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

[Orogun01]

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.

Romance threads are the Ouroboros of the Internet, which kind of makes me glad that they aren't a hydra.

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

You know, no matter how you put it, a CRPG will never have the same freedom of interaction you'll have in a PnP roleplaying session. Even if you fill in the blanks yourself, the technology isn't there yet to allow your imagination to have an effect on the world.

This is nonsense. Yes, the player's imagination cannot have a direct effect on the world, but as his impagination informs his character's actions, there is an indirect effect on the world.

 

I'm certainly not asking for a direct effect. That would be crazy.

 

But, when in-character, it's not possible to tell what drives NPC reactions. If the PC says something with a specific objective in mind (or with a specific tone or delivery, as imagined by the player), then any NPC response would appear to be a reaction to that. It doesn't matter if the writers didn't intend that PC line to be delivered in that way or for that reason; the NPC response still looks like a reaction. Perhaps not an expected reaction, but a reaction.

This means that if you play a CRPG, you have to get over the fact that you're playing an imperfect simulation in a controlled environment. It's just something you have to accept in order to be able to enjoy it.

This clearly isn't true, as I do play CRPGs just as I describe, and I do enjoy them.

 

Only when the writers expect me to discover my character as mart pf the story (like reading a book) does my approach fail. This is typically only true in the newer games with voiced protagonists, but it is also true in KotOR2, hence my concern here.

[Lurky]

This clearly isn't true, as I do play CRPGs just as I describe, and I do enjoy them.

 

Only when the writers expect me to discover my character as mart pf the story (like reading a book) does my approach fail. This is typically only true in the newer games with voiced protagonists, but it is also true in KotOR2, hence my concern here.

 

Then you might want to try a different approach from time to time. If it doesn't work with certain games, you could try to adapt to what the game gives you. As long as the game still gives you a good list of options to choose, what's the problem?

 

What did you think when you played KOTOR1 and found that the PC was Revan? Did you think "wow, I did not see that coming" or did you think "this is bullcrap, how dare they trash the personality and background I had elaborated for my PC up to this point"? Because if you do the latter, you're going to be unable to enjoy some good storytelling devices. Discovering things of your character you didn't know can be used for good.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Lurky

[Keldorn]

It's always frustrating to try and argue on the internet. Heck, it can be frustrating in real life also. Argueing on the internet is sometimes like having an argument with your wife/girlfriend. You or the other always knows best. In the case of our already-beloved Project: Eternity, many people here think his or her opinion will decide the outcome of Obsidian's choices on decisions on the game. However, although they may see our posts from time to time, they are their own team and will decide on their own decisions. Of course, peer pressure may sometimes be involved, but in the case of romance aye or nay, it is impossible to satisfy both needs. Therefore, I believe romance will be a part of Project: Eternity.

 

I understand both opinions on whether or not to include romance in a game. However, my opinion is that romance is a part of roleplaying. As I said in another post which is already lost in eternity, it simply comes to this:

If you can get someone to hate you - why not love you? If there will be so many quests revolving around hatred, fighting, solving, pursuing - why not around romance and love? Isn't that also a part of life? Besides, romance and love do not mean sex scenes and prostitution.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Keldorn

[Loranc]

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...

 

I was going to reply to Merin's posts, but seeing as they have nothing to do with romance, i'll stick to Tigranes point. I'm almost tempted to say it's not worth trying another time Tigranes. I think enough has been said about this topic.

[Sistergoldring]

You know I actually started typing a reasoned response to Shevek's post and then I realised that there was absolutely no damn point. If you want to believe that people who want to include romances in PE are patheticly trying to compensate for their own social inadequacies or simply have some sort of sexual fixation with pixels, go right ahead. If you want to believe people who have told you repeatedly that they enjoy crpgs actually meant I want to play the sims, knock yourself out!

 

There is no discussion to be had here.

[JohanKris]

This is nonsense. Yes, the player's imagination cannot have a direct effect on the world, but as his impagination informs his character's actions, there is an indirect effect on the world.

 

It is a imagined effect. Imagination is what you make beyond what is there and what is told. Therefore your decision isn't about imagination, it is about reason. You reason what is the best or in this case most fitting choice. Games in their imperfection just gives you a baseline to follow and if your imagination fills out more, fine. The more things you imagine about your character, the less will the game aknowledge it. Unless you bend what you imagined into what is.

