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

[Merin]

Don't you see? First someone asks him to present and clarify arguments- and he does- and then one of the first replies is "wall of text"? Don't you see how frustrating that is?

 

I've been skimming / skipping lots of very long posts (tad hypocritical of me, I admit freely) - which one are you referring to?

[Malcador]

You know, it worries me the reaction the forumites will have when (if?) we have confirmation one way or another on the inclusion/exclusion of player romances. It worries me because the radicals of the winning faction are going to feel validated by the authors and rub it in every time they can on the faces of the losing side, which will throw accusations of pandering and caving in to the pressure. That's the way it usually goes, anyway.

 

This never ends well. The losing section of fans will be angry and resentful for the duration of the game, which will put a damper on many, many discussions; it's going to be a long 18 months here. The behaviour of the winning section of fans will probably depend on what Obsidian ultimately decides, but I doubt it will lead to calm, reasoned stances. If no romances are included, the more militant anti-romancers might direct their energies to crusading against other topics (but they'll probably keep doing that anyway), and if romances are in, then the more militant pro-romancers might become overenthusiastic and start asking for the sun and the moon in terms of impact of the romances in the game, and growing to have overblown expectations just by entering a feedback loop between each other.

 

Or at least, that's what usually happens, in my experience. Just look at the Bioware forums: the romance requests have increasingly become bigger in scope. It's likely that this could happen here, too.

 

This is not an attempt to sway the discussion in any direction. It's just that I've followed closely this phenomenon on the BSN; it didn't end well there, and it could happen here too. Just voicing my worries, because I have doubts that either side will behave when this issue is settled.

 

Heh, pretty much. Although I suspect if there's much smug passive-aggressiveness as a result, more likely from Merin's lot than the other. I forget after all these threads, but what are the reasons people want NPCs to love them again ?

[Amentep]

You know, it worries me the reaction the forumites will have when (if?) we have confirmation one way or another on the inclusion/exclusion of player romances. It worries me because the radicals of the winning faction are going to feel validated by the authors and rub it in every time they can on the faces of the losing side, which will throw accusations of pandering and caving in to the pressure. That's the way it usually goes, anyway.

 

This never ends well. The losing section of fans will be angry and resentful for the duration of the game, which will put a damper on many, many discussions; it's going to be a long 18 months here. The behaviour of the winning section of fans will probably depend on what Obsidian ultimately decides, but I doubt it will lead to calm, reasoned stances. If no romances are included, the more militant anti-romancers might direct their energies to crusading against other topics (but they'll probably keep doing that anyway), and if romances are in, then the more militant pro-romancers might become overenthusiastic and start asking for the sun and the moon in terms of impact of the romances in the game, and growing to have overblown expectations just by entering a feedback loop between each other.

 

Or at least, that's what usually happens, in my experience. Just look at the Bioware forums: the romance requests have increasingly become bigger in scope. It's likely that this could happen here, too.

 

This is not an attempt to sway the discussion in any direction. It's just that I've followed closely this phenomenon on the BSN; it didn't end well there, and it could happen here too. Just voicing my worries, because I have doubts that either side will behave when this issue is settled.

 

Can't speak for others (well I could, but I'd probably be wrong) but I don't see anything "productive" in being angry over inclusion/lack of romances in the game. Sure I'm probably squarely in the pro-romance crowd, but ultimately while there are probably a few with strongly held beliefs on both sides who might feel vindicated/"butthurt" if romances are/are not included to their preference, I imagine most of the people here will be talking about the quality of the game (which would only involve romances if there ends up being any in the game).

Edited October 22, 2012 by Amentep

[Merin]

You know, it worries me the reaction the forumites will have when (if?) we have confirmation one way or another on the inclusion/exclusion of player romances. It worries me because the radicals of the winning faction are going to feel validated by the authors and rub it in every time they can on the faces of the losing side, which will throw accusations of pandering and caving in to the pressure. That's the way it usually goes, anyway.

