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

[Amentep]

I'm aware of this. I've been following this thread for about... 3 of them now. (This being the third.) I acknowledge that I don't know from beginning to end the rise and fall of the flow of discourse around here. That said, his statement was not true. Several people in this thread alone have brought up reasons. Also, when earlier someone decided that they were the maligned party because they were told to maybe try to be civil and were thus the only ones 'not being respected' because they were 'evil'.... it's just laughable.

 

Oh I understand, I just kind of worried the discussion is getting a bit heated and trying to be fair to all sides. Actually there were several good pages in the back of the last thread where some good discussions were going on I thought and too often I think we all get caught up in storming the hill and start going off on the other poster and not just what they're saying.

 

Or something. And to be fair (again, because I can't help myself) one person's reason may not meet the justification threshold of another.

 

That said I haven't seen a sign of the anti-crown being disrespected; I know Monte Carlo got some posts cut but not having seen the content I certainly can't speak to the justification of such actions.

[kenup]

Also, a MAJORITY of the people I have seen comment in the last day or two have simply said "I hope they do have romance in." and the response has been to attack that opinion by saying 'NO ROMANCE BIOWARE IS EVIL' which then diverts the conversation to said company and said writers. The ones who are technically guilty of bringing Bioware into this are the ones who are screaming that they don't want it anywhere near their game. Who brought up a BW writer? It wasn't the people commenting on romance.

 

To be fair, while this time around as I recall it was an "anti" poster who brought up Bioware, since this topic has a long history in the PE forums (can a month be long enough for a long history?) some posters who are "pro" have started by listing Bioware romances from the ME / DA series, so its not uncommon for BIO to get pulled in from either side in these discussions.

 

I think that there have been knee jerk reactions from both sides as well, so not every post has been part of a solid discourse on the pros / cons of romance as a type of between party (or outside party) relationship.

 

I'm aware of this. I've been following this thread for about... 3 of them now. (This being the third.) I acknowledge that I don't know from beginning to end the rise and fall of the flow of discourse around here. That said, his statement was not true. Several people in this thread alone have brought up reasons. Also, when earlier someone decided that they were the maligned party because they were told to maybe try to be civil and were thus the only ones 'not being respected' because they were 'evil'.... it's just laughable.

What reasons? All pro-mancers say repeatedly is "maturity and depth". Do they even know what those words mean?

 

 

You want multiple pc-npc romances for all sexual orientations and turn ons, may I ask why? Besides fan service, I don't see any reason for that.

You want them as extras, when what you don't understand is that we are talking about a story not a simulator. There can be good stories with romance, but romance to whatever extent is used as a literary and plot device. They are not DLC content and they are not there to please every sexuality. Gay or Straight, a good story doesn't have to try and please everyone, for them to like it. And after wanting all these, you say that you don't want bioware "romance" minigames? You bring up romances from PST, KotOR 2 and other OE games but when we say why those were good -because they were plot devices rather than fanservice- and bioware's "romance" minigames suck in comparison, you defend bioware .

Edited October 19, 2012 by kenup

[FlintlockJazz]

I'd also make an argument that as a writer, its part of your job to understand the media you're working for and making your writing fit the medium. This is why novelists don't always make the best choice to script the movie based on their book; you have to be able to shift gears and understand how the medium you're writing for works.

 

To pull this back to the topic of romance, I think this illustrates the way romances are perceived as a problem; it has to do with different views of what the medium is capable of and how it can (or fails to) handle certain elements of drama (then filtered through the scope of the game and its design and then lastly just personal preferences).

 

Aye, it's why I think I don't enjoy games where they have brought in a big Hollywood scriptwriter to write it, they may be great at writing films but they lack the experience of dealing with games. Same reason why I think developers trying to make their games into an 'cinematic experience' is bad, as they end up losing the 'game' in their attempt to make it more like a film.

 

Personally, I don't think we'll get a RPG romance 'done right' until someone makes a game based around it so that they can figure out just how to make it work in a game environment. I don't mean one of those dating sims, I mean an actual quality game, with the romance refined into an actual game, at which point developers will have something to 'work' from. Until then, it's not going to be developed to the extent that it needs to rise above controversial minigame. Nothing wrong with that, but people will continue to argue about it.