 

I'm certainly not asking for a direct effect. That would be crazy.

 

Could work, if game follows some archetypes that you can play. Normally it is just nice person or ****. but what can we do?

 

But, when in-character, it's not possible to tell what drives NPC reactions.

 

It is hard for me to imagine people playing cRPG were they are "in-character", as in seriously being that. I have a fantastic imagination, but I certainly don't delve that deeply into roleplaying a game.

 

Only when the writers expect me to discover my character as mart pf the story (like reading a book) does my approach fail. This is typically only true in the newer games with voiced protagonists, but it is also true in KotOR2, hence my concern here.

 

You can't like modern games much then, as the trend is "not really interactive movies". If anything it feels like you would be fit for some content heavy MMORPG.

[BasaltineBadger]

You people do realize that you are wasting your time arguing about a 10 pages of written text top being or not being included in the game. This is terribly stupid.

[Malcador]

That brings up a question - will PE have self-romance?

[nikolokolus]

That brings up a question - will PE have self-romance?

 

I guess if people have a kink for 2 inch tall sprites? ...

[Sylvius the Mad]

This clearly isn't true, as I do play CRPGs just as I describe, and I do enjoy them.

 

Only when the writers expect me to discover my character as mart pf the story (like reading a book) does my approach fail. This is typically only true in the newer games with voiced protagonists, but it is also true in KotOR2, hence my concern here.

 

Then you might want to try a different approach from time to time. If it doesn't work with certain games, you could try to adapt to what the game gives you. As long as the game still gives you a good list of options to choose, what's the problem?

 

What did you think when you played KOTOR1 and found that the PC was Revan? Did you think "wow, I did not see that coming" or did you think "this is bullcrap, how dare they trash the personality and background I had elaborated for my PC up to this point"? Because if you do the latter, you're going to be unable to enjoy some good storytelling devices. Discovering things of your character you didn't know can be used for good.

The Reven revelation had no relevance to my character design. Those memories he had of his past were real to him - that they weren't true became new information he needed to consider regarding his opinions and even his identity. That was great story telling. KotOR's revelation could be dealt with entirely in-character, so there was never a problem. At no point does KotOR tell me that the PC's knowledge of a situation was different from what I thought it was.

 

But KotOR2 did it the other way around. He should have known all sorts of things, and knowing those things could well have changed his decisions up to the point where the player learns about his past, but by the time that happens it's far too late. Those decisions have already been made. I would argue that KotOR2 doesn't actually allow roleplaying until the second playthrough (when the player now knows what his character does).

[Sylvius the Mad]

It is a imagined effect

That's not knowable from within the game. Why he gets the response he gets is always a mystery to your character.

Imagination is what you make beyond what is there and what is told. Therefore your decision isn't about imagination, it is about reason. You reason what is the best or in this case most fitting choice.

An option either suits the character or it doesn't. It's a binary operator.

Games in their imperfection just gives you a baseline to follow and if your imagination fills out more, fine. The more things you imagine about your character, the less will the game aknowledge it.

Fine by me. The problem arises when the game directly contradicts my imagination, after having invited that same imagination.

 

If the game asks me to make a decision on behalf of my character, any reason I imagine on which to base that decision needs to be respected. If there is any limit on what sorts of motives are permitted, that needs to be made clear to the player before the decision is made, not after.

Unless you bend what you imagined into what is.

That solution is often proposed, but the computational complexity of implementing is such that I doubt anyone who suggests has given it much thought.

 

If I retcon a motive, I need then to examine every prior decision made within that playthrough to determine whether any of those decisions are now incompatible with the new motive. Failing to do that risks an incoherent character, and if my character is incoherent then I have failed as a roleplayer.

Could work, if game follows some archetypes that you can play. Normally it is just nice person or ****. but what can we do?

Archetypes are not interesting characters to play. Archetypes are flat characters. Archetypes are shallow characters.

It is hard for me to imagine people playing cRPG were they are "in-character", as in seriously being that. I have a fantastic imagination, but I certainly don't delve that deeply into roleplaying a game.

How do you make decisions for your character if not from his point of view?

You can't like modern games much then, as the trend is "not really interactive movies".

