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

[Malcador]

Not sure if I do. What else do we have to talk about for 18 months of development?

 

Maybe just not talk at all ? That'd be an improvement, or at least make tracking things a little easier in this place.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Malcador

[Jasede]

If only we'd be so fortunate.

[jarpie]

How can I not discredit their opinion when they support bad writers, but discredit good ones? They don't even know what they ask for.

 

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me.

 

Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent.

What is subjective about good writing?

 

Apparently some people like James Joyce's ULYSSES.

 

I kid. Well kind of.

 

There's a technical aspect to writing and a creative aspect. The technical aspect is I'd agree objective to a large degree (and yet writers can subvert it to effect as well, so it's not always clear cut); the creative aspect is, however entirely subjective. At least that's how I see it.

 

"Romance" minigames are like killing Sheppard at the beginning of ME2, just as justification for the time jump, but never exploring the meaning of dying and being brought back to life.

 

That's because SHEPPARDS DEATH with respect to the plot is an element of the story, not necessarily the point of the story. That said it is an element of character since being brought back by CEREBUS effects the character interactions that Sheppard has. To me a romance could serve as a good element of defining character between PC/NPC or NPC/NPC but only if it fits the context of the story and fits the characters involved and fits the developers vision for the game in general.

It just moves the time forward! And it isn't an element of sheppard's character, because he doesn't care about it, nor does anyone else. You don't just ****ing kill the protagonist, only to bring him back to life minutes later. Sheppard is a brick. We don't see what he experienced, if anything, while dead. We don't see that traumatizing, hell lethal, experience. progress him as a character. And it doesn't matter to the plot either, the time jump was not needed, sheppard's death was not needed. Same with "romance" minigames; they don't serve anything.

 

'Anything' is extreme. They don't serve the main narrative.

 

Neither do side missions or the mega-dungeon.

 

How do you know? Do you have somekind of magical crystal ball? They will probably tie in sub-quests and mega-dungeon into the main narrative.

 

Even if so, tying something into the main narrative doesn't necessarily add to the narrative -- it uses the narrative to add interest to the side mission.

 

Or maybe you are mindreader! GET OUT OF MY HEAD!

[Morality Games]

Not sure if I do. What else do we have to talk about for 18 months of development?

 

Maybe just not talk at all ? That'd be an improvement, or at least make tracking things a little easier in this place.

 

Not talking sort of kills the point of running a forum. Obsidian could just run a blog if they wanted to make announcements.

[qloher]

Ok, 2-3 months for a companion from the ground. Romance is what, like 10% of all said character interactions at best. And that makes 6-9 days to write. While also writing something else simultaneously. Doesn't look all that expensive.

At worst it's 5% of all interactions if not less, which is even cheaper.

 

No. A romance would change/color the entire interaction with the character. It'd be a red thread running through everything if it's to be done with any measure of quality. Let MCA and Ziets use their own discretion. FFS.

It is possible, as it has been suggested in the previous topic, to use romantic overtones while keeping the general dialogue direction that was supposed to be there anyway. Like for some lines you can simply keep the same wording from the friendship route while adding "darling" in the end of the sentence or something similar. There is no need to wright 100% separate dialogues trees for romanced/unromanced states all the time. Those in love should not demonstratively sing each other serenades every time a dialog starts. That would be just silly.

Also romances are not even there from the start. Half of the game you are building a friendship and this rout should be there anyway. Only in the second half it may or may not grow to something bigger.

By the way, was NWN2 qualitative enough for your tastes?

[Merin]

Ultimas didn't have laser pistols after maybe first two or three parts. The point I was making is that one of The Most mature and serious RPGs ever made didn't have any romances, and I have been asking "Why should Project Eternity be one of the games to have romances." and only reply I've been getting is with the buzzwords "Becooz it makes dem deeper!", and I've been saying this since beginning: With very limited timetable and budget they can only do so much (or little) so they should keep the game as focused as possible.

 

Casablanca had romance, and is considered one of the best films ever made. Every film should have romance!

The Godfather is another film considered the best ever made. Every film should have gangsters!