 

Okay, I can agree with most of that. With at least the minor caveat that most games allow you to easily skip dialog and cut scenes to get right back to fighting.

 

I don't think a "skip combat" button would be bad in certain games (wouldn't many here want a "skip romance" button?) but it would have to be a feature that takes into consideration many factors, and for some games it would be more hassle than it's worth.

 

Let me give you a good example of this, however -

 

Medieval Total War. A combo turn-based and real-time strategy game series. Those games you can choose to just play the big strategy and not the battle tactics. Every time a combat happens you can let the computer resolve it by the click of a button.

 

Another example, part way at least. Dawn of War: Dark Crusade and Dawn of War: Soulstorm. They are RTS's. When enemies attack your territories you control you can have the computer auto-resolve the battle.

 

Now those aren't cRPG's, yes, but the concept can be the same. In reaching a broader audience (and a different section than what overlaps the FPS crowd) role-playing games have attracted players who are more interested in story and dialog than in fighting. You have to acknowledge it, even if you won't "accept" it (though you should accept it.) And with that crowd come people who want the interactive story and the creation of their character but NOT the endless waves of combat encounters.

 

It's a valid viewpoint. A bit different than traditional, perhaps...

but game genres evolve over time.

 

cRPG's used to be text-based, build your entire party, dungeon crawls. There didn't used to be recruitable companions, and story didn't use to be a focus. Choice depended on what classes, spells and weapons you chose and that was it. And combat was turn-based.

There was resistance to the inclusion of pre-made characters. There was resistance to story-focus, dialog options, and choices in the game for different results. You got real time (with pause option) combat.

But most people here love IE games. And almost all those changes are key to IE games.

But there are still people who'd prefer turn-based. Dungeon crawling. Making your own party. Less story and more combat and dungeon crawling.

 

And now there are cRPG players who want LESS combat and MORE story.

 

Different strokes.

 

Actually you can't skip the dialog as you still need to make the choices whether you skipped what was being said or not. It would be like skipping the graphical animation of PC attacking while still making the attack, you still have to engage in the dialog 'combat', make a choice and have the stats needed to make it work if necessary, if people can pick randomly without caring what happens in the dialog then it is a problem with the dialog being meaningless which is the problem I've been refering to.

 

I mentioned specifically RPGs because they are the games that I feel need all the bits to match up, so those games from other genres are not really applicable in this case. Total War only cares whether you win or lose the battle, not whether you used Blood magic or turned into the Slayer in front of people or tried to get the paladin in the group to murder children, and so it can be left up to the computer to automatically decide for you without any affect. This is why RPGs are so different and difficult to make compared to many other game types, and why the influence of other game types is a source of worry for some RPG fans.

 

Those dungeon hacks you mention are what they are: dungeon hacks, crawls through dungeons. They are not really full RPGs, but more symbolic of the transitional stage tabletop RPGs went through on their way from being tabletop wargames to actual RPGs, and as others have said there were other games at the time more representative of RPGs.

 

No one is arguing against having more talking and less combat, that is a bit of a strawman to be honest. There can be RPGs that have very little combat in or which allow the player to avoid combat (if they are not interested in combat then they should be looking at finding other ways and achieving their goal after all), the point is that an RPG is pretty much an attempt at simulating a world and it's reactions to your actions and choices and to tell a story in, and if you can just skip certain parts of it then what it is saying is that those parts are irrelevant, something a good RPG should not be doing in my mind.

Edited October 19, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[Dangermouth]

I'm sure they'll write things in. Personally I think you should fall for the nobody who ends up being killed by the King's Guard or end up a spinster/widower at 20. Will give you more time to dedicate to the arcane arts/swordswinging and less time getting fat and raising unruly children (unless they get eaten by dragons - all kids should be dragon-food).

[Monte Carlo]

I think we should have a serious and good-natured forum challenge. Hear me out, I am entirely serious.

 

Team one is the pro-romance forumites.

 

Team two, by a process of cunning elimination, are the winners anti-romance forumites.