It depends how marrowly you define "modern". DAO was pretty good. I would like Skyrim a lot if it didn't have action combat. Fallout 3 and New Vegas were both good.

If anything it feels like you would be fit for some content heavy MMORPG.

MMORPGs have a lot of appeal, actually. They basically never have action combat (which I loathe), and the game world doesn't behave as if it exists just for me.

 

Sadly, there are other people in them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Since I didn't get to rest of this post earlier (I had to go), I now return to it.

 

Here's where the division of opinion comes: should the PC be a part of this controlled simulation? Should the game give the player some limited means to interact with the rest of the simulation, or should the game leave that to your unlimited imagination? Both approaches are probably valid, but Obsidian favors the former. It's just what they do, so of course people in these boards are going to defend it.

Of course the PC should have some limited means to interast with the rest of the simulation.

 

But the question is, should those limitations extend beyond the content that is made explicit? Is the player ever expected (or permitted) to use him imagination to fill in gaps, or is he expected never to do this, and instead always wait fo rthe game to tell him what is true?

 

The latter is how books and movies work, and if I wanted that, I'd be reading a book or watching a movie.

 

I insist that roleplaying games should be the former. If the game solicits input from the player regarding his character's actions, the player needs to know why his character might choose one option over another. And knowledge requires certainty.

Personally, I think that, if you have accepted that you're playing an imperfect simulation, you could accept that the interactions you'll get with the world and with the NPCs are only going to be "good enough": broad enough to cover as much as possible, but maybe not as nuanced as they could be if you were playing with real people.

I would first deny that there is any such thing as interaction (there is action, and there is reaction, but the tw odo not combine to form some sort of gestalt). Second, I would accept the imperfection of the medium. There is always a chance that none of the available options will be compatible with your character design. But, I find this to be extremely rare. A a single line can be intended many different ways. And an unvoiced can be viewed as an abstraction of the actual words spoken, so the player would then have even greater control over his character's words. Just as keyword dialogue systems (like Morrowind, or Ultima IV) don't claim to display the exact words uttered by the PC (the Avatar likely wasn't shouting NAME and JOB at everyone), there's no need to assume that the detailed options offered by Torment or Baldur's Gate are exact representations either.

 

So, yes, I accept that the format has limitations, but those limitations are very small.

So, if you've already accepted that you're playing a simulation, why not make it as reactive as possible to all its elements, including the PC?

I have no objection to the world reacting to whatever the PC says or does. I object to the game telling me what the PC says or does, or why. The game should always seek my input on what the PC says or does, and since NPCs cannot know the PC's motives, there's no reason ever to ask me what the PC's motives are (and thus those need never be limited by a finite list).

if your character's motivations aren't a very important part of the game, then they shouldn't have big repercussions on it (like cutting access to quests or using autodialogue to take over the PC). If they are a significant part of the game, they should have some repercussions, which means that special effort should be invested in both giving a broad selection of choices and accounting for them all. Maybe not everything will be in, but you know, you've already accepted the limitations of the medium if you're playing it.

How can the PC's motives ever be a significant part of the game (I'm definiing "game" here as the content that is explcitly portrayed on screen)? Since the PC's motves aren't knowable to anyone but the PC, they can't ever have a direct effect.

 

In the real world, your motives never have a direct effect. Nothing in the world aside from your own nervous system ever reacts to your motives directly.

*By Cool Things, I mean stuff that adds to the integration of the player in the world, things like playing off your motivations and your world views with those of other NPCs, to gain a good insight into their characters and affect your influence with them (and this influence could actually have repercussions in the story, such as making easier or more difficult to side with certain factions or characters). You could also record this motivation choice in your savefile, so that the characters could bring it up later when it's relevant; for instance, if you do something that strays from what you said earlier a companion could call you out on it, which a) would be very unexpected for the player, and b) could let you build even more complexity into your motivations (were you lying earlier? did your character's views change? why?). By Cool Things, I don't mean some examples that have been given, like closing off quests based on an answer of something you were going to do without knowing that it would have that effect. That's bad design, not reactivity.

And here, you appear to backtrack completely, suggesting that the things you were calling motives before might have been lies. If you were only ever talking about the PC's claims about what his motives were, then in fact we never disagreed. Absolutely the PC can be given the option to claim what his motives are. Just don't force a truth value on those claims.

