low-intelligence dialogue which they like to write for romances which they don't like to write, would you still want them to write them in and dropping something what they want to do?

First of all nobody said they hate writing romances. Secondly if ressorces really are your argument there is no way you can support something that takes this much more ressources than romances and is clearly optional as well even if they like writing it.. If you do not shoot against it, then it shows that your argument of ressources isn't that important to you.

 

Then what were you trying to say with this? "If you really worry about ressources in optional features go where a lot of ressources are needed - for example redoing whole dialog for low int or low charisma. probably 50 times more dialog affected, right?"

 

Low-intelligence dialogue actually adds to the whole game-experience from start to finish with all characters, story and the quests - unlike romances which only adds for the said companions if they are meant to be completely optional (it doesn't take anything else off from the game, such as anything from the quests, the story, the substories/-plots, interaction with other characters, interaction with other npcs etc. and wouldn't take any extra resources - the point which has been recountered before). Besides, people have asked low-intelligence dialogue a lot, and that's something what devs have said they love to do, devs also have said that they dislike to write romances.

 

Those were the points we have argued against romances and how they would take the unnecessary amount of the extra resources.

 

Alrighty then, let me broke this down for you:

 

- they have to plan it: sure they have to plan it just like any other kind of human relation it comes from the character of the npc if a romantic relation is something this person would tend to and if so under what circumstances. But that counts for every other thing the npc-pc-relation can include. If you want to make that npc argueing against your good deeds then u have to forsee that as well. How is that an argument again?

- it takes time and ressources: yes it does, like any other dialogue this also takes time. Like any npc dialogue, like main story dialogue, like low int and low charisma dialogue.

- It takes time and ressources because of .... : see above.

 

Those are different - arguing against you is an reaction from the companion against your action according to the personality they have created, the personality is already there - it's a given that certain types of characters would react to certain things. If they plan the romance route for the character, they have to write plan the whole new route for the said character.

 

Since it's pretty given that there will be friendship route if not for all, at least for vast majority of the companions, but if they add the romance to one companion, they have to plan and write that to be addentum for the the said character so they have have quite a bit more work to make both believable.

 

It's not just writing "couple optional lines for the companion", they also have to write completely new lines for the PC too, and make it seem believable.

 

There also would be lines for objecting those activities you gave which most probably would be unique for each branch, for romance, non-romance, rivalry etc, the characters should react to what you do depending on their relationship with the PC - so if there's both friendship route and romance route they would have to write double the lines.

 

There are of course branches in the dialogue trees which leads to different dialogue-parts but for every larger branch the amount of the written dialogue multiplies exponentially, for example (I'm throwing this out of the hat) there are twenty dialogue events/lines per every branch and when you add another one it multiplies with another twenty...and then another twenty etc.

 

So unless they add more lines per character which would increase the time and budget for the said companion they have to divide the lines between all the possible routes.

 

Why do you think devs havent put more than one or two routes tops for characters in RPGs, of if they do, their lines are almost copy-pasted for each route?

 

I also replied to low-int argument as unnecessary above.

Edited October 22, 2012 by jarpie

[Merin]

Yeah, sorry, reading comprehension is still failing me here. I sense some kind of dig, but I must be too slow to grasp it.

I think he's saying its slightly obvious how proud you seem of your own posts.

Ring a Ding!

 

Ah.

 

It was more of an attempt at playful banter with you, like saying "there's no need to get so upset over someone's post that you do three headbang emoticons and shout an exclamation of frustration in all caps..."

 

but, sure, I guess setting myself up for you to rip on me is more of what you wanted.

 

I'm sure you are proud of yourself. Well done. Being a jerk to people must be what you mean about "manning up."

 

[Uomoz]

@TwinkieGorilla that's why one can't argue on the internet. Post dissection at it's finest! Answers: Yes, Awkwardness, Not really, I'ts Sigil man but i guess you've been there a lot more then me, Because it was comparable to all the other dialogues.

 

@jarpie: Never gonna read that wall of text (it's not that I don't like reading chunks of text, but you know, it's just the forum ), but you're never gonna change my mind on this. I think that love between characters is doable, fun, unobstructive (if they make it so) and definitely not a minigame (unless they code it like that!)