 

We both write a synopsis of a romance arc and come back and compare notes. Face it, t'would be comedy gold and some important learning points (guffaws) might drop out of it, like golden crap from a gilded goose, fed on the foie gras of luuuurvve.

[Takamori]

[FlintlockJazz]

Wait, didn't even LotR have a few romances in it?

 

Samwise and Frodo at least...

 

I kid, I kid...

 

You kid? You mean it's not an epic saga of two men's love for one another transcending the world they live in and sailing off into the sunset together?

[kenup]

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? I can understand not liking a story, or type of story. But we are talking about basic writing rules here. "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.

Edited October 19, 2012 by kenup

[jarpie]

I'm aware of this. I've been following this thread for about... 3 of them now. (This being the third.) I acknowledge that I don't know from beginning to end the rise and fall of the flow of discourse around here. That said, his statement was not true. Several people in this thread alone have brought up reasons. Also, when earlier someone decided that they were the maligned party because they were told to maybe try to be civil and were thus the only ones 'not being respected' because they were 'evil'.... it's just laughable.

 

Oh I understand, I just kind of worried the discussion is getting a bit heated and trying to be fair to all sides. Actually there were several good pages in the back of the last thread where some good discussions were going on I thought and too often I think we all get caught up in storming the hill and start going off on the other poster and not just what they're saying.

 

Or something. And to be fair (again, because I can't help myself) one person's reason may not meet the justification threshold of another.

 

That said I haven't seen a sign of the anti-crown being disrespected; I know Monte Carlo got some posts cut but not having seen the content I certainly can't speak to the justification of such actions.

 

What about this: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61676-the-unofficial-pe-relationshipromance-thread/page__st__100?do=findComment&comment=1248851

 

The cold-hearted trolls managed to taint this topic too.

 

Why they are still claiming that there's people demanding NPCs to have sex with is beyond me.

[jarpie]

Wait, didn't even LotR have a few romances in it?

 

Samwise and Frodo at least...

 

I kid, I kid...

 

You kid? You mean it's not an epic saga of two men's love for one another transcending the world they live in and sailing off into the sunset together?

 

They are totally bros of bros! brothers in arms and all. :D

[Takamori]

Well the problem is , romance for some people is the possibility to sodomize every thing in the game.

Seriously there is some waifu simulators to fulfill your loneliness, I just support a "romance" if is actually logical to happen in the game, not just some sorry excuse to get in a virtual character pants because you are too socially awkward .

[qloher]

You want multiple pc-npc romances for all sexual orientations and turn ons, may I ask why? Besides fan service, I don't see any reason for that.

You want them as extras, when what you don't understand is that we are talking about a story not a simulator. There can be good stories with romance, but romance to whatever extent is used as a literary and plot device. They are not DLC content and they are not there to please every sexuality. Gay or Straight, a good story doesn't have to try and please everyone, for them to like it.

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have.

[Grimlorn]

I think we should have a serious and good-natured forum challenge. Hear me out, I am entirely serious.

 

Team one is the pro-romance forumites.

 

Team two, by a process of cunning elimination, are the winners anti-romance forumites.

 

We both write a synopsis of a romance arc and come back and compare notes. Face it, t'would be comedy gold and some important learning points (guffaws) might drop out of it, like golden crap from a gilded goose, fed on the foie gras of luuuurvve.

I say we just fight each other to the death. Whoever wins gets their way.

[Monte Carlo]

All of my posts were humorous and were cut, I suspect, either because of slightly heavy-handed moderation (they can't always get it right) or because of my completely justified reputation for wilful thread derailment. I also like egregious image-spamming.

 

There was no cruelty or nastiness in any of my threads, I'd rather be joking about this subject TBH. Some people are, IMO, a bit too thin-skinned for their own good although the character of this forum (from where I have been squatting since 2004, it just seems longer, waiting for this game) has changed with the influx of new PE-interested members.

 

Welcome one, welcome all.

[jarpie]

You want multiple pc-npc romances for all sexual orientations and turn ons, may I ask why? Besides fan service, I don't see any reason for that.