 

This never ends well. The losing section of fans will be angry and resentful for the duration of the game, which will put a damper on many, many discussions; it's going to be a long 18 months here. The behaviour of the winning section of fans will probably depend on what Obsidian ultimately decides, but I doubt it will lead to calm, reasoned stances. If no romances are included, the more militant anti-romancers might direct their energies to crusading against other topics (but they'll probably keep doing that anyway), and if romances are in, then the more militant pro-romancers might become overenthusiastic and start asking for the sun and the moon in terms of impact of the romances in the game, and growing to have overblown expectations just by entering a feedback loop between each other.

 

Or at least, that's what usually happens, in my experience. Just look at the Bioware forums: the romance requests have increasingly become bigger in scope. It's likely that this could happen here, too.

 

This is not an attempt to sway the discussion in any direction. It's just that I've followed closely this phenomenon on the BSN; it didn't end well there, and it could happen here too. Just voicing my worries, because I have doubts that either side will behave when this issue is settled.

 

This isn't the ending of ME3, something that hundreds of thousands of people have (or can have) a great deal of passion and commitment to. This is a few weirdoes arguing about an obscure issue behind their computers.

 

I also don't think it'll be a large reaction either way.

 

The people who were going to "pull their money" because they didn't get exactly what they wanted already did, and have put up about as much a stink as they could.

 

I honestly believe, little to no romance or companion romances and romance as a part of the plot, the vast majority of people eager for this game will love it for the story and mechanics and not the amount of romance in there.

[Jasede]

I think one argument was realism, Malcador.

[Uomoz]

Don't you see? First someone asks him to present and clarify arguments- and he does- and then one of the first replies is "wall of text"? Don't you see how frustrating that is?

 

I've been skimming / skipping lots of very long posts (tad hypocritical of me, I admit freely) - which one are you referring to?

 

He's judging people reading 1\10 of a post.

 

 

 

teh intarnetz.

[Malcador]

I think one argument was realism, Malcador.

 

Hah, funny, but no I wanted a proper argument for them.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Malcador

[Jasede]

U: No, you insurmountable mound of passive aggression, I'm pointing out the ludicrousness that someone would ask some poster to clarify their arguments, only to then be met with another poster pointing out that they're never going to read them because their mind is already set on the matter.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Jasede

[Merin]

Don't you see? First someone asks him to present and clarify arguments- and he does- and then one of the first replies is "wall of text"? Don't you see how frustrating that is?

 

I've been skimming / skipping lots of very long posts (tad hypocritical of me, I admit freely) - which one are you referring to?

 

He's judging people reading 1\10 of a post.

 

teh intarnetz.

 

Ah. I personally dislike the ones who see several paragraphs making an argument about one point, say "Casablanca is a better film than Citizen Kane" as an example, and the interlocutor mines the argument to find the phrase "Don't amount to a hill of beans", grabs it out of context (it was quoting Casablanca), and says "See, Poster A says people who prefer Citizen Kane don't amount to a hill of beans, how insulting! mock outrage!"

 

But, sure, only reading the first or last sentence and not even bothering to read the rest is pretty similar.

 

I'm pointing out the ludicrousness that someone would ask some poster to clarify their arguments, only to then be met with another poster pointing out that they're never going to read them because their mind is already set on the matter.

 

Who is doing that?

Edited October 22, 2012 by Merin

[jarpie]

So you want a new round after the film-game debate? If you want serious debate with me like in film-game debate, sure - you need to be taken back to the ground from your high tower. I'll get you those three questions tomorrow when I'm not tired (it's almost past midnight here).

 

I actually love to debate - I haven't even began, boy.

 

The "film-game" thread wasn't a debate. The fact that a thread is allowed to exist that was just you wanting to have a public "private" discussion with me is quite strange - that should be a PM thing. And it began to be wall of text answering wall of text about something that, seriously, I can't imagine too many people will stay up at night wondering about "Geez, is the movie industry better at not just doing big AAA blockbusters than the game industry, the same, or worse?!?"

