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

[jarpie]

Maybe so but I'm still done with you as you conviniently ignored 75% of my post, and the points I was making, there's no point even trying to have a proper debate where both sides exchange properly done arguments, if the other side completely ignores what you say.

 

I'm not putting you on ignore but consider this: We could've had a great debate where both sides respects each other's views and both gaining insight on each other's views but since you again resorted on ignoring what I said that's not possible.

 

Again, Good day, sir *tips his fedora*

 

Not "conveniently ignored" but there is a certain amount of forum ettiquette to follow about not creating endless, ridiculously long posts. It is nigh impossible to respond to everything. We've already had this discussion. In PM's even. Trying to play off now like I'm selectively ignoring all your points because I can't reasonably quote and answer every part of your (by your own admission) lengthy posts is absolutely unfair.

 

I've asked before for you to list a few points for us to discuss, not post a page of things to respond to. I felt the most important thing to address this time was trying to get you to understand that I wasn't trying to patronize you.

 

Often, less is more. The longer a post gets, the harder it is for everyone to read it and absorb it's entirety. Give me points to address, as long as they aren't too many at one time, and I'll debate with you.

 

I freely admit that my posts (like this one) get entirely too long. But I am trying to only respond to certain points, and to keep my points as short as I can. I FAIL at keeping them short, ALL THE TIME, but I don't berate people for not addressing every little thing I say.

 

Cherry picking and taking things out of context, however, I will call out.

 

We haven't exchanged any PMs other than when I asked if you've answered my one post, not a single other one PM so don't try to claim otherwise, I bet mods can even check that if need be.

 

My posts are long, but so are yours, like this one, and this my post isn't much longer, funny how I could process yours and reply.

 

It's no my fault that you cannot into long posts, one would think that -novelist- would actually be able to read and process longer texts. Besides if you'd even read my post you'd see that I didn't make that many points - I explained with couple examples how the motivations can be taken into account with the themes of soul influencing player characters actions.

 

You always could've drop me PM or message in the thread and say "Hey, you didn't notice this" if I hadn't replied to something you said.

 

Edit: consider this as last reply from me to you.

Edited October 25, 2012 by jarpie

[Grimlorn]

Okay fair enough; I understand you don't believe its technically possible. I'm not convinced it is/isn't (we seem to be okay with non-romance relationships but that may also be because some non-romance relationships are inherently shallow so depth is less of an issue?) but have always accepted that it might be. Or even that it might be technically possible but so resource intensive to "do right" that its not worth it.

 

So again I'm not for mandating romances, either, only including them if they "make sense".

I didn't say it wasn't technically impossible just unrealistically possible. When you set out not to do romances, you have more room for character depth because you can focus on giving your companions unique personalities and their own motivations without worrying whether it will clash with the player's character if they try to romance them.

 

 

Why do they need to appeal to a large amount of people? I don't understand the mentality that some content can't be created for a game that makes sense for the game but that the player may not ever see based on how they view/play their character.

Because that's how the PC culture is and because developers aren't going to make a ton of content that is only going to be accessible to 5% or less of the players playing the game. If they create a romance with a companion, they are going to make that companion appeal to a large part of their player base so that player base can enjoy the content. Hence the shallowness you get. Just look at Bioware's romances. If they could do what you're talking about they'd do it, but they don't even with their huge AAA budgets.

 

*shrug* Beyond technical limitations - which as someone who doesn't make games I've always accepted that there may be practical considerations that just make "doing it right" impossible - I'd think most of the rest of this debate is subjective rather than objective.

 

Anyhow, I'd class myself as being pro-romance in games (provided it makes sense for the plot and characters of the RPG), and I wouldn't be upset about a romance that could fail because of things outside my choice, because it was still ultimately my choice to pursue the relationship that can't work. Certainly this would alter replays (like knowing Yoshimo is going to betray you alters BG2 replays), but I'm not convinced that should be a consideration as to whether its "good" or "bad".

 

Then again I'm also for a game not having any romances if that's the way to make the best game, so...