You want them as extras, when what you don't understand is that we are talking about a story not a simulator. There can be good stories with romance, but romance to whatever extent is used as a literary and plot device. They are not DLC content and they are not there to please every sexuality. Gay or Straight, a good story doesn't have to try and please everyone, for them to like it.

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have.

 

If you truly want to roleplay, you should check out RP servers from MMOs or especially from NWN 1 or NWN 2.

[Living One]

You want multiple pc-npc romances for all sexual orientations and turn ons, may I ask why? Besides fan service, I don't see any reason for that.

You want them as extras, when what you don't understand is that we are talking about a story not a simulator. There can be good stories with romance, but romance to whatever extent is used as a literary and plot device. They are not DLC content and they are not there to please every sexuality. Gay or Straight, a good story doesn't have to try and please everyone, for them to like it.

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have.

More like you don't understand that it's a designer to decide what options to role-play you get because a game will obviously have limitations since it has to be finished and then released.

And since games are always limited obvious that some content will get in and some other won't.

Now,how do we decide wich gets in and wich doesn't?

Player demand for fanservice or artistic considerations?

 

It really isn't so hard to understand.Expecially now that I used basic logic to explain(such a basic concept).

 

Also lol,to quote myself(and from this same page too!!!):

 

Furthermore their 'I'll bring up this point and if someone brings up a good counter argument I'll just drop the ball for a bit and when enough posts have buried that discussion I'll repeat it again instead of trying to have a constructive discussion' tactic isn't particularly positive don't you think?

The point you were trying to bring up has already been criticized several times in this and others threads,yet you brought it up regardless without bothering to bring up additional arguments to support your stance.

 

Nice try but, again,you'll have to wait to try again.Maybe 5-6 pages should do it.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Living One

[jarpie]

There always have been cRPGs which are story-based and with recruitable companions, such as Ultimas 4-7 and for example also Ambermoon and Amberstar had recruitable companions. Did you ever play Goldbox-games? They were also pretty storydriven so it's not just something what Fallout and IE-games brought.

 

I love the Gold Box engine and most of SSI's cRPG's! Wizard's Crown is a favorite of mine. I usually list either Pool of Radiance or Pools of Darkness (to represent the entire series) as one of my favorite cRPG's, if not games, of all time.

 

They had a plot in the background, and some of the later entries (specifically thinking of the Savage Frontiers duo) made strides to incorporating story into the gameplay...

but the Gold Box games were tactical turn-based combat first, second and third... with the background story adding color to the combats you were having.

 

I'm not knocking them... without that story I'd probably not have replayed the games so many times. A less story-focused game, like Phantasie or Bard's Tale, it is harder to motivate me through the endless random encounters. So SSI does shine a bit brighter than others at it's time.

 

But you can't compare integrated story of Baldur's Gate or PS:T to what counted as "story" back in the Gold Box era. I mean, it took Wasteland to finally REALLY show what story in a cRPG could be.

 

You conviniently ignored Ultima-games, tell me, has any game really tackled on subjects such as becoming paragon of virtue, moral absolutism, corruption of men, racist prejudice and peaceful co-existance since then?

 

Tell me also any another crpg which does not have big bad or main antagonist other than Ultima 4?

 

And what else Ultima-games doesnt have...oh yeah, romances with your companions.

[qloher]

You want multiple pc-npc romances for all sexual orientations and turn ons, may I ask why? Besides fan service, I don't see any reason for that.

You want them as extras, when what you don't understand is that we are talking about a story not a simulator. There can be good stories with romance, but romance to whatever extent is used as a literary and plot device. They are not DLC content and they are not there to please every sexuality. Gay or Straight, a good story doesn't have to try and please everyone, for them to like it.

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have.

More like you don't understand that it's a designer to decide what options to role-play you get because a game will obviously have limitations since it has to be finished and then released.

And since games are always limited obvious that some content will get in and some other won't.

Now,how do we decide wich gets in and wich doesn't?

Player demand for fanservice or artistic considerations?

 

It really isn't so hard to understand.

What if their artistic considerations are going to overlap with the player demand? Is it bad? Or is it bad to listen to player demand when you are sitting on the fence on some issue?