[Blackstream]

I'm starting to see why romance conversation was originally banned in this forums, and also why Obisidan was so careful to not say yes or no when asked a million times.

[Malcador]

Ah.

 

It was more of an attempt at playful banter with you, like saying "there's no need to get so upset over someone's post that you do three headbang emoticons and shout an exclamation of frustration in all caps..."

 

but, sure, I guess setting myself up for you to rip on me is more of what you wanted.

 

I'm sure you are proud of yourself. Well done. Being a jerk to people must be what you mean about "manning up."

 

 

Ah, come on, stop being so soft, heh.

[TwinkieGorilla]

@TwinkieGorilla that's why one can't argue on the internet.

 

Actually it might have more to do with you not answering any of my questions.

[kenup]

Yeah, sorry, reading comprehension is still failing me here. I sense some kind of dig, but I must be too slow to grasp it.

I think he's saying its slightly obvious how proud you seem of your own posts.

Ring a Ding!

 

Ah.

 

It was more of an attempt at playful banter with you, like saying "there's no need to get so upset over someone's post that you do three headbang emoticons and shout an exclamation of frustration in all caps..."

 

but, sure, I guess setting myself up for you to rip on me is more of what you wanted.

 

I'm sure you are proud of yourself. Well done. Being a jerk to people must be what you mean about "manning up."

 

You do sound just as proud on this one.

:clap: Dude, you never argue a point. The only thing you do is point a finger and say "See they are jerks. Therefore romances.". And you say it all in a "White Knight"-ly manner as well. Do you think it's difficult to pick up on that? You still sound like you think you made the world a better place.... for romance minigames!

[Rink]

Low-intelligence dialogue actually adds to the whole game-experience from start to finish with all characters, story and the quests - unlike romances which only adds for the said companions if they are meant to be completely optional (it doesn't take anything else off from the game, such as anything from the quests, the story, the substories/-plots, interaction with other characters, interaction with other npcs etc. and wouldn't take any extra resources - the point which has been recountered before). Besides, people have asked low-intelligence dialogue a lot, and that's something what devs have said they love to do, devs also have said that they dislike to write romances.

 

Of course if you are right about the devs telling that they dislike to write romances then the whole discussion is futile, not because of ressources or anything but because there will not be any :D

You are correct, low int and low charisma dialogue will affect the whole game, but it is like romances in the way that it is optional (you don't have to play a character like that if you dont want to) and is even more redundant than romances because you have to redo all dialogue accordingly and you will never see both things in one playthrough (thus reducing content for people that play the game one time only). That's exactly why it costs so many ressources to do and romances compared to that are nothing in terms of ressources.

 

But what I wanted to say is: if you have a solid npc-pc interaction then it is strange not to implement romances. Because let's say you have Minsc in your party and you decide to take his hamster and put him into a microwave, then this character will because of your actions be very different to you in future, will he not? That will affect the dialogue as well, does it not? How is that different from someone that is different to you because he/she likes you? I think IF they want to make good companions then this kind of reactivity for your actions or dialogue-choices has to be there anyway and ressources for writing the dialogue have to be invested. Do you want to cut all reactivity of npcs? Or do you just have something against the romantic emotions but are fine with others?

 

... I love boo and no hamsters were harmed during the writing of this post. I promise.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Rink

[TwinkieGorilla]

the whole discussion is futile

 

Yes.

[Loranc]

@Jarpie, well thank you. *awkward silence* Aaaand what part of that post was dealing with my arguments and statements ?

To take your arguments - well the ones I can see as arguments:

- they have to plan it: sure they have to plan it just like any other kind of human relation it comes from the character of the npc if a romantic relation is something this person would tend to and if so under what circumstances. But that counts for every other thing the npc-pc-relation can include. If you want to make that npc argueing against your good deeds then u have to forsee that as well. How is that an argument again?

- it takes time and ressources: yes it does, like any other dialogue this also takes time. Like any npc dialogue, like main story dialogue, like low int and low charisma dialogue.

- It takes time and ressources because of .... : see above.