Battlefield Earth is considered one of the worst films ever made. No film should have aliens!

 

It doesn't really work as a good argument to hold up one (game/book/movie) and say that everything afterward should follow it. It's one example, not definitive.

 

....

 

and I liked the spaceship and lasers in Ultima.

 

In any event, Ultima IV isn't a model for this game. Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment are the models for this game. Romance or no is not the focus of this game, nor is "virtues" nor "lack of a big bad." It's focus is - "the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate ... the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale ... the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment ... tactical real-time with pause system ... world map is dotted with unique locations and wilderness ripe for exploration and questing .... create your own character and collect companions along the way ... engage in dialogues that are deep, and offer many choices to determine the fate of you and your party … experience a story that explores mature themes and presents you with complex, difficult choices to shape how your story plays out."

 

A major hang-up in these discussions is what is meant by mature themes?

Any subject can be handled in a juvenile way. Mature themes, I believe, means they will treat subject matters with a more thoughtful, realistic and logical approach.

 

Romance CAN be a mature theme.... and that can happen without using another meaning of the word "mature" which tends to indicate "intended only for adult eyes - viewer discretion is advised."

 

I would argue that romance being dealt with in a mature manner is one of Obsidian's strong suits - Mask of the Betrayer a pointed example of this.

 

---

 

That aside, I'll mildly remind you (or tell you in case you missed it) that I'm not someone who's been saying that "romances make games deeper." Others have made that argument, I've not personally addressed it one way or the other - pretty sure I've not even quoted someone saying it before now.

[Jasede]

Only MotB and PS:T had acceptable "romances".

OC romances weren't good, but they were tolerable because they seemed to make fun of the player. Bishop pretty much rejects you, Casavir is a repressed piece of card-board, Elanee is a creepy mother-like stalker (horrifying) and so on.

 

The only thing that should serve as a model is MotB or PS:T. But that's a given in the first place; there was no need for any of these threads.

[Living One]

How can I not discredit their opinion when they support bad writers, but discredit good ones? They don't even know what they ask for.

 

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me.

 

Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent.

What is subjective about good writing?

 

Apparently some people like James Joyce's ULYSSES.

 

I kid. Well kind of.

 

There's a technical aspect to writing and a creative aspect. The technical aspect is I'd agree objective to a large degree (and yet writers can subvert it to effect as well, so it's not always clear cut); the creative aspect is, however entirely subjective. At least that's how I see it.

 

"Romance" minigames are like killing Sheppard at the beginning of ME2, just as justification for the time jump, but never exploring the meaning of dying and being brought back to life.

 

That's because SHEPPARDS DEATH with respect to the plot is an element of the story, not necessarily the point of the story. That said it is an element of character since being brought back by CEREBUS effects the character interactions that Sheppard has. To me a romance could serve as a good element of defining character between PC/NPC or NPC/NPC but only if it fits the context of the story and fits the characters involved and fits the developers vision for the game in general.

It just moves the time forward! And it isn't an element of sheppard's character, because he doesn't care about it, nor does anyone else. You don't just ****ing kill the protagonist, only to bring him back to life minutes later. Sheppard is a brick. We don't see what he experienced, if anything, while dead. We don't see that traumatizing, hell lethal, experience. progress him as a character. And it doesn't matter to the plot either, the time jump was not needed, sheppard's death was not needed. Same with "romance" minigames; they don't serve anything.

 

'Anything' is extreme. They don't serve the main narrative.

 

Neither do side missions or the mega-dungeon.

Side content is related to the exploration of the world,wich,and it has been stated,is a primary goal of the project.Therefore they are necessary,in wich form is another non-specified(mega dungeon aside)matter.Ofc speaking in specific terms content that enhances the rapresentation of the world/of the story takes precedence.

Arguing in favor of romances is arguing in favor a very specific matter that might/might not fit.A feature that,however, has the pecularity of having reached mediocrity at best(Grace)(if we are talking about romances in wich the players interacts).

[Morality Games]

How can I not discredit their opinion when they support bad writers, but discredit good ones? They don't even know what they ask for.

 

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me.

 

Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent.