[Morality Games]

You want multiple pc-npc romances for all sexual orientations and turn ons, may I ask why? Besides fan service, I don't see any reason for that.

You want them as extras, when what you don't understand is that we are talking about a story not a simulator. There can be good stories with romance, but romance to whatever extent is used as a literary and plot device. They are not DLC content and they are not there to please every sexuality. Gay or Straight, a good story doesn't have to try and please everyone, for them to like it.

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have.

More like you don't understand that it's a designer to decide what options to role-play you get because a game will obviously have limitations since it has to be finished and then released.

And since games are always limited obvious that some content will get in and some other won't.

Now,how do we decide wich gets in and wich doesn't?

Player demand for fanservice or artistic considerations?

 

It really isn't so hard to understand.

 

Also lol,to quote myself(and from this same page too!!!):

 

Furthermore their 'I'll bring up this point and if someone brings up a good counter argument I'll just drop the ball for a bit and when enough posts have buried that discussion I'll repeat it again instead of trying to have a constructive discussion' tactic isn't particularly positive don't you think?

The point you were trying to bring up has already been criticized several times in this and others threads,yet you brought it up regardless without bothering to bring up additional arguments to support your stance.

 

Nice try but, again,you'll have to wait to try again.Maybe 5-6 pages should do it.

 

Has anyone here ever worked on an elaborate, narrative-driven RPG? The notion that romances absorb excessive time and effort from the developers is speculative at best.

[jarpie]

You want multiple pc-npc romances for all sexual orientations and turn ons, may I ask why? Besides fan service, I don't see any reason for that.

You want them as extras, when what you don't understand is that we are talking about a story not a simulator. There can be good stories with romance, but romance to whatever extent is used as a literary and plot device. They are not DLC content and they are not there to please every sexuality. Gay or Straight, a good story doesn't have to try and please everyone, for them to like it.

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have.

More like you don't understand that it's a designer to decide what options to role-play you get because a game will obviously have limitations since it has to be finished and then released.

And since games are always limited obvious that some content will get in and some other won't.

Now,how do we decide wich gets in and wich doesn't?

Player demand for fanservice or artistic considerations?

 

It really isn't so hard to understand.

 

Also lol,to quote myself(and from this same page too!!!):

 

Furthermore their 'I'll bring up this point and if someone brings up a good counter argument I'll just drop the ball for a bit and when enough posts have buried that discussion I'll repeat it again instead of trying to have a constructive discussion' tactic isn't particularly positive don't you think?

The point you were trying to bring up has already been criticized several times in this and others threads,yet you brought it up regardless without bothering to bring up additional arguments to support your stance.

 

Nice try but, again,you'll have to wait to try again.Maybe 5-6 pages should do it.

 

Has anyone here ever worked on an elaborate, narrative-driven RPG? The notion that romances absorb excessive time and effort from the developers is speculative at best.

 

If it takes Avellone to write one companion two-three months at least, I'd say it's pretty damn excessive time and effort. Have YOU ever worked on writing elaborate, narrative-driven RPG?

[Amentep]

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 Shepard's 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.

 

EDIT: removed all caps on Shepard's death since it seemed like I was emphasising it for some reason.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Amentep

[kenup]

You want multiple pc-npc romances for all sexual orientations and turn ons, may I ask why? Besides fan service, I don't see any reason for that.

You want them as extras, when what you don't understand is that we are talking about a story not a simulator. There can be good stories with romance, but romance to whatever extent is used as a literary and plot device. They are not DLC content and they are not there to please every sexuality. Gay or Straight, a good story doesn't have to try and please everyone, for them to like it.

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have.

More like you don't understand that it's a designer to decide what options to role-play you get because a game will obviously have limitations since it has to be finished and then released.

And since games are always limited obvious that some content will get in and some other won't.

Now,how do we decide wich gets in and wich doesn't?

Player demand for fanservice or artistic considerations?

 

It really isn't so hard to understand.

 

Also lol,to quote myself(and from this same page too!!!):

 

Furthermore their 'I'll bring up this point and if someone brings up a good counter argument I'll just drop the ball for a bit and when enough posts have buried that discussion I'll repeat it again instead of trying to have a constructive discussion' tactic isn't particularly positive don't you think?

