jarpie Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Chris Avellone in interview: 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. Interview in here: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-10-19-project-eternity-how-chris-avellone-blew-by-4-million-on-kickstarter 10
Jasede Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Truly, Chris is one of our few allies in this dark, dark world of modern RPGs. :salute: 1
kenup Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Chris Avellone in interview: 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. Interview in here: http://www.gamesindu...-on-kickstarter New interview, nice! Thanks for the link.
Shaz Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) (Hopefully this hasn't been posted elsewhere & I missed it) I just read a gamesindustry interview with Chris Avellone, and what he had to say made me really damn excited. This part is relevant to this discussion: Chris Avellone: There's been a lot of focus with companion mechanics in terms of like "how do I romance this person?" I'd like to think that there are other types of relationships that you can have with a companion, whether it's friendship, rivalry, hatred, or revenge. Romances end up being an easy target, but I think there's a lot more you can do with companion relationships. Romances are great, and yes I'm a sucker for 'em, but they're just one possible relationship. It's ALL aspects of the relationship system that I'm enticed by! Now I'm even more excited about getting to know the companions we'll have in PE. I want great friends! Rivals! ALL of it! EDIT: HAHA it looks like, in the way-too-long time I edited this over and over and over (trying to figure out how to link the massively long url but reduce it in size to fit better in my post, and none of the ways I'm accustomed to doing so worked here), someone else beat me to the punch Edited October 19, 2012 by Shaz 1
Monte Carlo Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 So, to wrap this up. Romance? Hell no, we're far too advanced for that ****. Amen, MCA, amen! 1
SunBroSolaire Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 So, to wrap this up. Romance? Hell no, we're far too advanced for that ****. Amen, MCA, amen! Well, to be fair he isn't saying no romance. I do like the idea of having romances, but if they're going a more subtle route with friendships and rivalries, that could be even better. It's definitely the road less traveled, at least if we're talking about relationship mechanics and not just authored narratives. As long as there are interesting, well written relationship dynamics between the pc and companions, I don't care about romances.
Monte Carlo Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 ^ Well, in the spirit of amity, I have always had a lot of time for the pro-romance people who come out with what you say here. Because I am in broad agreement, furthermore, everybody wins. A friendship between a hitherto incompatible race / class / culture might be more touching.
Merin Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 I think it is way to easy to read into that quote what you want to read into it. He said "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." Nowhere in that quote does he say "romances are bad" or "no romances in PE." He also doesn't say "romances are good" or "romances in PE." He is pointing out there's a lot of attnetion on companion mechanics for the purpose of "how to romance" them. Chris is saying there's more that can be done with companion relationship mechanics than just romance. Anything else you read from that is your own biases. It only empirically says that there are more possibilities than romance. In the context of the whole quote, he is trying to portray that Project Eternity will have more nuance than some other games, in regards to morality and relationships. That should make everyone happy - but not necessarily for whether romances are in the game or not. Reading comprehension. 3
Malcador Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Eh, that quote's not as conclusive as I'd liked. Does sort of label romances as the low hanging fruit of the whole companion relation idea - which is true in a way, people liking you to the point they'd be willing to jump your bones is pretty easy to make. Also, nice to see Merin's still being passive aggressive as always (but he's a coward so is ignoring this ) 1 Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Morality Games Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) I think it is way to easy to read into that quote what you want to read into it. He said "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." Nowhere in that quote does he say "romances are bad" or "no romances in PE." He also doesn't say "romances are good" or "romances in PE." He is pointing out there's a lot of attnetion on companion mechanics for the purpose of "how to romance" them. Chris is saying there's more that can be done with companion relationship mechanics than just romance. Anything else you read from that is your own biases. It only empirically says that there are more possibilities than romance. In the context of the whole quote, he is trying to portray that Project Eternity will have more nuance than some other games, in regards to morality and relationships. That should make everyone happy - but not necessarily for whether romances are in the game or not. Reading comprehension. We could already look forward to that in any case. Whether or not meaningful bonds would form among the party and the PC wasn't really at stake given the historical context of the company, the writers, and the Infinity Engine games. I'm starting to think that the romance of Project Eternity will be like Avellone's responses to the issue -- evasive. Not that that bothers me. Edited October 20, 2012 by Morality Games May Kickstarter be with you and all your stretch goals achieved.
