Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt. 3

[Jasede]

Why contain it? Let it spill over into the schools and churches, let the posts pile up in the message boards. In the end, they'll beg us to save them.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Jasede

[Crusty]

FWIW, I don't think that the game should try to impart motivations on the player character without player input if possible. Or use techniques like auto-dialogue in a way that prevents the player from interacting in the conversation. If a game allows full character creation, I would like the game to give as much free reign on building up a character concept as much as possible and have the game react to those choices in CC as much as possible.

 

That said, I don't see why this is such a hot topic for debate here.

 

It's not like this game is going to be Dragon Age 3, Mass Effect 4 or The Witcher 3.

 

Why contain it? Let it spill over into the schools and churches, let the posts pile up in the message boards. In the end, they'll beg us to save them.

 

Edited October 27, 2012 by Crusty

[morrow1nd]

Can we have a poll where i can choose '' NO '' ?

 

No

 

Edited October 27, 2012 by morrow1nd

[Kymriana]

Can we have a poll where i can choose '' NO '' ?

 

No

[Merin]

Without player character reacting to what happens in gameworld then the game and the gameworld will be like Bethesda's games where rest of the gameworld is just there for the player to play puppeteer and becomes completely superfluous and bland instead of giving impression that player character is part of the small world, it gives the feeling that world being there for the player and player character to toy with.

 

You have the player character react. It is your character you made. If the writer prescripts your character's reactions... it's not longer your character.

 

You act like how Bethesda does things isn't right. It is role-playing, perhaps a purer form than some of what more linear-story oriented games do.

 

Because you don't like having control of your character and imagining your character's reactions doesn't mean it's wrong. It means it isn't what you want. You want an adventure game, with some preset characters, that you can tweak the combat abilities of, it seems like.

 

I like action adventure games, too. Recently just finished Alan Wake, great game. Since it wasn't a cRPG I didn't expect to have control over who my character was nor his motivations, and I was fine with that.

 

But with a cRPG I want to control that part of the character. It is sort of the defining thing of what makes a role-playing game a role-playing game... not the stats, not the levels, not the loot, not the story, not the "choice and consequences" - all (okay, most, not loot) of that helps you define your character and control your character, but those are the TOOLs. The means, not the end.

 

 

They write that the player character makes a choice, or the player / player character makes a choice? Distinction is important.

 

You are getting caught with the words and not the meaning - English isn't my native language. I obviously meant that they give a choice for the player either to save a baby or not but that should've been clear enough from my text.

 

 

So, if it's the player's choice how his character reacts, and not the writer dictating exactly how the character must react... I'm failing to see where you are arguing with me on substance.

 

I know the difference of singleplayer CPRG and RPG played with several players and GM very well - I played 3-4 years in the RP Server of the NWN where we had GMs/DMs - since you are so determined of playing your own character, you should try it - honestly.

 

I'm going to say this once, and be nice about it, as I think you may be giving what you think is a sincere suggestion.

 

I've been role-playing, create your character and run with it, for nearly thirty years. I've been playing cRPGs for almost exactly as long. I have been both a player and a DM in countless campaigns for D&D alone, not even looking to other table tops I've played. I've tried out many MMORPG's since Dark Sun Online, beta-ing many of them. I cut my teeth on Phantasie, Bard's Tale and Pool of Radiance. I know precisely the kind of games I want to play.

 

So, for the sake of future civility, please stop telling me what kind of games I should try. I would bet money you can't mention a kind of role-playing game that you have played I haven't tried (with me giving up the one kind that I don't want any part of - LARPing.)

 

The kind of single-player cRPG I like isn't some pipe-dream - it's the majority of cRPG's that have been made.

 

I can play table-top RPG's with other people. I played cRPG's, as Sylvius is oft to say, to emulate the table top experience without other players.

 

 

 

Where the roleplaying in single-player crpg comes in are the choices & consequences - how do you react to them, what choices you make, what kind of character are you playing (good, evil, creedy, selfish, neutral, etc), how do you interact with different characters and factions - which faction do you join in, which faction are you working against, which character do you help and which not, how do you react what happens in the gameworld such as the before mentioned situation with the Master A and then the game shows in the gameworld how the story/stories, gameworld, NPCs and your character shapes up in the said world depending on what you have chosen to do - and they show how your choices changes the NPCs, gameworld and the story - that's where the roleplaying in singleplayer RPG comes from.