-

So I ask again since you brought it up, if writing romances would mean to disregard low-intelligence dialogue which they like to write for romances which they don't like to write, would you still want them to write them in and dropping something what they want to do?

First of all nobody said they hate writing romances. Secondly if ressorces really are your argument there is no way you can support something that takes this much more ressources than romances and is clearly optional as well even if they like writing it.. If you do not shoot against it, then it shows that your argument of ressources isn't that important to you.

 

Then what were you trying to say with this? "If you really worry about ressources in optional features go where a lot of ressources are needed - for example redoing whole dialog for low int or low charisma. probably 50 times more dialog affected, right?"

 

Low-intelligence dialogue actually adds to the whole game-experience from start to finish with all characters, story and the quests - unlike romances which only adds for the said companions if they are meant to be completely optional (it doesn't take anything else off from the game, such as anything from the quests, the story, the substories/-plots, interaction with other characters, interaction with other npcs etc. and wouldn't take any extra resources - the point which has been recountered before). Besides, people have asked low-intelligence dialogue a lot, and that's something what devs have said they love to do, devs also have said that they dislike to write romances.

 

Those were the points we have argued against romances and how they would take the unnecessary amount of the extra resources.

 

I actually hate the idea of low intelligence writing, even though I believe it should be in the game for the sake of making sense rp wise. The reason I hate it, is because I will never use it. I have never in my life and history of playing an rpg, made a character with under 10 intelligence. You get to thinking about the wasted hours it takes to implement this, the things they could of added instead. And I start to understand why people are so against adding romance into the game.

 

Coupled with the fact that it probably has never truly been handled well in the history of crpgs. (this statement was about romance and not low intelligence writing.)

 

I'm starting to see why romance conversation was originally banned in this forums, and also why Obisidan was so careful to not say yes or no when asked a million times.

 

So you're in favor of censorship due to people having strong opinions about a subject? Banning a topic just for the sake of not 'feeling' like dealing with it, is a bit childish to say the least. Obsidian needs to man up on this topic already, to assume at this point that they don't know if they have the 'budget' for it or not is ludicrous. They either need to say no or yes, and then this whole thread becomes less important.

 

I expect at the Obsidian office Chris is banging his head against the wall , there's probably even an indent by now. As I'm sure I read somewhere that he hates romances. It's also been stated that it won't fit the main pc, not the vision that Chris has of him anyway. So, if it won't fit the main pc all this talk about more dialogue and all this extra writing is pretty moot.

 

Unless what we're arguing is this 'Chris Avellone's vision of the Main Character is wrong and he should have 'my' vision instead', as harsh as that sounds, it is what it is. He specifically stated that the main PC would not be fit for a romance. Unless you're stating that it should be 'forced' into the game, most of these arguments and 'points' so to speak, are a waste of finger wiggling.

 

I'm all for romance, but it has to fit the story, and it must make sense. Seeing as the option for the main pc having a romance is out the door, are we really saying that we want it forced into the game? All these folks arguing for romance, is that where we're at now, that it should be forced into the game even though Chris stated that it doesn't fit the main PC and that he doesn't enjoy writing romance in general?

 

Of course it doesn't have to be the main PC, i'm all for side quest romance. Romance being a broad term and all, there's plenty of ways to implement it into the game. The most difficult way is to add it via the main pc, that does in fact require the most amount of work.

 

Are we starting a new topic? If so, please let me know. We'll call it the 'Chris Avellone's vision sucks, and we want him to envision us a new main pc.' Then we can get to debating that topic, which should be slightly more interesting than the current topic.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Loranc

[Merin]

Dude, you never argue a point.

 

Which point do you want me to address?

 

This one?

 

:banghead:

 

GOD DAMN IT!

 

You are just trolling right now.

 

Or this fine point?

 

@Merin Is that when you play epic music on the background?

 

How about this one?

 

I don't understand what you are getting at here.

Duh!

I mean do you play epic music on the background in order to feel you de-constructed my character or our arguments?

 

I fail to see what any of those have to do with the thread, but okay, I'll answer those points.