I think I'm being pretty objective considering the pros and cons of implementing romances into a game of this scope with a limited budget. It's just not practical. And yes the best way to make the game is to not have romances so welcome to anti-romance side.

[jarpie]

I guess I was wrong - the BSN was already here.

haha keep in mind you're a regular poster on BSN and so are most of the people clamoring for romance. Yet the people who argue against you don't post on the BSN forums.

 

Someone quote this so Merin sees it.

 

touche.

[Merin]

We haven't exchanged any PMs other than when I asked if you've answered my one post, not a single other one PM so don't try to claim otherwise, I bet mods can even check that if need be.

 

 

Excuse me. One PM chain. With a back and forth, where you asked if I was ignoring you, I apologized if I had missed something - told you I wasn't ignoring you - and asked which question I had missed, you gave me a link, and I pointed out that I had responded to that post, which then you apologized and admitted your error.

 

One PM. One chain of several responses back and forth. I don't think getting nitpicky about this is making you seem less irrational.

 

And that last point I bolded - "the mods can check" - what, is this a contest on who's lying more? I thought you were looking for great debates, for both sides respecting each other, not trying to paint me as a bad guy?

 

Where is "you ignored my post" and "if you'd even read what I said" debating with respect? That's accusing, based on speculation. You cannot know if I read it entirely or not, if I ignored it or not. All you have is what I chose to respond to.

 

My posts are long, but so are yours

 

Acknowledged. Repeatedly. Even to you in what you are quoting and then trying to call me a hypocrite on by pulling the tu ququo -

 

I freely admit that my posts (like this one) get entirely too long. But I am trying to only respond to certain points, and to keep my points as short as I can. I FAIL at keeping them short, ALL THE TIME

 

Except I give the important caveat of noting that -

I don't berate people for not addressing every little thing I say.

 

Yet you won't let that go -

 

funny how I could process yours and reply.

 

It's no my fault that you cannot into long posts, one would think that -novelist- would actually be able to read and process longer texts. Besides if you'd even read my post

 

Watch what is happening as I'm even trying to address most of your points in a relatively short post? See how long this is getting?

 

 

You always could've drop me PM or message in the thread and say "Hey, you didn't notice this" if I hadn't replied to something you said.

 

Maybe I would have, had it been a point of contention for me.

 

It isn't.

 

I'm not the one demanding that people read a ridiculous amount of threads to answer every single one of my points or else they aren't allowed to debate -

 

Example 1 - "I'm going to let you give counter-arguments for rest of my message before answering yours, only fair."

Example 2 - "Have fun reading and counter-arguing"

Example 3 - "I expect counter arguments on all the points I've give in those posts. Enjoy!"

 

You start off demanding that someone respond to seven quotes before you will answer them (it's only fair that they respond to everything you demand they do), and advance to demanding, excuse me, "expecting" that people must respond to a list of 6 links which go to lengthy posts.

 

I'm not the one making post after post about "you aren't answering every point I made" and PMing others "did you ignore me, am I on ignore because I didn't see your response" even though the response had been made.

 

Heck, I'm not even the guy so desperate to be seen as beating my interlocutor that I have to start an entire thread just to show I can out-debate him - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61814-re-rpgs-audiences-publishers-mass-markets-and-everything-between-earth-and-sky/page__view__findpost__p__1255606

 

I didn't make that many points

 

 

I'm still done with you ... Good day, sir *tips his fedora*

 

Help me out here - were you done with me but just one more post, or... are you done with me now?

 

Edited October 25, 2012 by Merin

[jarpie]

We haven't exchanged any PMs other than when I asked if you've answered my one post, not a single other one PM so don't try to claim otherwise, I bet mods can even check that if need be.

 

 

Excuse me. One PM chain. With a back and forth, where you asked if I was ignoring you, I apologized if I had missed something - told you I wasn't ignoring you - and asked which question I had missed, you gave me a link, and I pointed out that I had responded to that post, which then you apologized and admitted your error.