 

...

 

Yes. And?

 

Wait, let me quote yourself back to you - "You're not seeing The Big Picture."

 

And by big picture, I mean big font -

 

I want Project Eternity to have choice and consequence.

 

 

Not from the stuff you have made up in your head - the stuff what happens, happens in the gameworld because that's how games work - the player character optimally has as many choices in the game as it's possible to do and choose from, and you choose from them depending on what aspect/varitation of character you want to play from the choices/options the devs have written for you - your character can't be anything more in the game and game world what the devs have written into the game.

 

....

 

jarpie.

 

jarpie.

 

jarpie.

 

So, yes, the player's options are pre-scripted. His character can only be player defined, as far the game world will react to him or her, inside of the boundaries of what the game developers made possible. There are limits to what you can create inside the game rules and options.

 

You are not disagreeing with me. You are writing long posts that say what I said with one small addition of trying to tell me that, somehow, I am wrong for saying that in a cRPG like PE we will be making our own character and not playing the dev's character.

 

It's like you just want me to be wrong, but can't find WHERE you can say I'm wrong.

 

If your sticking point, that you repeat ad naseum despite all your examples, is - "the choices/options the devs have written for you - your character can't be anything more in the game and game world what the devs have written into the game" - you aren't proving me wrong. You are defining the limitations of the medium. Those limitations do not prevent role-playing... they limit the range of role-playing allowed. As does every game system written for role-playing - rules limit what you can and cannot do inside a rules system.

 

At the sad state of repeating myself yet again -

 

In a perfect role-playing environment, each character would have it's own player so each character was super-realized and each character could react to whatever each other player said or did without limitations. And this is how simulations for group therapy and training exercises work, but let's not go there for now. With role-playing games, you aren't going to get that many people involved - you have a handful of players controlling their own characters, and as such their characters have the most reactivity and are the most realized... whereas all the other characters in the world are controlled by the GM, and therefore are less realized. Still, the GM can try and react to most anything the players do, so it's not so bad, just the GM can't spend lots of time fleshing out every other character in the world. Now you move to cRPG's, and the limitations grow. You don't have an active GM (in single player cRPGs), you have prescripted dialog and such for the NPCs before the player has even bought the game, let alone made a character. And because of the limitations of prescripted reactions, the player becomes limited in how many choices he or she has as well. The game developers have to prescript the options for the player.

 

 

I think this is very important from the devs in Kickstarter page: "Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.", I've bolded the important part.

 

The devs have said that player can choose from what culture the player character is from, and then the gameworld will react to it - this tells me that the player character probably won't be completely blank state like it was in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, which you want.

 

What are you on? Do you think that the focus of PS:T is the limits on your main character when they mean when they say emotional writing and mature thematic exploration?

 

Really? REALLY? _really?

 

You can, *ahem*, choose your gender, race, class, background.... and you say this is more limited than BG because they are giving you more options to help shape your own character?

 

"Excuse me, sir, I'm afraid our company must declare bankruptcy"

"What? How?"

"We have just split our stock shares 3 to 1."

"But... that's a good thing. That means the prices were so high for a share that the split was done to make buying and selling shares easier. Now more people can buy shares, more people can invest, the shares will go up in price.... this is a good thing!"

"Sir, each share is now only worth a third of what it was originally."

"But you have three shares of each on you had before, so it's the same... do you understand what you are talking about? We have MORE options now, and this is a good thing for the company."

 

More options in shaping the character the way you want it, jarpie, means even MORE ability for the player to make the character his or her own, and have the game react even more individualistically to the player's design.

 

....

 

....

 

Edited October 27, 2012 by Merin

[Merin]

It would make no sense for the characters own self motivations not to factor into the game world at all.

 

Who said the character's motivations shouldn't be?

 

In the end, whether you're playing Baldurs Gate or Planescape Torment, your character had their own self motivations that probably completely differed from the person playing that character. Especially in Torment, the Nameless one had several motivations that I could of given a crap less about, but they were interwoven into the character. Even though through dialogue, the player is given choices to choose from, there is still a very underlying concept of the character that is built into the game from the start.