Merin Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 I'm starting to think that the romance of Project Eternity will be like Avellone's responses to the issue -- evasive. Not that that bothers me. What could they possibly say? Obsidian has gotten some of it's staunchest support over the years from die-hard old schoolers (like RPG Codex people) who are, in general, hostile to many "modernizations" of RPGs. It would be bad form (and bad for their brand) to directly say anything that would upset these people - and romance is clearly a bad thing to bring up. I mean, I'm betting Sawyer is at least mildly regretful of being too upfront about not doing Vancian verbatim. And Obsidian has gotten a big boost of new forum goers thanks to PE. And, clearly, a swath of them are clamoring for romance with the companions (NOTE - again, for those making assumptions without checking, I'm not one of them) so to blatantly say "no, we aren't including that" would upset a great number of forum goers and cause either a defection or a potential storm of negativity. Rock. Hard place. Best play? Stay non-committal, do what you were planning on doing from the start, and let the chips fall where they may after people get to play the game. Will some people still be upset? Sure. But some people will always be upset - let them be upset for the GAME, not for the concepts behind a game not even really started in development yet. 1
Morality Games Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) I'm starting to think that the romance of Project Eternity will be like Avellone's responses to the issue -- evasive. Not that that bothers me. What could they possibly say? Obsidian has gotten some of it's staunchest support over the years from die-hard old schoolers (like RPG Codex people) who are, in general, hostile to many "modernizations" of RPGs. It would be bad form (and bad for their brand) to directly say anything that would upset these people - and romance is clearly a bad thing to bring up. I mean, I'm betting Sawyer is at least mildly regretful of being too upfront about not doing Vancian verbatim. And Obsidian has gotten a big boost of new forum goers thanks to PE. And, clearly, a swath of them are clamoring for romance with the companions (NOTE - again, for those making assumptions without checking, I'm not one of them) so to blatantly say "no, we aren't including that" would upset a great number of forum goers and cause either a defection or a potential storm of negativity. Rock. Hard place. Best play? Stay non-committal, do what you were planning on doing from the start, and let the chips fall where they may after people get to play the game. Will some people still be upset? Sure. But some people will always be upset - let them be upset for the GAME, not for the concepts behind a game not even really started in development yet. I think Avellone's response is motivated more by amusement than by worry. Enough of the story hasn't been composed to make a specific commitment or clarification as to the nature of romance in the companionship relationships, but the overall style of the Infinity Engine games requires meaningful bonds form among the party and between the party and the PC. If it winds up being something like PS:T or Kotor II, then romance won't feature in the same way as a Bioware game, but it won't be absent either. Edited October 20, 2012 by Morality Games May Kickstarter be with you and all your stretch goals achieved.
Gurkog Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Obsidian has gotten some of it's staunchest support over the years from die-hard old schoolers (like RPG Codex people) who are, in general, hostile to many "modernizations" of RPGs. It would be bad form (and bad for their brand) to directly say anything that would upset these people - and romance is clearly a bad thing to bring up. I mean, I'm betting Sawyer is at least mildly regretful of being too upfront about not doing Vancian verbatim. To call them hostile is like calling Stalin, Ghandi. Although, if the game had a squid-like race I bet they would be all for tentacle rape sex. Grandiose statements, cryptic warnings, blind fanboyisim and an opinion that leaves no room for argument and will never be dissuaded. Welcome to the forums, you'll go far in this place my boy, you'll go far! The people who are a part of the "Fallout Community" have been refined and distilled over time into glittering gems of hatred.