What is subjective about good writing?

 

Apparently some people like James Joyce's ULYSSES.

 

I kid. Well kind of.

 

There's a technical aspect to writing and a creative aspect. The technical aspect is I'd agree objective to a large degree (and yet writers can subvert it to effect as well, so it's not always clear cut); the creative aspect is, however entirely subjective. At least that's how I see it.

 

"Romance" minigames are like killing Sheppard at the beginning of ME2, just as justification for the time jump, but never exploring the meaning of dying and being brought back to life.

 

That's because SHEPPARDS DEATH with respect to the plot is an element of the story, not necessarily the point of the story. That said it is an element of character since being brought back by CEREBUS effects the character interactions that Sheppard has. To me a romance could serve as a good element of defining character between PC/NPC or NPC/NPC but only if it fits the context of the story and fits the characters involved and fits the developers vision for the game in general.

It just moves the time forward! And it isn't an element of sheppard's character, because he doesn't care about it, nor does anyone else. You don't just ****ing kill the protagonist, only to bring him back to life minutes later. Sheppard is a brick. We don't see what he experienced, if anything, while dead. We don't see that traumatizing, hell lethal, experience. progress him as a character. And it doesn't matter to the plot either, the time jump was not needed, sheppard's death was not needed. Same with "romance" minigames; they don't serve anything.

 

'Anything' is extreme. They don't serve the main narrative.

 

Neither do side missions or the mega-dungeon.

Side content is related to the exploration of the world,wich,and it has been stated,is a primary goal of the project.Therefore they are necessary,in wich form is another non-specified(mega dungeon aside)matter.Ofc speaking in specific terms content that enhances the rapresentation of the world/of the story takes precedence.

Arguing in favor of romances is arguing in favor a very specific matter that might/might not fit.A feature that,however, has the pecularity of having reached mediocrity at best(Grace)(if we are talking about romances in wich the players interacts).

 

I wouldn't call the relationship with Grace 'mediocre' -- or even the one with Annah. Although the romances in Torment weren't exactly a state of being you were trying to achieve.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Morality Games

[qloher]

Only MotB and PS:T had acceptable "romances".

OC romances weren't good, but they were tolerable because they seemed to make fun of the player. Bishop pretty much rejects you, Casavir is a repressed piece of card-board, Elanee is a creepy mother-like stalker (horrifying) and so on.

 

The only thing that should serve as a model is MotB or PS:T. But that's a given in the first place; there was no need for any of these threads.

Ok now can you really say in MotB the amount of romance-specific dialogue took more that 10% of the overall dialogue space of romancable companions? Because I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

Edited October 19, 2012 by qloher

[kenup]

It just moves the time forward! And it isn't an element of sheppard's character, because he doesn't care about it, nor does anyone else. You don't just ****ing kill the protagonist, only to bring him back to life minutes later. Sheppard is a brick. We don't see what he experienced, if anything, while dead. We don't see that traumatizing, hell lethal, experience. progress him as a character. And it doesn't matter to the plot either, the time jump was not needed, sheppard's death was not needed. Same with "romance" minigames; they don't serve anything.

 

Look I think the opening to ME2 is stupid and I really dislike where they took the series. But - the fact that's he's brought back to life effect the ability to influence that Cerberus lady, it changes how the marine from the first game views you when you meet, how Tali views you, how Liara views you and it comes up in dialogue. Can't remember if Shepard comments much without prodding. So it does have some effect in how the game treats Shepard with respect to the other characters.

 

Now I won't disagree with you that most of the sex scenes (never tried them all) within the modern Bioware games exist as time jumps that "finalize" the romance relationship banter, with varying degrees of success in how those play out (and few having an in-game impact outside of postgame story outside of Morrigan). But I'm not (and I think many others aren't) arguing that romances need to have a culmination in sex either.

They look at you differently because you [are being railroaded to] work with TIM, nobody gives a **** about Sheppard's resurrection. The counsellors don't care and this should make them come back from the 180 they did between games. Your companions don't care, nobody asks you how you feel about it. The VS doesn't care, with Christian Ashley describing you as a god doesn't care about your ****ing resurrection. TIM doesn't care, he just wants you to follow orders. Sheppard doesn't care, apparently he cares more about a kid he met in an air duct.