 

No, they didn't. Well, yes they did, but not in the way you implied. They had the motivations you gave them. They were your character, inside of a setting and a provided background. Many DM/GM's will do this with table top games even - give you a setting and background and say "you are all part of this town" or "you are all mercenaries" - because the DM (or cRPG game) dictates parameters for your character to be created inside of doesn't equate to your character suddenly being predefined entirely.

 

There's zero. And there's a trillion. And there are nine-hundred ninety-nine billion nine-hundred ninety-nine million nine-hundred ninety-nine thousand nine-hundred and ninety-nine numbers between them. It's not either or - there's a whole range of options between.

 

So just because you can't decide everything about the character you make (what, you are telling me I can't make a Starfleet Science Officer in your Vampire: The Masquerade game? but I get to make my own character!!!!!) doesn't mean you don't make your own character. Some games can be pretty wide open (play Rifts, be practically anything) or pretty specific (play Frank's Buffy Campaign and you all have to be high school jocks) but you still are playing the character you shape to be your own.

 

As I had said before, PS:T is like Total Recall - Hauser didn't decide Quaid's motivations and actions. If you were Quaid in Total Recall, Hauser's actions and motivations are NOT yours - you, as Quaid, make decisions regardless of what Hauser did.

 

 

We play the role of the character as the developers have portrayed him/her to us.

 

Not in IE games, no. Not even really in PS:T, though you are much more limited.

 

Though we have many options of dialogue to pick from there is not an infinite number of choices to be made, which means we inevitably are forced to choose one of the paths that the developers have written, total free play-ability, or sovereignty in this case of a character, just cannot work in a game such as this. In order for a game to be created where the actual character's motivations were non existent, they'd have to ship us a blank game.

 

Zero. One trillion. And lots of room in-between.

 

 

if you ignored your characters own self motivations and purely played the character based upon your own self motivations, then you were not properly role-playing

 

Wait....

 

who was arguing for player motivation over player character motivation? I know there are players who play the game as themselves, making the decisions they would. It's a legitimate option, just not one I ever use.

 

But who was saying this that you are replying to?

 

Any true role-player will tell you this.

 

Politely, again.... best to not be telling people who the "true" role-players are, and who isn't a "true" role-player. That's the kind of thing where you start to really insult people.

 

Now as blunt and bold as that statement is, it's true down to its core. That is the very fundamental of role playing, you assume the role of a character.

 

Close. Role-playing games are games where you choose or create a character and make decisions for that character as you believe that character would. You can play pre-made characters (playing as the crew of Serenity, picking Batman or Superman in DC Heroes) or you can make your own characters.

 

For single player cRPG's there is a range. You can play something like The Witcher, where you are given a VERY defined character (straight out of a novel even.) You can play something like Daggerfall, where the ONLY piece of background forced on you is that you start out with a mission given to you by the Emperor, and there are ranges in between. You get some fuzzy areas like Hawke and Shepard - you get to choose some stuff, but a lot of who you are is pre-shaped and pre-determined.

 

You can take on the role of a pre-defined character, like Luke Skywalker, and play Star Wars acting as you think Luke would... or you can create your own character in Pathfinder and role-play the defeating-death obsessed gnome re-animator alchemist who is also a pyromaniac and actually hates practical jokes that you, yourself, dreamed up from whole cloth (well, as much as the Pathfinder rules and GM for the game grant you.)

 

Which is PE? From the Kickstarter - "You’ll create your own character"

 

Read pick from the characters we pre-created for you in that at your own leisure.

 

Saying that motivations should be based on what 'you' the player have stated that characters motivations to be, isn't truly rping that character.

 

If it is a character you created, yes, it absolutely is role-playing that character. You created it - you are the arbiter of what that character's motivations are.

 

how do you even believe what you are saying?

 

It's very hard to move away from something that you want your character to do, but know in your mind that your character wouldn't truly do that, so you're then forced to properly role-play that choice, by choosing the path that your character would take, or you can choose to not role-play that choice and do whatever you want.

 

Wait, what?

 

What your describing is the PLAYER deciding what the PLAYER wants to do (which, honestly, is legitimate in a role-playing game, as it's a GAME also, but bear with me) and NOT the PLAYER deciding what his CHARACTER would do.