 

Anything the PC says could be a lie. The game never needs to know.

[Lurky]

It seems like we're working with different definitions here. You make a distinction between your real motives and the motives you claim, but most people I know equate the two as the same. The problem is, the game needs a way to know your true motivations if it wants to do something with them (such as changing your alignment, for the systems that have it), and the least immersion-breaking way to do that is making you say them in the game. But for you, if you're saying them then they're not your real motives, only claims.

 

How should the game know them, then? Should the game screw off and not be allowed to try to do something with that? That seems like a waste of potential.

 

But KotOR2 did it the other way around. He should have known all sorts of things, and knowing those things could well have changed his decisions up to the point where the player learns about his past, but by the time that happens it's far too late. Those decisions have already been made. I would argue that KotOR2 doesn't actually allow roleplaying until the second playthrough (when the player now knows what his character does).

 

KotOR2 used a different style, yeah, but it was interesting in its own way, and it didn't interfere with player agency anyway. That's why I suggested to try out different roleplaying approaches - if you see that the game is going for a different style with the PC, drop your approach and pay attention to the method the game is showing. If it wants you to learn your own past during the story, then take it in stride, instead of trying to have your character already planned as if it were a D&D session. Besides, waiting until you know the story and the setting properly seems like something you'd need before fleshing out your characters, anyway. It'll certainly bring you less frustration.

 

I guess my point is that, while giving feedback for what you like and what you don't is nice, decrying one form as better than the other is pretty damn limiting. The game certainly won't adapt to you because the technology isn't there, so you'll get more enjoyment out of it if you adapt than if you don't.

 

It is a imagined effect

That's not knowable from within the game. Why he gets the response he gets is always a mystery to your character.

Your character is a pretty poor people person then. He can't, I don't know, guess? Try to match past behaviors and known actions into a model of behavior that could help him anticipate the kind of responses he could cause?

 

I mean, I've seen your "motivations aren't ever knowable!" spiel, but I have to say I disagree. You may not know that in an absolute sense, but in practice most of us are more predictable than we think. Trying to understand people at least a little is pretty necessary in order to function in real life, so it seems to me like you shouldn't have trouble translating that to a game. If you can work with estimations in real life, your characters shouldn't have problems with that either, right?

 

By the way, what do you do if you're in a setting where mind readers and magical lie detectors exist? How do you pretend that your PC is lying to one when the NPC should realistically be able to tell that? Wouldn't you say that a [Lie] option would be necessary there, thereby needing to express your real intentions in some way?

Edited October 28, 2012 by Lurky

[Wombat]

[Off Topic (...probably...)]

 

About how much should be stated in the PC dialogues, Morrowind took a minimalist approach for both the players and the NPCs.* However, while TES is more of simulationist approach, Obsidians games are known for being more narrativist, which is nearer to novels. Ultimately, how far the description should cover is or not depends on the taste of the players, I think.

 

As for the [Lie] option, lies can be detected by NPCs in a way or another: He/she/they may realized logical contradictions and/or solid evidences. Also, there is a Cipher class whose ability may play a certain role in dialogues. Letting the players dictate the motivation can enable the NPCs react to it, while the absence of such option simply leaves things to the imagination of the players (and of course, no reactions from the NPCs) - It's an issue of pros and cons. For example, in Alpha Protocol, Leland played as a tool for the players to make the motivation clear about what the PC has done but there are rooms for the players to be evasive.

 

As a side note, personally, I'm against soul setting playing role in role-playing except as an ability. Like in the cases of the "gods," they should be rooms for interpretations, IMO.

 

PS BTW, is that only me who was surprised to see quite many people are talking of about how far dialogues should dictate despite of the thread title? I guess I'd leave it to the mods.

 

* It was very intentional that Rolston kept the world so lore rich. Morrowind chose a totally different direction compared with commonly known narrativist CRPGs.

[LadyCrimson]

Thread pruned. I'm a little tired of the repetitive picture spam, especially when they're potentially mocking other members. If you're bored of a topic and have nothing constructive to contribute, you are always free to ignore the thread a while. Just a thought.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It seems like we're working with different definitions here. You make a distinction between your real motives and the motives you claim, but most people I know equate the two as the same.

I can't imagine why anyone would ever think that.