 

Hitting your head so many times will probably cause brain damage, you might want to stop.

 

While I don't believe in any god, I doubt one would want to curse someone who you just disagree with.

 

I don't think he was trolling, I think you are.

 

No. I don't play music when answer your posts. Or anyone's. Unless I happen to have music already playing in the background. It's not a thing for me. I don't know what music listening to has to do with my post trying to calm you with reassurances that what you fear isn't going to happen with Obsidian's PE.

 

----

 

Did my answering your "points" solve anything? Were they even really points to be answered?

 

 

The only thing you do is point a finger and say "See they are jerks. Therefore romances.".

 

Good straw man. My whole argument "for romances" is that there are "jerks on the internet." Well played logical fallacy - should get a few fellow mean-spirited "men" to guffaw heartedly and add their purposeful images and intelligent insults to the mix. Bolstering how right you are each and every step of the way with that kind of "point making."

 

 

And you say it all in a "White Knight"-ly manner as well. Do you think it's difficult to pick up on that? You still sound like you think you made the world a better place.... for romance minigames!

 

Ad hominems. The fallback of so many "good debaters " Somehow trying to insult me by calling me a "white knight" is supposed to, what, shame me into conceding? Enrage me into arguing the point that I'm not a white knight? Make other's who like targeting me for whatever personal fulfillment they get out of mocking me have another chuckle? The name-calling adds, well, what, exactly, to anything but your attempts at "manning up."

 

Is being a man insulting others and puffing your chest as if you are a tough guy? I'm not sure I'm learning the right lessons from you.

 

And another straw men. I've never argued for romance minigames. But, hey, what do facts matter for a good dig, right?

 

Duane Gish returns!

Edited October 22, 2012 by Merin

[Morality Games]

Are we seriously suggesting that people with low intelligence can't have romances...?

 

More importantly, I think people are missing the point of low intelligence. They are unvoiced player lines -- basically place holders -- edited in for laughs.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Morality Games

[jarpie]

Low-intelligence dialogue actually adds to the whole game-experience from start to finish with all characters, story and the quests - unlike romances which only adds for the said companions if they are meant to be completely optional (it doesn't take anything else off from the game, such as anything from the quests, the story, the substories/-plots, interaction with other characters, interaction with other npcs etc. and wouldn't take any extra resources - the point which has been recountered before). Besides, people have asked low-intelligence dialogue a lot, and that's something what devs have said they love to do, devs also have said that they dislike to write romances.

 

Of course if you are right about the devs telling that they dislike to write romances then the whole discussion is futile, not because of ressources or anything but because there will not be any :D

You are correct, low int and low charisma dialogue will affect the whole game, but it is like romances in the way that it is optional (you don't have to play a character like that if you dont want to) and is even more redundant than romances because you have to redo all dialogue accordingly and you will never see both things in one playthrough (thus reducing content for people that play the game one time only). That's exactly why it costs so many ressources to do and romances compared to that are nothing in terms of ressources.

 

Low-intelligence dialogue has been asked by a lot of people and devs actually -loves- to write low-intelligence dialogue, so would you want to force devs to drop something out of the game what they love to write just because you selfishly want romances romances in?

 

But what I wanted to say is: if you have a solid npc-pc interaction then it is strange not to implement romances. Because let's say you have Minsc in your party and you decide to take his hamster and put him into a microwave, then this character will because of your actions be very different to you in future, will he not? That will affect the dialogue as well, does it not? How is that different from someone that is different to you because he/she likes you? I think IF they want to make good companions then this kind of reactivity for your actions or dialogue-choices has to be there anyway and ressources for writing the dialogue have to be invested. Do you want to cut all reactivity of npcs? Or do you just have something against the romantic emotions but are fine with others?

 

... I love boo and no hamsters were harmed during the writing of this post. I promise.

 

You are mistaking reactivity with the different branches of the character routes. Minsc would react to that no matter your relationship is with him but the reaction would be different according to your relationship with him; here let me make simple diagram for you.