 

Let's try this - "motivations should be based on what 'you' the player have stated that characters motivations to be" != "something that you want your character to do, but know in your mind that your character wouldn't truly do"

 

Those are NOT the same thing.

[Merin]

Now speaking specifically about PE, we are now taking on the role of a character in the vision of the writers.

 

No.

 

"You’ll create your own character" - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity

Character Creation

At a minimum, players will be able to specify their main character’s name, sex, class, race (including subrace), culture, traits, ability scores, portrait, and the fundamental starting options of his or her class (gear, skills, and talents). We have not worked out customization details of character avatars, but we believe those are important and will be updating on these specifics in the future. - that's from Josh Sawyer.

 

 

So, yes we should be forced to have underlying motivations and goals that the character has, whether we chose them or not. Why? Because, otherwise you wouldn't have a game to play at all.

 

....

 

So, uhm, what's the dev defined motivations for you characters in Wasteland? Curse of the Azure Bonds? Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines? Alpha Protocol?

 

I don't mean what is the story of the game. I don't mean what external forces are coming after you. I don't mean what are the pre-defined limits of the game and the starting position given to you. I mean underlying character motivations.

 

In Wasteland you are Rangers, sure, and you've been tasked with investigating the stuff happening in the area. But WHY? Why is Angela Deth (if you keep the pre-mades, even) a Ranger? Why does she do the job? What motivated her to try and disarm the bomb under Felicia's chair instead of giving the kidnapper what he wanted?

 

In Azure Bonds, why does your Ranger work with the party? Is he after money, does he like killing monsters... what is his motivation?

 

Your Brujah in Bloodlines is working with the Prince because the Prince orders it and you have to obey - but does she actually want to help the Prince? Maybe she's infatuated with him? Do you want to help out Nines because he's a fellow Brujah, or does she decide that the Asian monsters are more her liking. Where did Brian Mitsoda and the others at Troika give you the underlyng motivations for your Brujah making those choices?

 

Oh, right.

 

They don't. You do.

[Elerond]

My opinion to on going depate is that when you have character which you can yourself define like in bgs or fallouts. Game should not need to know your characters motivations it should only react to what your character did. And even if npcs in game for some reason want to ask what was pc's motive to do things what s/he did, it should be made possible pc to give any motivation s/he thinks will best suite his or her purpose with said npc, this should not be necessary the real motivation behind pc's actions.

 

For me defining my own character and deciding his or her motivations, goals and ways to acomplish them are those features which makes game to be a rpg. More this things a resticted in game less I feel it to be a roleplaying game

[Game_Exile]

What you are saying, unfortunately, is that you have the habit of using your imagination to make up for the shortcomings in a game's story/presentation/setting/etc.

(...)

I hate how this idea has always been worded: "what is best left to the imagination". What it actually means is "best left to SPECULATION". As in speculating about a mystery. It doesn't mean seeing an image or whatever and fantasizing like a delusional that all kinds of stuff that could appear somewhere, actually does appear there, when, in fact, it does not appear there.

(...)

That article is BS. The stuff Avellone was talking about really only applies to ridiculously primitive CRPGs, Wasteland being a shining example of games that are too far outdated by now.

 

I was going to try and comment on what you were saying, but that last bit you've lost me. Wasteland is one of my favorite games ever, if not my favorite game period. More graphics and better sound don't make a game for me... just like expensive special effects don't make a movie better for me, just like color and glossy paper don't make a comic book better for me.

 

Sorry, we are just going to disagree on this point. The technology behind Wasteland could be improved, but the game design is stellar.

 

Sorry, we are not "just going to disagree" about anything. I never said that better graphics and better sound automatically make a game better. Nor did I say that Wasteland had bad design. Did you not read what I typed here?

When you have more and better detail in parts of your CRPGs (visual or otherwise), 1)much less can be left to the imagination, and 2) the demands for matching detail everywhere else (including more elaborate scripting) become exponentially greater.

 

I also think you have no idea what the gutter is or what Scot McCloud is talking about - so I suggest your read Understanding Comics.