 

And "romance" minigames are fanservice. It doesn't matter if they have a sex scene or not.

Edited October 19, 2012 by kenup

[jarpie]

Ultimas didn't have laser pistols after maybe first two or three parts. The point I was making is that one of The Most mature and serious RPGs ever made didn't have any romances, and I have been asking "Why should Project Eternity be one of the games to have romances." and only reply I've been getting is with the buzzwords "Becooz it makes dem deeper!", and I've been saying this since beginning: With very limited timetable and budget they can only do so much (or little) so they should keep the game as focused as possible.

 

Casablanca had romance, and is considered one of the best films ever made. Every film should have romance!

The Godfather is another film considered the best ever made. Every film should have gangsters!

Battlefield Earth is considered one of the worst films ever made. No film should have aliens!

 

It doesn't really work as a good argument to hold up one (game/book/movie) and say that everything afterward should follow it. It's one example, not definitive.

 

....

 

and I liked the spaceship and lasers in Ultima.

 

In any event, Ultima IV isn't a model for this game. Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment are the models for this game. Romance or no is not the focus of this game, nor is "virtues" nor "lack of a big bad." It's focus is - "the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate ... the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale ... the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment ... tactical real-time with pause system ... world map is dotted with unique locations and wilderness ripe for exploration and questing .... create your own character and collect companions along the way ... engage in dialogues that are deep, and offer many choices to determine the fate of you and your party … experience a story that explores mature themes and presents you with complex, difficult choices to shape how your story plays out."

 

A major hang-up in these discussions is what is meant by mature themes?

Any subject can be handled in a juvenile way. Mature themes, I believe, means they will treat subject matters with a more thoughtful, realistic and logical approach.

 

Romance CAN be a mature theme.... and that can happen without using another meaning of the word "mature" which tends to indicate "intended only for adult eyes - viewer discretion is advised."

 

I would argue that romance being dealt with in a mature manner is one of Obsidian's strong suits - Mask of the Betrayer a pointed example of this.

 

---

 

That aside, I'll mildly remind you (or tell you in case you missed it) that I'm not someone who's been saying that "romances make games deeper." Others have made that argument, I've not personally addressed it one way or the other - pretty sure I've not even quoted someone saying it before now.

 

So why do you then demand/want romances into this game?

 

This is what I wrote earlier:

As I have said before I wouldn't have problem with romances done like in previous Obsidian games or PS:T, I'd prefer game not to have romances at all but if Obsidian decides to put some in, I trust them to do them well and not the Bioware-style, but my problem is with the people who demands/wants romances in even if they wouldn't fit the story and/or characters. Adding romances in game just for the sake of it shouldn't be done, as with anything.

 

I also wouldn't want romances in because it tends to bring that certain type of people into the forums and start demanding that all companions should be romanceable, and every possible gender-combination put in, and certain style of romances.

Edited October 19, 2012 by jarpie

[Jasede]

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. It'll be there if it makes sense for the characters to have it, but chances are if it does it'll be tragic in some way or at the very least extremely low-key, as Avellone and Ziets have demonstrated in the past. This whole endless debate is pointless which is why the "don't make romance threads" thing was one of the best directives that were in place.

 

And it'll only flow from a character's conception if, and only if that particular expression of love is in line with the theme of the game and the world as, I can only repeat once more, we've seen Avellone and Ziets do before. I hate to say it, but just trust them and don't have these threads. It brings out the wrong kind of discussion.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Jasede

[Morality Games]

I wouldn't want romances in because it tends to bring that certain type of people into the forums and start demanding that all companions should be romanceable, and every possible gender-combination put in, and certain style of romances.

 

The irony being that wanting to alter the premise of the story to prevent people from making demands that alter the premise of the story is still people making demands that alter the premise of the story.

 

 

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. It'll be there if it makes sense for the characters to have it, but chances are if it does it'll be tragic in some way or at the very least extremely low-key, as Avellone and Ziets have demonstrated in the past. This whole endless debate is pointless which is why the "don't make romance threads" thing was one of the best directives that were in place.