The point you were trying to bring up has already been criticized several times in this and others threads,yet you brought it up regardless without bothering to bring up additional arguments to support your stance.

 

Nice try but, again,you'll have to wait to try again.Maybe 5-6 pages should do it.

 

Has anyone here ever worked on an elaborate, narrative-driven RPG? The notion that romances absorb excessive time and effort from the developers is speculative at best.

It's not speculative. Anything a professional author writes needs to be edited, and be well thought out. You don't just write whatever comes down from your head. It needs to work with the narrative and it needs to make sense with that narrative. Inter-relationships between characters are not easy, especially when you have to account for many possibilities, like previous choices.

Edited October 19, 2012 by kenup

[Merin]

Wow. Okay, one more attempt at engagement - more for everyone else than for kenup here, as he is clearly set in his view of things (me in particular) and no amount of me telling him that he doesn't know me is going to matter.

 

But I would like to correct a few points, for posterity as it were.

 

Why is it wrong for me to discredit his opinion?

 

Disagree, not discredit - especially not by poisoning the well.

 

Does he have any reason to like movies(and I'm not saying the movies are bad) more than books?

 

"I love Peter Jackon's style in making film. He took a dreadfully boring, trite, and egotistical travelogue (from an etymologist who was just upset that people wouldn't accept his perfect language he had constructed so he made a fantasy world where the most perfect race spoke his most perfect language) and made it into an enjoyable, beautiful, moving film."- http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61768-unofficial-pe-relationshipromance-thread-pt2/page__st__80?do=findComment&comment=1253865

 

What I get from his argument is that he doesn't like reading and just likes CGI etc.

 

See above answer.

Also - you are reading into what I said what you want to see.

It is kind of hard to have a History Major and an English Minor and hate reading.

Also - "I much prefer Neil Gaiman or Douglas Adams, or if I'm itching for something more "classic", I'll go with John Milton, Beowulf, Homer or Gilgamesh." - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61768-unofficial-pe-relationshipromance-thread-pt2/page__st__80?do=findComment&comment=1253865

I can add everything from Cook to Christie, Doyle to Dostoevsky, Salvatore to Smith - I could give you a picture of one of my twelve bookcases, let you see the list of over a hundred titles in my Kindle, or give you my AP Lit scores and English SAT and ACT scores if you wanted...

... but none of that matters when you are trying to get a good dig in, does it?

 

Does he have some well thought theory, or proof for romance minigames being good?

 

I don't want, nor have advocated for, romance minigames. I've specifically spoken out against them being included in Project Eternity.

... do facts matter to you at all? After the "evolution" non sequitor, I'd have thought maybe.

 

Does he make any valid arguments as to why 'such and such'?

 

Do you read what I actually post, or just skim to find something juicy to bash like "He doesn't like Tolkien? He clearly hates reading! Eureka, my dear Poirot!"

 

All he does in each thread is point out a poll, which only shows popularity, not reasons to support romance minigames.

 

Over 500 posts just pointing to a poll - wow, I am repetitive.

 

dammit, now I'm getting snarky

 

If you bothered to read what I quote when I post the link to that thread where I did most of my arguing and am trying to not rehash the same points I made there - you'd see I'm not for romance minigames in Project Eternity.

 

Will you bother to admit you are wrong, even once? Or just move the goal posts - shift your argument to continue to morph it so you can always say "that's not what I meant" or "the larger point I'm making is" until it's drawn so broadly no one could say you were wrong?

 

Bigger man, or hot air? Can you admit you are setting up straw men and misrepresenting me?

 

 

And most of them just contradict themselves. They say don't want bioware romances, but when i say something about the people who wrote those romances, they get defensive and cry. How can I take them or their opinions seriously after that? 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.

 

And the answer to my last question above is likely no for what this last part shows.

 

Kenup is arguing not against me, but an amalgam of vastly differently people who all hold vastly different views, have different likes, life experiences, etc... but he conflates them together because we all don't say "BIoWare bad! Romance bad!"