 

One PM. One chain of several responses back and forth. I don't think getting nitpicky about this is making you seem less irrational.

 

And that last point I bolded - "the mods can check" - what, is this a contest on who's lying more? I thought you were looking for great debates, for both sides respecting each other, not trying to paint me as a bad guy?

 

Where is "you ignored my post" and "if you'd even read what I said" debating with respect? That's accusing, based on speculation. You cannot know if I read it entirely or not, if I ignored it or not. All you have is what I chose to respond to.

 

My posts are long, but so are yours

 

Acknowledged. Repeatedly. Even to you in what you are quoting and then trying to call me a hypocrite on by pulling the tu ququo -

 

I freely admit that my posts (like this one) get entirely too long. But I am trying to only respond to certain points, and to keep my points as short as I can. I FAIL at keeping them short, ALL THE TIME

 

Except I give the important caveat of noting that -

I don't berate people for not addressing every little thing I say.

 

Yet you won't let that go -

 

funny how I could process yours and reply.

 

It's no my fault that you cannot into long posts, one would think that -novelist- would actually be able to read and process longer texts. Besides if you'd even read my post

 

Watch what is happening as I'm even trying to address most of your points in a relatively short post? See how long this is getting?

 

 

You always could've drop me PM or message in the thread and say "Hey, you didn't notice this" if I hadn't replied to something you said.

 

Maybe I would have, had it been a point of contention for me.

 

It isn't.

 

I'm not the one demanding that people read a ridiculous amount of threads to answer every single one of my points or else they aren't allowed to debate -

 

Example 1 - "I'm going to let you give counter-arguments for rest of my message before answering yours, only fair."

Example 2 - "Have fun reading and counter-arguing"

Example 3 - "I expect counter arguments on all the points I've give in those posts. Enjoy!"

 

You start off demanding that someone respond to seven quotes before you will answer them (it's only fair that they respond to everything you demand they do), and advance to demanding, excuse me, "expecting" that people must respond to a list of 6 links which go to lengthy posts.

 

I'm not the one making post after post about "you aren't answering every point I made" and PMing others "did you ignore me, am I on ignore because I didn't see your response" even though the response had been made.

 

I didn't make that many points

 

 

I'm still done with you ... Good day, sir *tips his fedora*

 

Help me out here - were you done with me but just one more post, or... are you done with me now?

 

 

Yeah, I sent you one PM asking if you've put me on ignore because I didn't notice your reply, and I didn't ask if you've ignored anything I wrote in the message - notice the difference. The last topic got quite heated, and I was tired of writing same points over and over again - I admit I could've been nicer but so could've been whole lot of other people too.

 

As you were replying I modified my last post:

Edit: consider this as last reply from me to you.

 

So this is my last reply since you didn't see my modification.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Motivation can't affect the world, but it can affect how the NPCs see you. They are part of the world too.

 

Maybe it's not your real motivation. Maybe you lied, and your reasons for lying can be very variable. It's your choice if you want to lie or not; the point is, stating your motivations can make people react to you. If people want reactive NPCs, giving you the option to state the why adds to this reactivity.

 

Hell, in the case of PE, even lying could cause a reaction too. We have psionics. Maybe they can tell if you're lying.

 

Now, you can enter the debate of whether this can be done well or not, but that's a debate of implementation. I agree that it's usually not done very well, and you can only state your motivation with complete freedom in PnP roleplaying to a real GM. But that's why cRPGs are simulations. If the simulation can be good enough, it can add a lot to the game, I think.

But even here, the NPCs aren't reacting to your motives. They're reacting to their own inferences about what your motives are.

 

This discussion started because people were worried that the writers would define the PC's motives rather than leaving them for the player to define, and nothing you've said here requires the motives (or set of possible motives) be defined by the writers. You're only requiring that the set of possible motives the NPCs can perceive be defined by the writers, and I don't see anyone objecting to that. I certainly don't mind if the NPCs react to what they think my motives are, as long as the game doesn't demand that those actually be my motives.