 

That's less a reason to not talk about the feature and more a reason to not have certain attitudes about the feature.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Morality Games

[jarpie]

I wouldn't want romances in because it tends to bring that certain type of people into the forums and start demanding that all companions should be romanceable, and every possible gender-combination put in, and certain style of romances.

 

The irony being that wanting to alter the premise of the story to prevent people from make demands that alter the premise of the story is still people making demands that alter the premise of the story.

 

 

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. It'll be there if it makes sense for the characters to have it, but chances are if it does it'll be tragic in some way or at the very least extremely low-key, as Avellone and Ziets have demonstrated in the past. This whole endless debate is pointless which is why the "don't make romance threads" thing was one of the best directives that were in place.

 

That's less a reason to not talk about the feature and more a reason to not having certain attitudes about the feature.

 

We dont even know what is the premise of the story, we just know that the main character witnesses something big and crucial which sets up the story in motion so like Jasede said, why people are then demanding that romance is shoe-hoerned into the game and wont let the devs do their job writing the game.

 

We dont even know what it is about and what kind of story it'll be.

 

Unless you have mind reading powers or crystall ball.

[qloher]

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.

[Morality Games]

I wouldn't want romances in because it tends to bring that certain type of people into the forums and start demanding that all companions should be romanceable, and every possible gender-combination put in, and certain style of romances.

 

The irony being that wanting to alter the premise of the story to prevent people from make demands that alter the premise of the story is still people making demands that alter the premise of the story.

 

 

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. It'll be there if it makes sense for the characters to have it, but chances are if it does it'll be tragic in some way or at the very least extremely low-key, as Avellone and Ziets have demonstrated in the past. This whole endless debate is pointless which is why the "don't make romance threads" thing was one of the best directives that were in place.

 

That's less a reason to not talk about the feature and more a reason to not having certain attitudes about the feature.

 

We dont even know what is the premise of the story, we just know that the main character witnesses something big and crucial which sets up the story in motion so like Jasede said, why people are then demanding that romance is shoe-hoerned into the game and wont let the devs do their job writing the game.

 

We dont even know what it is about and what kind of story it'll be.

 

Unless you have mind reading powers or crystall ball.

 

However, I'm not the one who asserted that romance would, or would not be, part of the premise of the story. I was commenting on somebody else's assertion that people on the forum might try to compel Obsidian to design their games around the romance feature to the exclusion of other aspects of the narrative.

 

Not wanting romance to be part of the story, specifically because it might draw the attention of people who will insist that it overtake the story as a whole, is an equally extraneous influence on the premise of the story.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Morality Games

[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.

[Malcador]

Not talking sort of kills the point of running a forum. Obsidian could just run a blog if they wanted to make announcements.

 

Well if the only thing you want to post about is romances and relationships between PCs and NPCs, not much more to it then. Then again this forum is, at this stage, rather meaningless. Thinking of 18 months of retreaded conversations and ideas is also depressing, heh.

[Living One]

 

 

'Anything' is extreme. They don't serve the main narrative.

 

Neither do side missions or the mega-dungeon.

Side content is related to the exploration of the world,wich,and it has been stated,is a primary goal of the project.Therefore they are necessary,in wich form is another non-specified(mega dungeon aside)matter.Ofc speaking in specific terms content that enhances the rapresentation of the world/of the story takes precedence.

Arguing in favor of romances is arguing in favor a very specific matter that might/might not fit.A feature that,however, has the pecularity of having reached mediocrity at best(Grace)(if we are talking about romances in wich the players interacts).

 

I wouldn't call the relationship with Grace 'mediocre' -- or even the one with Annah. Although the romances in Torment weren't exactly a state of being you were trying to achieve.

Grace pretty much falls for TNO because...he's teh awesome?Her conflict is nice per se but there shouldn't have been an attempt to ty it to the typical quiz-style romance.

 

Annah however is outright ruined by that pos of a romance.She falls quickly for TNO and is even ready to follow him everywhere due to a juvenile crush.It's basically the same ego-stroking biowarian crap except for better dialogues.