 

Hamster in microwave yes/no

/ Friendship friendship reaction angry/friend

/ friendship reaction not angry/friend

Minsc

\

\ Romance romance reaction

romance reaction angry/romance

romance reaction not angry/romance

 

Clear enough? So making romance route it's already double the dialogue sub-branches. Every branch they write for characters exponentially multiplies the dialogue needed for the character.

Edited October 22, 2012 by jarpie

[Merin]

This also for you if you really want to debate about romances:

http://forums.obsidi...40#entry1257224

http://forums.obsidi...60#entry1257453

http://forums.obsidi...80#entry1258212

http://forums.obsidi...80#entry1257519

http://forums.obsidi...80#entry1257566

http://forums.obsidi...00#entry1258255

 

Have fun reading and counter-arguing mine and others points from those with actual facts and solid arguments why romances wouldn't take much time, and how they could be well done with a small effort and time.

 

I expect counter arguments on all the points I've give in those posts. Enjoy!

 

I don't really want to argue that romances won't take much time or be done with small effort - never been my point.

 

But those links are quite full of a lot of things. If you wouldn't mind, can you provide some questions or points, enumerated, to be talked about?

 

Like three - can you give three points, like a sentence or two each, for starting points, and then I'll engage? It'll be less messy and easier to read.

[Morality Games]

Low-intelligence dialogue has been asked by a lot of people and devs actually -loves- to write low-intelligence dialogue, so would you want to force devs to drop something out of the game what they love to write just because you selfishly want romances romances in?

 

I think we need a bit more reality here.

 

Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again?

[jarpie]

Low-intelligence dialogue has been asked by a lot of people and devs actually -loves- to write low-intelligence dialogue, so would you want to force devs to drop something out of the game what they love to write just because you selfishly want romances romances in?

 

I think we need a bit more reality here.

 

Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again?

 

He brought up the low-intelligence dialogue and how it could be removed from the game and impliying that romances could be written on instead.

[Morality Games]

Low-intelligence dialogue has been asked by a lot of people and devs actually -loves- to write low-intelligence dialogue, so would you want to force devs to drop something out of the game what they love to write just because you selfishly want romances romances in?

 

I think we need a bit more reality here.

 

Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again?

 

He brought up the low-intelligence dialogue and how it could be removed from the game and impliying that romances could be written on instead.

 

... why?

Edited October 22, 2012 by Morality Games

[Merin]

Low-intelligence dialogue has been asked by a lot of people and devs actually -loves- to write low-intelligence dialogue, so would you want to force devs to drop something out of the game what they love to write just because you selfishly want romances romances in?

 

I think we need a bit more reality here.

 

Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again?

 

They aren't. I think the comparison is being made because both are dialog focused additions to the game that not every player will access. There are players who don't want to have romance in the game, for whatever reason. There are players who never play low intelligence characters, either. So both of those are relatively similar examples of text-only parts of a game that are for a limited percentage of the audience...

 

so from that comes the jump that one could lead to the elimination of the other, if it comes down to limited writing resources.

 

That's the range of the debate, at least as I see it.

[Rink]

@Loranc I share your view about low intelligence writing, because usually you have to forfeit too much if you want to play such a character and then have to search the changes, because often it isn't the whole dialogue that is changed but only bits and pieces.

I still think romances can be handled well and I would consider the P:T-"romances" (if you want to call them that) to be exactly that Also since many will not really call them romances at all, maybe there is a place for something similar in the game, who knows :D

 

any sources where was said what you quoted here, anyone?

...As I'm sure I read somewhere that he hates romances.

It's also been stated that it won't fit the main pc, not the vision that Chris has of him anyway.

 

Because I am sure someone would have rubbed that in my face pages ago :D

 

@Jarpie

No I did say if you take your "ressources"-argument seriously, then you would shoot against other features than romances, like for example the low-int-dialogues.

 

My diagram would look like this, so for me both reactions are with emotions to what you did. For me romances can be exactly that.