 

Wrong, I understand what Scot McCloud's "gutter" is better than you do. And I managed to figure it out without reading that book, or anything else related to Scot McCloud. ALL it means is that certain details in your setting can be suggestive of much more than what you show explicitly in your foreground action. It doesn't mean you should make your audience wholesale imagine things that you didn't write, draw, film, design, etc. The fact that McCloud can spin this very mundane observation about storytelling and style into some overly elaborate BS about "gutters" only shows me that McCloud is a trashy thinker and that the only thing I should do with a copy of his book is throw it into a gutter (or use whatever other convenient method of waste disposal is at hand), not read it.

[nikolokolus]

It's often said that brevity is the soul of wit ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carry on

[Merin]

Sorry, we are not "just going to disagree" about anything.

 

Yes, we are disagreeing. Absolutely disagreeing.

 

see? still disagreeing

 

 

I also think you have no idea what the gutter is or what Scot McCloud is talking about - so I suggest your read Understanding Comics.

 

I understand what Scot McCloud's "gutter" is better than you do.

 

Bold, declarative statement.

 

You said you understand it better than I do. Yep, that settles it. You said you understand it better, must be true. Because you say so.

 

 

And I managed to figure it out without reading that book, or anything else related to Scot McCloud.

 

Wonderful! Great job! Did you want a cookie?

 

*looks around for a virtual cookie*

 

Clearly you understand the concept much better than a professional in the field of sequential art does about his own medium. Are you a savant, like Mozart? Were you selling comic strips to the syndicate when you were just a tot?

 

Understanding an author without having read him. There must be a name for that - for claiming to understand a subject with no research on it.... hmmm, concept is slipping my mind since all I can come up with are derogatory statements about ignorance, arrogance, bluster and hot air.

 

I guess it's time for you to educate me. Let's see, what is the gutter really about...

 

 

ALL it means is that certain details in your setting can be suggestive of much more than what you show explicitly in your foreground action. It doesn't mean you should make your audience wholesale imagine things that you didn't write, draw, film, design, etc.

 

You were right, you do understand it better than I do! That's not what I got from Scott McCloud at all! Thanks, Game_Exile!

 

The fact that McCloud can spin this very mundane observation about storytelling and style into some overly elaborate BS about "gutters" only shows me that McCloud is a trashy thinker and that the only thing I should do with a copy of his book is throw it into a gutter (or use whatever other convenient method of waste disposal is at hand), not read it.

 

Clearly! A man who's won Harveys, an Eisner and a Kirby is one who is mocked by his peers and disrespected by all in his field. Mr. McCloud has nothing on Game_Exile!

 

....

 

man, the snark came out heavy there - but sometimes some things are just so plain awful that the only thing you can do is ridicule them

[Robsidious]

 

Games are sometimes written such that convincing someone of a statement becomes easier when its a true statement, even when the truth or falsehood only exists within the PC's mind. If the options "Yes, I will help you," and "[LIE] Yes, I will help you," have different success conditions, that's a problem.

 

Also, sometimes the PC claiming a preference will make that preference mechanically true, and that's also a problem. I'm trying to guard against that. I know most people, when they think about it, are aware that they can't know each other's motivations, but that doesn't help if they don't think about it.

 

Also, some players perceive the dialogue options not just as things the PC can say, but necessarily true expressions of the PC's state of mind. So, if the PC can claim to have seen something, then it is the case that the PC has seen it. These players are relying on the game to tell them about their characters, and I think that has dangerous ramifications for game design, as well.

 

I appreciate your work in this regard (though I didn't follow some parts of what you said here).

 

Studying ethics turned me into a big logic and epistemology guy. I'm forced to ask how we know that ethics or human rights are valuable, given those epistemological questions.

 

As Wittgenstein said, "At the core of all well-founded belief lies belief that is unfounded."

 

 

That sounds reasonable; I have no problem with questioning the value of ethics or the foundations of beliefs, that’s what epistemology is for. I don’t know that ethics are valuable, although I believe that they are. I would argue that human rights make the world a better place, even if they haven’t been (and maybe can’t be) satisfactorily justified.

 

I take the view that I don’t know anything, and go from there.

 

I care about the epistemological problems. Only once those are solved can the ethical questions become relevant.

 

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was trying to imply that I didn't think that the deontology-consequentialism distinction was very relevant to resolving the dispute about PC motivations, yet it was not crazy to try thinking that way as it helped illuminate the situation, at least it did for me. I was hoping to show that it is worthwhile to consider lines of reasoning that aren't logically 'air-tight' so to speak, which you seemed to me to be dismissing.