And the attempt explore her torment( results were not quite as deep as with other companions)and ty it with the themes of the story didn't fix much because the romance had poor foundations to begin with.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Living One

[Morality Games]

Not talking sort of kills the point of running a forum. Obsidian could just run a blog if they wanted to make announcements.

 

Well if the only thing you want to post about is romances and relationships between PCs and NPCs, not much more to it then. Then again this forum is, at this stage, rather meaningless. Thinking of 18 months of retreaded conversations and ideas is also depressing, heh.

 

Its not all bad. Its a good opportunity to talk about the Infinity Engine games (and Obsidian and role-playing games in general) in one setting. If nothing else, it has people talking about Torment again.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Morality Games

[Merin]

That aside, I'll mildly remind you (or tell you in case you missed it) that I'm not someone who's been saying that "romances make games deeper." Others have made that argument, I've not personally addressed it one way or the other - pretty sure I've not even quoted someone saying it before now.

 

So why do you then demand/want romances into this game?

 

This is what I wrote earlier:

As I have said before I wouldn't have problem with romances done like in previous Obsidian games or PS:T, I'd prefer game not to have romances at all but if Obsidian decides to put some in, I trust them to do them well and not the Bioware-style, but my problem is with the people who demands/wants romances in even if they wouldn't fit the story and/or characters. Adding romances in game just for the sake of it shouldn't be done, as with anything.

 

I also wouldn't want romances in because it tends to bring that certain type of people into the forums and start demanding that all companions should be romanceable, and every possible gender-combination put in, and certain style of romances.

 

I don't demand anything be in this game. Not once. I've never demanded.

 

I'm not someone who even mused about pulling my pledge due to a feature being in or out of the game.

 

I'm not that guy.

 

As to why I'd want romance in the game, there is my post way at the beginning of this thread, which itself is a link to several threads ago, about what I'd like to see IF romance is included - which I'll leave only the summary part here for you -

 

To sum up - romance should be part of the story of the game at some level, with characters you meet having their own relationships, perhaps some motivations of more important NPCs be tied up to romantic feelings, and maybe even some non-companion NPCs having the optional plot thread of a romance. But I don't want it to be a major part of the game, unless that is Obsidian's design goals, and I'd rather it not be romance with companions.

 

But, more importantly, here's my first practical post on this subject on these forums about whether there should be romance in PE -

 

I really like romance in cRPGs, just like I like combat, dialog choices, deep stories, making my own party, having companions, being able to craft my own spells and items... the list is long.

 

I don't NEED any one particular item in that list. If one gets sacrificed (or many, usually) for the game's sake, I'm good with that if the game ends up better overall.

 

Romance isn't a must in an RPG for me, but so isn't combat or magic or loot or stats or... you get my point.

 

I'd like it, but if it doesn't fit the game's focus, don't shoe-horn it in.

- http://forums.obsidi...ost__p__1198014

Edited October 19, 2012 by Merin

[Malcador]

Its not all bad. Its a good opportunity to talk about the Infinity Engine games (and Obsidian and role-playing games in general) in one setting. If nothing else, it has people talking about Torment again.

 

Meh, I beg to differ, but it does at least make a good pen to keep you lot in, heh.

[Monte Carlo]

I demand rust monsters. And could people *please* stop quoting themselves. PLEASE.

 

For me it's the message board version of running sharp fingernails down a blackboard. If what you've said is that worthy, someone will run with the ball for you.

[Nonek]

By jingo i've got it, give everybody a sock puppet to romance. Make it upgradeable with different wigs, lipstick, eye shadow, designer stubble, tattoos and such. Then they can go to town on romancing their individualised true love. And the great thing is with a quick change of apparel it can be male, female or anywhere in between. Open a chat window so people can write down their own and the puppets responses when they're wooing it, hell they could even write twilight level fanfiction about Mr or Mrs Sock taking them in their strong woolen fingers.

 

You could even have the sock puppet kidnapped by a baddie, and held hostage with a pair of shears at its throat. Imagine the drama.