 

I still don't know what your point of making a thread for it was.

 

...

 

"High tower." Isn't that a mixed metaphor? Don't you mean I'm on a high horse, or an ivory tower?

 

....

 

I'd agree that you haven't begun to debate. Common ground.

 

....

 

"Boy." Am I supposed to be black or young? I'm not sure exactly how I'm meant to take this condescension. Help me so I can be properly flustered and outraged.

 

 

Well, pardon me for not getting american or english figures of speech correctly as I am not native speaker. I got a bit too snarky in that post but as I said it's late and I'm tired so apologies for that. I'm just gonna throw wall of text with actually solid and factual arguments, which you wont read since you cannot into long posts so what's the point?

 

Btw. did you even read my last post from that other thread?

[Amentep]

Heh, pretty much. Although I suspect if there's much smug passive-aggressiveness as a result, more likely from Merin's lot than the other. I forget after all these threads, but what are the reasons people want NPCs to love them again ?

 

Can't speak for others, but I want the main NPCs (usually joinable NPCs, but may not be exclusive to that) to be well realized. Full characters who are developed in interest and goals as much as a computer NPC can be (given time / resources / character and game scope). I want the PC to be able to interact with them and build some kind of relationship - if appropriate for the character this could include friendship, rivalry, indifference, romance, and/or many other types of relationships.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Amentep

[Uomoz]

Too bad that I didn't ask for any clarification.

 

Let's get back on topic now .

[Merin]

Well, pardon me for not getting american or english figures of speech correctly as I am not native speaker.

 

And I apologize for the snark. I hate snark, and really dislike when I get smarmy.

I also apologize for not taking into consideration that English (or American style) might not be your native language.

 

I got a bit too snarky in that post but as I said it's late and I'm tired so apologies for that. I'm just gonna throw wall of text with actually solid and factual arguments, which you wont read since you cannot into long posts so what's the point?

 

Can't we try one point at a time? Few people actually enjoy reading overly long posts and, honestly, evidence to the contrary, I don't like writing long posts where I have to answer so many points. Let's do one at a time.

 

We can be civil about it, and disagree. I wouldn't be trying to engage with you if I didn't think we could have rational discourse. I believe you are trying to really communicate, and I'd love to as well.

[Malcador]

Can't speak for others, but I want the main NPCs (usually joinable NPCs, but may not be exclusive to that) to be well realized. Full characters who are developed in interest and goals as much as a computer NPC can be (given time / resources). I want the PC to be able to interact with them and build some kind of relationship - if appropriate for the character this could include friendship, rivalry, indifference, romance, and/or many other types of relationships.

 

Ah, so you're along the lines of 'relationships' Avellone was mentioning being interested in exploring, a lot more interesting than NPCs being a) your buddy b) love interest, heh. Seems bizarre how dogged the interest in this is, with this Steven Segal-esque topic in the forum. Maybe we should just make a thread saying "Interpersonal relationships" where we can all....essentially say "Obsidian shouldn't screw up!" together.

[jarpie]

Well, pardon me for not getting american or english figures of speech correctly as I am not native speaker.

 

And I apologize for the snark. I hate snark, and really dislike when I get smarmy.

I also apologize for not taking into consideration that English (or American style) might not be your native language.

 

I got a bit too snarky in that post but as I said it's late and I'm tired so apologies for that. I'm just gonna throw wall of text with actually solid and factual arguments, which you wont read since you cannot into long posts so what's the point?

 

Can't we try one point at a time? Few people actually enjoy reading overly long posts and, honestly, evidence to the contrary, I don't like writing long posts where I have to answer so many points. Let's do one at a time.

 

We can be civil about it, and disagree. I wouldn't be trying to engage with you if I didn't think we could have rational discourse. I believe you are trying to really communicate, and I'd love to as well.