 

The game can do that a number of different ways. DA2 did it by having Hawke say things I didn't want him to say, thus contradicting my character design. Some games open or close quest options based on the PC's claims about his motives, effectively assuming them to be true. As long as these things don't happen, sure, the NPCs can respond to their perception of the PC's motives all they want.

Wow, you just trashed an entire school of ethics in a single sentence. Way to go.

I have a degree in that crap. I know exactly how baseless most of Ethics is.

 

Ethics has serious epistemological problems, and this is one of them.

[Merin]

This discussion started because people were worried that the writers would define the PC's motives rather than leaving them for the player to define, and nothing you've said here requires the motives (or set of possible motives) be defined by the writers. You're only requiring that the set of possible motives the NPCs can perceive be defined by the writers, and I don't see anyone objecting to that. I certainly don't mind if the NPCs react to what they think my motives are, as long as the game doesn't demand that those actually be my motives.

 

To be fair, it started as a nearly one-sided debate of "you can't role-play your character because the writers create your character" being the excessively dominant stance in the thread and basically my voice solely saying "uhm, you can role-playing in a cRPG and the writers often DON'T creature your character."

 

I'm shocked at how little defense (like none) there has been about playing your own character.

 

 

The game can do that a number of different ways. DA2 did it by having Hawke say things I didn't want him to say, thus contradicting my character design.

 

so hated that

 

Some games open or close quest options based on the PC's claims about his motives, effectively assuming them to be true. As long as these things don't happen, sure, the NPCs can respond to their perception of the PC's motives all they want.

 

Again, where we differ a bit. I don't mind if the game takes input from me, the player, to indicate my character's motivations and the game adjusts quests and such accordingly. I think the game can be allowed to know the PC's motivations if it allows the player to tell the game those motivations directly in some way.

[Gfted1]

Wow. Everyone lay off the slap fighting and keep this thread on topic please.

[Sistergoldring]

Ummm Merin, I'm pretty sure I was taking a pro-roleplaying stance based on the fact that the player's role in an RPG is to create and control the personality, motivations and within limitation actions of the PC.

[Merin]

Ummm Merin, I'm pretty sure I was taking a pro-roleplaying stance based on the fact that the player's role in an RPG is to create and control the personality, motivations and within limitation actions of the PC.

 

Sorry!

 

I really didn't believe it was me alone - I did say "nearly" and "basically"! I thought some others had not agreed with the "we are actors playing prescripted roles" stance, I just didn't feel like doing another thread hunt for examples!

 

My sincerest apologies, Sistergoldring!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Again, where we differ a bit. I don't mind if the game takes input from me, the player, to indicate my character's motivations and the game adjusts quests and such accordingly. I think the game can be allowed to know the PC's motivations if it allows the player to tell the game those motivations directly in some way.

As long as the player gets to decide, sure. But without mind-reading, I don't see how it would make any difference.

[Lurky]

But even here, the NPCs aren't reacting to your motives. They're reacting to their own inferences about what your motives are.

...No, they're reacting to what you tell them is your motivation. There is no inference if you're telling them plainly.

 

Also, for a lot of people, that distinction you made is irrelevant. It's your choice if the motivation you've chosen is really yours or not. It's your choice if you choose a [LIE] dialogue option but you're not really lying. Do what you want. But many people are going to think that you're complicating yourself needlessly. If you have a diverse array of answers that cover what you want your character's motivation to be, why not choose the one that matches?

 

This discussion started because people were worried that the writers would define the PC's motives rather than leaving them for the player to define, and nothing you've said here requires the motives (or set of possible motives) be defined by the writers. You're only requiring that the set of possible motives the NPCs can perceive be defined by the writers, and I don't see anyone objecting to that. I certainly don't mind if the NPCs react to what they think my motives are, as long as the game doesn't demand that those actually be my motives.

You guys were honestly worried that people were advocating for things like autodialogue and removing control from the player? On the Obsidian forums, by the people who routinely trash Bioware? Seriously?