The problem is, the game needs a way to know your true motivations if it wants to do something with them (such as changing your alignment, for the systems that have it), and the least immersion-breaking way to do that is making you say them in the game. But for you, if you're saying them then they're not your real motives, only claims.

If you're going to ask the PC to state his motives, then he does need a way to lie, yes.

How should the game know them, then? Should the game screw off and not be allowed to try to do something with that? That seems like a waste of potential.

What potential? What possible value is there is such a system? I don't see why an alignment system of that sort would be at all valuable, especially given the limitations it would necessarily place on roleplaying.

KotOR2 used a different style, yeah, but it was interesting in its own way, and it didn't interfere with player agency anyway. That's why I suggested to try out different roleplaying approaches - if you see that the game is going for a different style with the PC, drop your approach and pay attention to the method the game is showing. If it wants you to learn your own past during the story, then take it in stride, instead of trying to have your character already planned as if it were a D&D session. Besides, waiting until you know the story and the setting properly seems like something you'd need before fleshing out your characters, anyway. It'll certainly bring you less frustration.

I ask again: By what mechanism can you make decisions for your character if you aren't allowed to know his state of mind?

 

And if you aren't making decisions for your character in-character, are you roleplaying?

 

I don't play these games for the story. I play these games to roleplay. If I can't roleplay, I don't want to play them. Every one of my design preferences is selected to advance roleplaying, from dialogue systems to UI design to visual effects.

Your character is a pretty poor people person then. He can't, I don't know, guess?

Sure he can guess. But he can't know. Therefore, there's no basis for saying that an NPC's reaction is ever inappropriate.

Try to match past behaviors and known actions into a model of behavior that could help him anticipate the kind of responses he could cause?

Of course he can do that. But when the result isn't what he expects, that doesn't cause me to throw up my hands and declare the game to be broken, because in the real world we don't ever know why people do the things they do, moment to moment. If I laugh, what did I find funny? Was it something you said? Was it something of which I was reminded by something you said? Was I not listening and my mind wandered off and remembered a joke I heard yesterday from someone else entirely? If I'm short with you, am I angry? At you? Or maybe I'm upset because I just heard that my sister died and, because you haven't yet heard the news, that would never occur to you as a possible explanation?

 

Other people's minds are unknowable.

I mean, I've seen your "motivations aren't ever knowable!" spiel, but I have to say I disagree. You may not know that in an absolute sense, but in practice most of us are more predictable than we think.

Predictable in the aggregate isn't useful in the instance.

Trying to understand people at least a little is pretty necessary in order to function in real life, so it seems to me like you shouldn't have trouble translating that to a game.

Being able to predict behaviour is necessary. Being able to explain that behaviour is not.

By the way, what do you do if you're in a setting where mind readers and magical lie detectors exist? How do you pretend that your PC is lying to one when the NPC should realistically be able to tell that? Wouldn't you say that a [Lie] option would be necessary there, thereby needing to express your real intentions in some way?

I think that game would likely offer very limited roleplaying opportunities, by virtue of leaving less implicit content wherein the player could resolve ambiguity as he saw fit.

[Fear]

In the real world, your motives never have a direct effect. Nothing in the world aside from your own nervous system ever reacts to your motives directly

 

Please be careful, my fellow alien invader. You are compromising our mission to try and blend perfectly into this crazy community of primitive deranged simians that inhabit this dying dirt ball of a planet.

 

Don't give up yet though, you can still manage to learn their strange mannerisms and mating rituals and help pave the way for our glorious harvest! I believe in you.

 

Oh right, no one else is supposed to know about this yet. Please disregard. We're normal humans who understand perfectly how the world works. *Tentacle Wave*

[lezsolt]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but apart from well-written romances for the PC (like the BG2 romances), what would be quite fresh and interesting to see are romances between other party members too. This could take "party banter" to a whole new level, and would be awesome to see if you really like your companions. Besides, I don't think it has been done in any RPG (correct me if I'm wrong).

Edited October 28, 2012 by lezsolt

[SoshiGEE]

The amount of LULZBIOWARE hate in these threads surprise me. Did I miss the memo? I thought it was only casuals jumping on the 'hate Bioware because of ME3' bandwagon, not actual RPG fans.