 

However, I don’t think that many of the epistemological questions underlying ethical considerations can be solved. Yet I maintain my belief that ethics are still relevant and applicable, deontology included. Call me crazy if you will.

 

 

 

P.S. Apologies for going off-topic. I'm good now, I just felt like I needed to defend ethics. Yesterday was a difficult day and I got all fired up.

[Sistergoldring]

 

It's late in here so I'll answer one thing quickly but I can reply tomorrow more depthly.

 

WIth the exception of maybe Bioware the developers very rarely write other than possible friendship because otherwise there would be lot more writing to do. How I see the grander branching dialogue isn't that NPC reacts to something what you did, the branching dialogue is that first there's character as a tree, then there are the big branches such as "friendship", "rivalry", "romance" etc. which then divide to their own branches with their own responses on what the player does - friend would respond differently on you burning village than lover would.

 

I am aware that varied NPC reactions are in short supply in most CRPGs and I feel that games are lesser for it. The aspect I feel Bioware gets pretty consistently right in their RPGs is in their attempt to provide reactive companion NPCs. Like them or loathe them a Bioware companion will from time to time express opinions and react to a players actions. I think this aspect makes the world more interesting. Sure, I think the ways they’ve selected to monitor companions feelings have been a little clumsy and open to abuse but the attempt is no less valiant for that and they are trying to create a mutable world for the player to enjoy.

 

Personally, I’ve always felt that if a character can like you the game should provide an avenue for them to dislike you, otherwise you end up with an unnatural world where it seems that your companions will only ever tell the PC how wonderful they are regardless of the fact that your character has in fact been a total douche for ½ the game. This form of companion worship does not interest me as a player, I prefer NPCs to have personality and their own point of view.

 

The reason I continue to play and support Bioware’s Dragon Age series despite their recent and lamentable interference with my PC’s autonomy is precisely because they still give me NPC’s who respond to my actions.

 

I disagree that a romance requires a unique and separate tree from friendship in the majority of PC, NPC conversations. In most circumstances I interact with my husband in exactly the same manner as I interact with any other close friend except that I add the word ‘honey’ to the beginning or end of my sentence. Personally, I wouldn’t want the writers retyping the same responses merely to add an endearment to them. Only issues unique to the romance should require an independent dialogue option and I don’t see the cost of implementing that dialogue as prohibitive.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Sistergoldring

[jarpie]

Merin, at least I tried to counter-argue all of your points but now you are just cherry picking and lifting sentences out of the context, probably because you can't come up with proper arguments and you yet again resort to passive-agressive patronizing tone even though we agreed we'd try to argue civilly - I was being completely polite in my replies but apparently it's not possible for you.

 

I'll admit I've not been completely civil all the time but at least I've tried to argue with actual arguments, examples and substance.

 

If I'd write another post with the new arguments or taken from my original posts, you would just again pick up the ones you can either lift up from the context, twist their meaning or then "subtly" try to mock my writing because english isn't my native language even though you knew very well what I was meaning.

[Bos_hybrid]

Your problem - and that of so many others in this thread - is your presumptions.

 

You (in general, the anti-romance people, not you specific, Bos_hybrid) presume, because I don't insult BioWare or the BSN endlessly, that I don't call all romance in games crap, that I say that I enjoy romance in games...

 

that I want romanceable companions or romanceable NPCs for my character (or characters) in some kind of dating simulation.

I don't.

 

Really this card again. People make assumptions due to the information they are given, the information given by you is that you really like romances and that you really want them included.

 

Your first post: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60191-sex-and-romance-poll/page__st__60?do=findComment&comment=1190685

 

All of the above. Just like I never pick pocket, steal or assassinate in role-playing games (unless the story "forces" you to), people who don't want to romance can choose not to. Don't make it integral to the game, just one more aspect of role-playing, and no one should be upset.

 

All of the above was:

 

I want homosexual options of romance\sex

I want male filled testosterone kind of sex/romance, lots of cleavage and hot girls

I want a more Intellectual kind of sex\romance, with lots of interesting dialogue, quests and well behaved characters

 

This is obviously what you want, you may try and obfuscate this desire from time to time, but that post is crystal clear. You want romances, you want multiple choices for different appeals and you want significant time put into them.