 

From what I percieve, what people want is a diverse array of answers that cover pretty much all possible motivations your character could have, including lies and various forms of manipulation. If you have that, why would you need to pretend you're not saying what you claim? Choose the [LIE] option if that's the case; that way you get to say and preserve your character's motivation, and the game knows what you want so it can make the people of the world react accordingly. Isn't that better than having to play it in your head?

Edited October 25, 2012 by Lurky

[Sylvius the Mad]

...No, they're reacting to what you tell them is your motivation. There is no inference if you're telling them plainly.

Only if they know with certainty, that you're telling them plainly. But they can't know that.

 

Either way, we seem to agree that the NPCs can only react to their understanding of your motives, regardless of whether than understanding is correct.

Also, for a lot of people, that distinction you made is irrelevant. It's your choice if the motivation you've chosen is really yours or not. It's your choice if you choose a [LIE] dialogue option but you're not really lying. Do what you want. But many people are going to think that you're complicating yourself needlessly. If you have a diverse array of answers that cover what you want your character's motivation to be, why not choose the one that matches?

The problem arises when none of them do. That's usually the case.

 

Early in DAO, there's a greedy merchant surrounded by an angry mob. You can defend the merchant or distribute his goods to the mob. I once had my Warden defend the merchant for altruistic reasons, as he thought defending property rights offered greater social benefits. That's not a motive that was likely to be persented to me as an explicit option.

You guys were honestly worried that people were advocating for things like autodialogue and removing control from the player? On the Obsidian forums, by the people who routinely trash Bioware? Seriously?

I would describe this as a central feature of KotOR2. Obsidian made KotOR2. That's why.

 

And because someone above was claiming that roleplaying is impossible in a single-player CRPG because the PC is always pre-defined. I insist he is not, and this discussion arose from that.

From what I percieve, what people want is a diverse array of answers that cover pretty much all possible motivations your character could have, including lies and various forms of manipulation. If you have that, why would you need to pretend you're not saying what you claim?

Because we realise that no finite list can cover all possibe motivations. Only a system that allows the true motivation not to be listed allows maximum roleplaying freedom.

Choose the [LIE] option if that's the case; that way you get to say and preserve your character's motivation, and the game knows what you want so it can make the people of the world react accordingly. Isn't that better than having to play it in your head?

No, I hate the [LIE] option. Because people shouldn't be able to tell that I'm lying. And what if I change my mind later? The [LIE] option encourages writers to set plot flags and offer different options based on those responses. Sometimes quest lines get closed off because I said I was or wasn't going to do something, though if I'd been lying (or telling the truth) that shouldn't have happened.

 

Like in NWN2, you're asked whether you're going to seek help from the Watch or from Moira's Gang - some games would actually make one of those options unavailable based on your answer to that question, and that's stupid.

 

When I'm asked a yes/no question, I may not yet know the answer, but that shouldn't preclude me from offering the answer that I think will serve me best in this particular conversation.

[Malcador]

Wow. Everyone lay off the slap fighting and keep this thread on topic please.

 

Bah, why do you have to ruin the entertainment.

[nikolokolus]

Wow. Everyone lay off the slap fighting and keep this thread on topic please.

 

I thought slap fighting was the topic?

[Sistergoldring]

There’s something that’s been bugging me in this thread and I think it’s the argument I keep reading that developing romances would somehow swallow up so great a proportion of the ‘character’ budget that it would reduce the funds available to develop well rounded interesting non-romanceable companion subplots to a triviality.

 

Now this would in fact be a pretty reasonable argument in a Bioware AAA game where the romances have unique models, cinematics, additional voice acting and even unique animations associated with them but I don’t think these features are even on the table for PE.

 

One of the greatest advantage for me of a non cinematic or text based game is the ability for it to include so many more dialogue options for the NPCs and PCs because it’s just so much cheaper to produce them when it’s text typed in a box without all the fancy bells and whistles associated with modern AAA titles.