I, for one, enjoy relationship options in my games. Not only does it make my character seem more real and involved, it's also just a fact of life that if a group of people are together on an adventure for months at a time, some things *will* happen. Call me a roneryfag, but I really like to get a chance to be with the pretty elf girl if I so choose, instead of being limited to playing a band of merry friends.

Just my 2 cents, of course. I just hope Obsidian isn't influenced too much by the raging in here.

[Monte Carlo]

The amount of LULZBIOWARE hate in these threads surprise me. Did I miss the memo? I thought it was only casuals jumping on the 'hate Bioware because of ME3' bandwagon, not actual RPG fans.

 

These forums are chock-full of folks, like me, who pretty much view the modern iteration of EA/Bioware as a malign and borderline satanic influence on half-decent gaming design.

 

Glad to clear that up for you.

[evdk]

After last night's debacle I think I have found all the problems and this picture should be more that appropriate for this thread:

[brownypoints]

I'm with you there on the elf girl action SoshiGEE

 

I thought Dragon age origins did it ok, the whole relationship thing, not great but well enough. The only thing I didn't like was it was too easy and there were no hard choices in the relationship hunt.

 

I wouldn't mind a love triangle, I get to keep the two companions IF i encourage them to they develop a relationship, IF I instigate a relationship with one of them the other leaves in a jealous rage. That's a hard choice, see the girl/guy of my dreams snuggling up to a companion but hey to save the world we all need to make sacrifices or deliberately weaken my team in order to get the girl/boy

as to the questions asked way back at the start

 

what type of dynamic, complex character relationships are important to your gaming experience, if any?

---if you enjoy romances in games, what type of plots do you enjoy or dislike (tragic, happy ending, marriage/family)?

All except family i guess, tragic would be great, something to wrench the guts, maybe a save the love interest but agree to murder a kind stranger situation

---what romance or relationship arcs from other games did you personally enjoy that can serve as examples?

Dragon age origins, talking unlocks more options, perform missions for love interest, but the present giving thing was too easy. I like how other companions commented on the relationship, maybe with their view of you changing accordingly. I liked the companions to getting bonuses depending on their views on your actions, BUT it shouldn't be possible to keep everyone happy

 

 

---do you have any particular, preferred game mechanics for romance/relationships that you'd like to see included (optional questlines, dialogue, cutscenes

As i said before- hard choices, example - The noble knight is ok with sheep thief girl joining the party because the world needs saving and all and she is good with lockpicks , but for you, the leader he looked up to to provide a false alibi to the angry farmers who will go hungry this winter in order to curry favour with the girl, that's a step too far, adios amigo.

 

And for a companion to leave because you initiated a cross species/race/homosexual relationship which their culture/religion frowns upon

[Monte Carlo]

Welcome.

 

Please realise that a lot of us against romances harken back to the original precursor titles that the developers told us were the inspiration for PE.

 

If I thought that it would include the type of content you propose (which the originals didn't) I wouldn't have sunk a considerable amount of my money into it. Happily, I trust them.

 

Edit: You have just described a dating simulator, a next-gen Bioware thing. Am not being rude, just suggesting that DA2 / DA 3 might be your thing.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Monte Carlo

[Volourn]

"Please realise that a lot of us against romances harken back to the original precursor titles that the developers told us were the inspiration for PE."

 

BG2 and PST both had romances. Or have you forgotten Jaheria, Viconia, FFG, and Annah amongst others? L0L Convenient how memory works.

 

And, anyways, what do you mean by 'originals'? PE is an original IP. there is no 'original'.

 

To me, 'romance' is just another way to add role-playing options that give you C&C. Romances and relationshsips is one of the HUGE ways to add role-playing and C&C. This is undisputable. It's just another way to have PCs invested in NPCs.

 

 

"If I thought that it would include the type of content you propose (which the originals didn't) I wouldn't have sunk a considerable amount of my money into it."

 

Poor way to look at it since as these threads show that plenty of Obsidian fanboys (and girls) did spend money on this *because* they wants romances. Not me, not a dealbreaker for me but there ya go. Your own words destroying your whole point.

 

You'd have been better off saying you like tunnels and want games 100% focused on tunnel fighting.

 

 

P.S. A 'dating simulator' isn't needed any more than whatever. It should be part of the game not the main focus which it never has been ever in these RPGs.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Volourn