 

gutter snip

 

I admit I was scratching my head about this, don't read comics, so gutters had me thinking of houses.

 

Essentially you are saying you imagine further interaction between party members off screen(don't see why you couldn't of just said this), and that includes the deepening/evolution of romances, but you still need the writers to point out to you who the romance is with, the characters to choose from and said character's personality.

 

Now is that wrong?

 

Arguing this point is a derailment of the thread - and it's not like I have a stake in defending the concept. It isn't mine, and frankly, you can disbelieve it all you want. If I have to go through the day knowing that many people don't believe in climate change, evolution, or that trickle-down doesn't work... I can live with people refusing to accept sociological notions about how we enjoy fiction.

 

Thinly veiled insults...

 

I want Project Eternity to have choice and consequence.

 

What? What about this earlier:

That cRPGs are about choice and consequence. Choice and consequence is a defining characteristic of cRPGs. I disagree

 

Mixed signals incoming.

 

but sometimes some things are just so plain awful that the only thing you can do is ridicule them

 

Anti-romancers, you've been greenlight to ridicule.

[Monte Carlo]

You can gaze at your navel all day. But it's still your navel.

[Sistergoldring]

This thread has become nothing more than a pathetic joke. It needs to be shut down.

[HereticSaint]

The very reason I stopped making serious posts within these threads is because they don't want a discussion. Hell, you still have kenup yelling about Bioware, it's brain damaging honestly.

[Shevek]

I was perusing the Shadowrun Returns forums and found this..

 

http://www.shadowrun...ind-love-in-srr

 

Man, whats next? Must every cRPG be a dating game too? Why are so many gamers intent on finding digital love on the cRPG battlefield?

 

Personally, I blame Bioware (as others do on this thread). They have ruined so much. Now a bunch of PC gamers feel that if they can't woo and have sex with a bunch of their party members, then it's not full on ROLEPLAYING. Its like they saw a porno version of Lord of the Rings and now they think if Frodo doesn't bang 20 whores on the way to Mordor then its not true Tolkien.

 

My god, just go play Persona and leave the real RPGs alone. These are meant to be games where you go off on an adventure with a party of adventurers. Instead, people want a porno where you can have sex with all of them and/or feel like a great big pimp because you are so good at wooing your ideal mate. The roleplay focus here is NOT meant to be sexual or even sensual. The focus is the adventure. Anything that takes the focus off that (like some dimwit wingless Wing Elf telling you she is preggo in the middle of fight with a dragon) is a BAD thing. (As a side note, how many recruited Aerie just so Korgan could get rid of her?)

 

Please, stop trying to get the devs to waste development time on dialogues meant to make you feel like you are good with the ladies. They can pander to your ego by making you feel like a great warrior or possibly even a good party leader. However, as soon as the game turns to focus to making you feel like a good ladies man, developmennt resouces are spent on something that turns the focus AWAY from the adventure what this game should be about.

 

A quick Google Search turned thisup. You romance folks can just go play that and stop trying to ruin every indie cRPG that gets made.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Shevek

[Malcador]

Merin's on the cross again eh ? Poor boy being bullied by people. Of course he's missing his own endless snark and condescending attitude, but what can one expect. Not sure what discussion you're expecting, the gist of the comments is the usual "do _______ only if it doesn't detract from the game", an argument whose reaction should be one of "Well thanks for that, genius". So we a thread of people either agreeing with one another or just the usual loggerheads, this thread has met with expectation.

[evdk]

Should I bring popcorn or are you kids finally done?

[HereticSaint]

I think it's safe to say this won't end unless the moderators end it.

[Malcador]

But then it'd start anew. God damn Necron thread.

[kenup]

But then it'd start anew. God damn Necron thread.

Well, they can always ban anyone suggesting romances.

 

That's going to stop romance threads from popping up.

[Tigranes]

People, we have enough here to write several dissertations, but sadly, most of it is people talking past each other and then getting blue in the face about it. No, that doesn't apply to just people who disagree with you.

 

Let's try this one more time, since life is all about futile efforts. The moderation policy emphasises civility; we're not so dumb we can't tell what's civil and what's taking the piss. I'd also personally recommend brevity over eternal nitpicking, but what do I know...