 

So assuming that no cinematic, animation or special resources are required for developing a romantic subplot for some characters (because we aren’t having the grand kissy-kissy scenes) I fail to see how adding a romance could eat up any more budget than any other branching type of NPC character exposition. And if romances in fact aren’t any more expensive to implement than other NPC features doesn’t the whole argument really devolve into an individual’s personal opinion that they would prefer it if the money was to be spent elsewhere or aspects other than romance were focused on? Just as the support for romances is a statement of personal opinion that an individual enjoys this feature and would like it included.

 

I feel that having available to them close to 4 times the asking price for funding the original PE model then the developers should be able to provide us with quite a comprehensive array of possible NPC interactions including friendships, rivalries, dislike, affection and romantic love.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Sistergoldring

[Pshaw]

I agree with what Sistergoldring is saying. Then again I am on the pro-romance side of things.

 

In regards to what Sistergoldring mentioned I have noticed that the majority of people against romances DO in fact take offense at the idea that maybe they'd be missing out on 5-10 conversations per romance-able NPC. Any amount of time spent developing romance dialogue is time that could be spent on non-romance dialogue and therefore it isn't a worthwhile investment. While I can understand their desire to have more NPC dialogue (more is almost always better after all) that they enjoy I also think that it's an unfair and greedy point of view to take. Just because some people don't enjoy romances doesn't mean that it's not worth including. Saying, 'I want 100% of what I want in the game (non-romance related dialogue) and you (people who like romances) cannot even have 10% of the dialogue go in a direction I don't enjoy' just seems absurd to me.

 

If there is an NPC or 2 I don't like I'm going to largely ignore them after I've explored their whole dialogue tree once. I'll slog through it thinking, 'oh god I really hate this character' but I'll do it anyway just to see the content. In future playthroughs I'll engage with the annoying character to the bare minimum level needed to meet any goals I may have involving them. It's my personal belief that chances are there will some NPC that just bugs the hell out of most people. Those people will in turn largely ignore characters they dislike in subsequent playthroughs. However nobody bemoans all the lost time and energy that might have gone in to making said unlikable character. Whats more some people might actually like the character you dislike and not like totally different characters instead.

 

I don't see much difference between this situation and romance options in terms of having content in the game that not everybody enjoys but some people do. Both lead to 'wasted' content simply because it's not your particular cup of tea. Nobody is going to enjoy every last line of text written in the game. Somewhere along the line you'll find something trite, cliche, or annoying. So I don't see the purpose in demanding something you don't like being cut entirely for no other reason than you don't like it. I personally dislike amnesia as a plot device as it's been done to death. Even so I wouldn't demand it be purged from every game in existence simply because I dislike it. Planescape for instance handled amnesia very well and is on my list of top RPGs. Who's to say PE can't do the same for romances?

 

I'd like to think most people could find a middle ground on this but after so many posts on this topic it doesn't seem likely. Will the lack of romances ruin PE for me or the majority of people wanting romances? I'd say no. We might be a little bummed if they aren't included but that's probably as far as it would go. However the anti-romance crowd seem to feel that the inclusion of any non-platonic romance will flat out ruin the game. This seems just a bit overly melodramatic to me. A small portion of dialogue being included on a few of at least 8 NPCs shouldn't make or break the game for you anymore than it's exclusion should break it for me.

[Robsidious]

It's deontology versus consequentialism: some people care about the whys.

Some people do care about the whys.

 

Those people are crazy, because the whys aren't ever knowable.

 

 

 

Wow, you just trashed an entire school of ethics in a single sentence. Way to go.

I have a degree in that crap. I know exactly how baseless most of Ethics is.

 

Ethics has serious epistemological problems, and this is one of them.

 

 

I agree with you that NPCs can't know the PC's motivations, heck I couldn't even say that I absolutely knew the full extent of my own motivations. Having NPCs react to what the PC says are her/his motivations actually happens in games, yet doesn't negate the fact that NPCs don't actually 'know' with certainty what those motivations are. I don't think that making the distinction between Deontology and Consequentialism was helping argue against this. However, saying that people are crazy for caring about 'the whys' seems disingenuous to me, and I don't think any branch of ethics deserves to be described as crap.