 

Minsc:

Hamster in microwave yes --> Friendship reaction angry --> dialogue accordingly

Hamster in microwave no --> Friendship reaction happy --> dialogue accordingly

 

NPC2:

Comfort when sad yes --> Friendship reaction affection --> dialogue accordingly (possible romance much later)

Comfort when sad no --> Friendship reaction distant --> dialogue accordingly

Edited October 22, 2012 by Rink

[Morality Games]

Low-intelligence dialogue has been asked by a lot of people and devs actually -loves- to write low-intelligence dialogue, so would you want to force devs to drop something out of the game what they love to write just because you selfishly want romances romances in?

 

I think we need a bit more reality here.

 

Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again?

 

They aren't. I think the comparison is being made because both are dialog focused additions to the game that not every player will access. There are players who don't want to have romance in the game, for whatever reason. There are players who never play low intelligence characters, either. So both of those are relatively similar examples of text-only parts of a game that are for a limited percentage of the audience...

 

so from that comes the jump that one could lead to the elimination of the other, if it comes down to limited writing resources.

 

That's the range of the debate, at least as I see it.

 

There are no limited writing resources. They could have had both romances and low intelligence dialogue at 1.1 million.

 

The entire idea is a myth.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Morality Games

[jarpie]

Low-intelligence dialogue has been asked by a lot of people and devs actually -loves- to write low-intelligence dialogue, so would you want to force devs to drop something out of the game what they love to write just because you selfishly want romances romances in?

 

I think we need a bit more reality here.

 

Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again?

 

He brought up the low-intelligence dialogue and how it could be removed from the game and impliying that romances could be written on instead.

 

... why?

 

Here:

Of course if you are right about the devs telling that they dislike to write romances then the whole discussion is futile, not because of ressources or anything but because there will not be any :D

You are correct, low int and low charisma dialogue will affect the whole game, but it is like romances in the way that it is optional (you don't have to play a character like that if you dont want to) and is even more redundant than romances because you have to redo all dialogue accordingly and you will never see both things in one playthrough (thus reducing content for people that play the game one time only). That's exactly why it costs so many ressources to do and romances compared to that are nothing in terms of ressources.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61768-unofficial-pe-relationshipromance-thread-pt2/page__st__480?do=findComment&comment=1258833

[kenup]

-strawman-

[jarpie]

You people are un-fooking-believable or just trolling.

 

Rink, I asked from you:

Low-intelligence dialogue has been asked by a lot of people and devs actually -loves- to write low-intelligence dialogue, so would you want to force devs to drop something out of the game what they love to write just because you selfishly want romances romances in?

 

So, would you want to force devs do that?

[Morality Games]

Low-intelligence dialogue has been asked by a lot of people and devs actually -loves- to write low-intelligence dialogue, so would you want to force devs to drop something out of the game what they love to write just because you selfishly want romances romances in?

 

I think we need a bit more reality here.

 

Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again?

 

He brought up the low-intelligence dialogue and how it could be removed from the game and impliying that romances could be written on instead.

 

... why?

 

Here:

Of course if you are right about the devs telling that they dislike to write romances then the whole discussion is futile, not because of ressources or anything but because there will not be any :D

You are correct, low int and low charisma dialogue will affect the whole game, but it is like romances in the way that it is optional (you don't have to play a character like that if you dont want to) and is even more redundant than romances because you have to redo all dialogue accordingly and you will never see both things in one playthrough (thus reducing content for people that play the game one time only). That's exactly why it costs so many ressources to do and romances compared to that are nothing in terms of ressources.

 

http://forums.obsidi...80#entry1258833

 

Broadly speaking there are two ways you can approach low intelligence dialogue -- you can edit player lines to make them sound like a stereotype of a mentally handicapped person (which generated some controversy in its time) or it doesn't affect speech patterns but peppers the dialogue with opportunities to say or do unintelligent things (in the case of PS:T, kissing a succubus).

 

You people are un-fooking-believable or just trolling.

 

Rink, I asked from you:

Low-intelligence dialogue has been asked by a lot of people and devs actually -loves- to write low-intelligence dialogue, so would you want to force devs to drop something out of the game what they love to write just because you selfishly want romances romances in?

 

So, would you want to force devs do that?

 

The whole idea is a false dichotomy. There are no limited writing resources.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Morality Games

[jarpie]

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.

 

This was in the very recent interview with Chris Avellone - Does that look like they're gonna put romances in?