HereticSaint Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) 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. Alright, since "people" like yourself continue to make condescending, insulting posts towards others, I have a solution. You can help make sure that the writers make a well thought out, in depth story regarding how everyone in the Project Eternity world asexually reproduces as well as how that impacts the social tendencies of the various races among the world. Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense that one form of deep social interaction and specific emotions are completely absent from the game for no other reason than "because you don't like it" whereas all the other gambit of emotions, anger, sadness, determination, envy, lust, etc, are still there. Edited October 20, 2012 by HereticSaint
qloher Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 But you couldn't have the romance part in MotB if the character hadn't already be designed with the entire concept in mind. Which means it flows organically from the characters conception. Which leads me to what I keep repeating over and over: if romantic love is part of a certain NPC we can maybe not trust Obsidian, but definitely can trust Avellone and Ziets to make it into something mature and respectful that isn't the immature ****fest or soppy happy hugging circlejerk that we don't want to see. Which basically means: there's 0 reason to ask for or demand romance or to even talk about it here. Which equally means there is no reason to demand that there should be no romance at all in the game. See, it works both ways. As far as I know, no one from the pro-romance team here made any ultimate demands. We are voicing our preferences as we were asked to do by the developers themselves, no less. Really? What was with all those lists in the last thread then? Pro-romancers were asking for many options. One said he wanted possible romances with npcs you helped widow or raped. And another one straight up said that he wanted minigames. To ask and to demand are two different things. Elementary!
Jasede Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) Obsidian has gotten some of it's staunchest support over the years from die-hard old schoolers (like RPG Codex people) who are, in general, hostile to many "modernizations" of RPGs. It would be bad form (and bad for their brand) to directly say anything that would upset these people - and romance is clearly a bad thing to bring up. I mean, I'm betting Sawyer is at least mildly regretful of being too upfront about not doing Vancian verbatim. To call them hostile is like calling Stalin, Ghandi. Although, if the game had a squid-like race I bet they would be all for tentacle rape sex. The Codex is like Ravel or Kreia or the witches from Howl's Moving Castle or Spirited Away. Yes, we hate and have a dark streak but in truth we work for good: good RPGs. We want the best for Obsidian. Maybe our best isn't always your best but we've played RPGs from the ancient ones to the modern ones and we know we haven't gotten one like we used to in decades. This is our ray of hope on the horizon. We're here to help, even if we may seem like enemies our intentions aren't wicked, even if our methods may be. This is your chance to do what you've always wanted to do, Obsidian. We're behind you, even if it means bruising a couple of egos along the path or collecting a few warning points here and there. ... Now don't **** this up! Edited October 20, 2012 by Jasede
qloher Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 What also amazes me is the way one particular person is trying to diminish romances by calling them minigames. I'm sorry, but everything is a minigame in a Role Played Game. Dialogue minigames, quest minigames, combat minigames, leveling minigames, shopping minigames etc., etc. To say minigames are evil is basically to undermine the whole genre. 1
HereticSaint Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 What also amazes me is the way one particular person is trying to diminish romances by calling them minigames. I'm sorry, but everything is a minigame in a Role Played Game. Dialogue minigames, quest minigames, combat minigames, leveling minigames, shopping minigames etc., etc. To say minigames are evil is basically to undermine the whole genre. It's funny, because they are targetting romance specifically, then they yell Bioware as the reason it's bad. As if, somehow Bioware didn't have other emotions or social interactions in their games besides Romance. On top of that, you have this group of people who want it to be far secluded from the main plot and having any impact on the actual game. Then some of those exact same people (and just some of the anti-romance people in general) complain about it being, "a tacked on mini-game'... after that's what they asked for.
Jasede Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 What also amazes me is the way one particular person is trying to diminish romances by calling them minigames. I'm sorry, but everything is a minigame in a Role Played Game. Dialogue minigames, quest minigames, combat minigames, leveling minigames, shopping minigames etc., etc. To say minigames are evil is basically to undermine the whole genre. No.
qloher Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 What also amazes me is the way one particular person is trying to diminish romances by calling them minigames. I'm sorry, but everything is a minigame in a Role Played Game. Dialogue minigames, quest minigames, combat minigames, leveling minigames, shopping minigames etc., etc. To say minigames are evil is basically to undermine the whole genre. No. Yes.
jarpie Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 What also amazes me is the way one particular person is trying to diminish romances by calling them minigames. I'm sorry, but everything is a minigame in a Role Played Game. Dialogue minigames, quest minigames, combat minigames, leveling minigames, shopping minigames etc., etc. To say minigames are evil is basically to undermine the whole genre. No. Yes. No.
Jasede Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 The part where you claim that an RPG is a collection of mini-games? 6
Recommended Posts