 

I can try but ever since of my education in business school I haven't been very good at using fewer words - they always gave us papers to write for one/two/etc pages when the actual content would've fitted into half of that so we had to stretch and fill them more and less artificially - made me a very good for writing something what needs to be long though but unfortunate side-effect was that I tend to do it on everything :D

 

Would be very useful for writing 'official' discourse with the businesses and what not but maybe not always as useful for forums >_>.

[Amentep]

Can't speak for others, but I want the main NPCs (usually joinable NPCs, but may not be exclusive to that) to be well realized. Full characters who are developed in interest and goals as much as a computer NPC can be (given time / resources). I want the PC to be able to interact with them and build some kind of relationship - if appropriate for the character this could include friendship, rivalry, indifference, romance, and/or many other types of relationships.

 

Ah, so you're along the lines of 'relationships' Avellone was mentioning being interested in exploring, a lot more interesting than NPCs being a) your buddy b) love interest, heh. Seems bizarre how dogged the interest in this is, with this Steven Segal-esque topic in the forum. Maybe we should just make a thread saying "Interpersonal relationships" where we can all....essentially say "Obsidian shouldn't screw up!" together.

 

I get the feeling - perhaps wrongly - that there are those at the polar extremes of "no relationships with NPCs just fighting, stealing or spell slinging" to those who think that "romance should always be an option with every NPC", though.

 

That's not really my feeling since I think the games and characters should dictate what relationships make sense.

[Living One]

 

You could say similar things about plenty of Bioware romances.They still wouldn't have any depth.She falls in love for TNO merely due to a juvenile crush.She might have been afraid for her fate but how does she deal with it?By throwing herself at some random dude's arms?Please.That might even give feminazis something to talk about.

 

Let's face it:Avellone is a good writer but romances aren't his forte(not that I blame him:the chances of doing something right are small when it's pretty much always been done poorly).

 

Even if I agreed Annah was the weak link (which I do in a limited sense), I wouldn't say Avellone is a weak romance writer. Fall-from-Grace, Brianna, and Visas Marr all met specifications.

Don't remember much the latter two(started and quit soon because I didn't like where things were going) so I'll concede you they might not suck even if I doubt.Grace still had the problem of wanting to follow a dude she just met...because...he's awesome?Her conflict with her own nature was nice but her ''motivations'' to follow and romance TNO were quite weak compared to what non-romanceable companions had.

 

Annah was basically a precursor to Morrigan. Morrigan enjoyed somewhat more depth because in additional to her contradictory impulses concerning friendship, family, and romance, she had esoteric goals and commitments that superseded them (the Old God and what it symbolized for the changing of times and her personal philosophy).

So now we are reading something into Morrigan's romance.The Old God didn't symbolize a damn.That was BW pretending to be deep while writing usubstancial stuff.As always.

Her specific contraddiction weren't there to add depth.They were there to ego stroke the player by making him feel the only special one able to look beyond her snarkiness and get her.Similar thing with Annah sadly.Depth my ass.

I think that saying Annah was motivated by a crush is a little extreme. Her surroundings and way of life were dangerous in any case. The Nameless One just brought some sense of purpose to the chaos.

Some more cheap ego-stroking right there.And why would she need TNO when she was previously portraied as a strong woman?Why does she become that spineless all of a sudden when she could just have been portraied as a character where strenghts and weaknesses were both as preminent(like,I dunno the rest of the companions.And guess wich other companion suffered a bit for the same problem even if to a minor extent?Yes,Grace).?(already answered that above).

 

And for today I'm done(almost midnight).

[jarpie]

Can't speak for others, but I want the main NPCs (usually joinable NPCs, but may not be exclusive to that) to be well realized. Full characters who are developed in interest and goals as much as a computer NPC can be (given time / resources). I want the PC to be able to interact with them and build some kind of relationship - if appropriate for the character this could include friendship, rivalry, indifference, romance, and/or many other types of relationships.