 

He's gone from defending his attacks on my opinion of Tolkien, to justifying his attacks on my opinion of Tolkien by attributing to me a defense of something I've never defended, and ends with railing against a whole mish-mash group of people as his justification for judging "our" opinion on Tolkien.

 

....

 

And with that, I'm done trying to debate Duane Gish here.

[Living One]

You want multiple pc-npc romances for all sexual orientations and turn ons, may I ask why? Besides fan service, I don't see any reason for that.

You want them as extras, when what you don't understand is that we are talking about a story not a simulator. There can be good stories with romance, but romance to whatever extent is used as a literary and plot device. They are not DLC content and they are not there to please every sexuality. Gay or Straight, a good story doesn't have to try and please everyone, for them to like it.

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have.

More like you don't understand that it's a designer to decide what options to role-play you get because a game will obviously have limitations since it has to be finished and then released.

And since games are always limited obvious that some content will get in and some other won't.

Now,how do we decide wich gets in and wich doesn't?

Player demand for fanservice or artistic considerations?

 

It really isn't so hard to understand.

What if their artistic considerations are going to overlap with the player demand? Is it bad?

 

That would be coincidece,wich per se isn't neither good nor bad.In this case?Response below.

Or is it bad to listen to player demand when you are sitting on the fence on some issue?

Listen to player demand is bad because behind a demand there are not well thought arguments.

They should listen to whoever brings up the most constructive arguments(if they sit on the fence,that is).

Wich is clearly not the case of the post you made(and neither the case of most pro-romance arguments).

[Morality Games]

You want multiple pc-npc romances for all sexual orientations and turn ons, may I ask why? Besides fan service, I don't see any reason for that.

You want them as extras, when what you don't understand is that we are talking about a story not a simulator. There can be good stories with romance, but romance to whatever extent is used as a literary and plot device. They are not DLC content and they are not there to please every sexuality. Gay or Straight, a good story doesn't have to try and please everyone, for them to like it.

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have.

More like you don't understand that it's a designer to decide what options to role-play you get because a game will obviously have limitations since it has to be finished and then released.

And since games are always limited obvious that some content will get in and some other won't.

Now,how do we decide wich gets in and wich doesn't?

Player demand for fanservice or artistic considerations?

 

It really isn't so hard to understand.

 

Also lol,to quote myself(and from this same page too!!!):

 

Furthermore their 'I'll bring up this point and if someone brings up a good counter argument I'll just drop the ball for a bit and when enough posts have buried that discussion I'll repeat it again instead of trying to have a constructive discussion' tactic isn't particularly positive don't you think?

The point you were trying to bring up has already been criticized several times in this and others threads,yet you brought it up regardless without bothering to bring up additional arguments to support your stance.

 

Nice try but, again,you'll have to wait to try again.Maybe 5-6 pages should do it.

 

Has anyone here ever worked on an elaborate, narrative-driven RPG? The notion that romances absorb excessive time and effort from the developers is speculative at best.

 

If it takes Avellone to write one companion two-three months at least, I'd say it's pretty damn excessive time and effort. Have YOU ever worked on writing elaborate, narrative-driven RPG?

 

An elaborate, narrative-driven RPG? No. That's why I said "has anyone" (including myself) and "speculative" -- if I knew for certain, I would just tell you, instead of asking a rhetorical question.

 

As for the other question: does "writing a companion takes two-three months at least," even make sense in a game where dialogue and narrative blend together with an open persistent world that is being worked on until the last second? Is Avellone writing those companions concurrently with other stretches of the game?

 

If two-three months were spent on writing companions to the exclusion of all else, then based on the number of projected companions, Avellone wouldn't be able to write anything else for any other part of the game before it is released.

 

It's not speculative. Anything a professional author writes needs to be edited, and be well thought out. You don't just write whatever comes down from your head. It needs to work with the narrative and it needs to make sense with that narrative. Inter-relationships between characters are not easy, especially when you have to account for many possibilities, like previous choices.

 

Right. So how much does time does writing and editing for romance add? One week? Two weeks? Another month?

Edited October 19, 2012 by Morality Games