 

Ah, so you're along the lines of 'relationships' Avellone was mentioning being interested in exploring, a lot more interesting than NPCs being a) your buddy b) love interest, heh. Seems bizarre how dogged the interest in this is, with this Steven Segal-esque topic in the forum. Maybe we should just make a thread saying "Interpersonal relationships" where we can all....essentially say "Obsidian shouldn't screw up!" together.

 

I get the feeling - perhaps wrongly - that there are those at the polar extremes of "no relationships with NPCs just fighting, stealing or spell slinging" to those who think that "romance should always be an option with every NPC", though.

 

That's not really my feeling since I think the games and characters should dictate what relationships make sense.

 

I want relationships with my companions - I actually would -love to- have proper and well done "Brothers in Arms"-camaraderie, which has never been done - the difference with that and romances is that (and the point we've been making) is that romance = fewer people would enjoy that than the friendships.

[Lurky]

I shouldn't worry if I were you. It's likely going to be the low-key MotB romance approach which, while still not ideal (no romance) is something most could live with. Well, except for those who are looking for some fade-to-black scene with sampled moaning.

 

I'm not worried about us having an impact on the game, because I trust that Obsidian won't do that. My worries are about bitterness and gloating and overblown expectations tainting the forum discussions. Sure, the stakes are minor, but it's still a drag to have that around when reading and participating in the forums.

 

Then again, we are a minority, so maybe I shouldn't worry. After all, people got over the cooldown issue, right? But I don't know, if the people who care about the romances react in the BSN way, even a minority can still be pretty loud. Again, I'm not worried about having an impact in the game (because I trust that won't happen), but about having an impact in the forums.

 

Oh well. We'll see, I guess.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Lurky

[Malcador]

I get the feeling - perhaps wrongly - that there are those at the polar extremes of "no relationships with NPCs just fighting, stealing or spell slinging" to those who think that "romance should always be an option with every NPC", though.

 

That's not really my feeling since I think the games and characters should dictate what relationships make sense.

 

Don't think you're that far off with your assessment.

[Loranc]

@Loranc, thanks I am very curious now. Maybe he will add a romance with the monk at least just to shut us up now though :D

 

I can't find, it's buried somewhere beneath all the rubble on the forum. I know I read it and wish I could find it again. He was saying something a long the lines of the main character suffering and will continue to suffer throughout the story, having no real options to be in a romance with someone. I just wish for the life of me that I could find that quote, if I had a better memory... or maybe someone else remembers reading it on the forum and knows where it was.

[Merin]

I can try but ever since of my education in business school I haven't been very good at using fewer words - they always gave us papers to write for one/two/etc pages when the actual content would've fitted into half of that so we had to stretch and fill them more and less artificially - made me a very good for writing something what needs to be long though but unfortunate side-effect was that I tend to do it on everything :D

 

Would be very useful for writing 'official' discourse with the businesses and what not but maybe not always as useful for forums >_>.

 

I don't think anyone is accusing me of being terse, so I'll be understanding. And I'm sure we'll have responses longer than few sentences - just if you could start with a few points that were only a few sentences, so we can focus our dissertations on said points....

 

[evdk]

Why is this threat not dead yet?!

 

not a typo

[Malcador]

It's over the post limit (500 posts), no ?

 

Kill it!

[Blackstream]

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.

 

You'll note my statement didn't make any statements for or against either romances. The ironic part is I even agree with your statement that romances should fit the story and not be shoehorned in. But even more than that, I'm intrigued by what Chris said about mature relationships and the much broader spectrum that it covers, which also includes many shades of romances.

 

But that's not the point. The point is, we're deep into the second main thread of people effectively yelling the same points at each other over and over again refusing to budge on any issues. People are clearly heated about this matter, and talking this out is clearly not doing anyone any good. I didn't even say I'm in favor of blocking romance talk (after all, I'm doing it myself), but I did say I can see why it was done originally. Agree or not, this issue is wildfire and would probably take over this board completely if the mods let it.