 

I don't often post in forums yet this has motivated me to respond, probably because I'm normally such a big fan of what you say ( mostly ;-) and I care about ethics. Yes ethics has epistemological problems, so does pretty much all of philosophy, hell, human rights are especially problematic, but they are valuable all the same. And caring about the questions is hardly crazy, even if those questions aren't really relevant to the topic at hand. The only way to find that out is to ask them.

 

 

 

* Incidentally, would it be better to role-play a character as if you know what your motivations are (because you the player have determined them), or to role-play as if the PC doesn't know the full extent of their motivations because that's not possible?

[Bos_hybrid]

That cRPGs are about choice and consequence. Choice and consequence is a defining characteristic of cRPGs. I disagree, but BioWare champions this

 

No, they don't. They champion the illusion of choice. Most of their choices have no consequence. Later games from them are limiting choice due to their focus on cinematic presentation and full VO.

 

To be honest though, I don't understand you desire for romance. When you claim you can imagine party members on the one hand, and prefer that to dev designed companion. Then on the other championing dev developed romances.

 

Surely you could just imagine the romance, right?

Edited October 26, 2012 by Bos_hybrid

[Loranc]

That cRPGs are about choice and consequence. Choice and consequence is a defining characteristic of cRPGs. I disagree, but BioWare champions this

 

No, they don't. They champion the illusion of choice. Most of their choices have no consequence. Later games from them are limiting choice due to their focus on cinematic presentation and full VO.

 

To be honest though, I don't understand you desire for romance. When you claim you can imagine party members on the one hand, and prefer that to dev designed companion. Then on the other championing dev developed romances.

 

Surely you could just imagine the romance, right?

 

I think ME3's ending had the best champion of choice options ever. Made me laugh so hard when I reloaded to see what the other two options did. Someone said it best on youtube.

 

"Stop. Who would use the Crucible must answer me these questions three, ere the end of the game he see."

"Ask me the questions, glowing abomination! I am not afraid!"

"What... is your name?"

"Commander Shepard of the Normandy!"

"What... is your quest?"

"To stop the Reapers!"

"What... is your favourite colour?"

 

On a more serious note, you could just imagine the whole game. But, that would suck and be pointless. Some people want combat, others want dialogue, exploration, lore, companions, dungeons, pirates, you know the list goes on forever. Asking someone to imagine romance because it's something they'd like to see in the game is a bit silly. I'm sure there are several things you'd like to see in the game that we'd love to tell you to just go imagine them instead.

[evdk]

There’s something that’s been bugging me in this thread and I think it’s the argument I keep reading that developing romances would somehow swallow up so great a proportion of the ‘character’ budget that it would reduce the funds available to develop well rounded interesting non-romanceable companion subplots to a triviality.

 

Now this would in fact be a pretty reasonable argument in a Bioware AAA game where the romances have unique models, cinematics, additional voice acting and even unique animations associated with them but I don’t think these features are even on the table for PE.

 

One of the greatest advantage for me of a non cinematic or text based game is the ability for it to include so many more dialogue options for the NPCs and PCs because it’s just so much cheaper to produce them when it’s text typed in a box without all the fancy bells and whistles associated with modern AAA titles.

 

So assuming that no cinematic, animation or special resources are required for developing a romantic subplot for some characters (because we aren’t having the grand kissy-kissy scenes) I fail to see how adding a romance could eat up any more budget than any other branching type of NPC character exposition. And if romances in fact aren’t any more expensive to implement than other NPC features doesn’t the whole argument really devolve into an individual’s personal opinion that they would prefer it if the money was to be spent elsewhere or aspects other than romance were focused on? Just as the support for romances is a statement of personal opinion that an individual enjoys this feature and would like it included.

 

I feel that having available to them close to 4 times the asking price for funding the original PE model then the developers should be able to provide us with quite a comprehensive array of possible NPC interactions including friendships, rivalries, dislike, affection and romantic love.

The companion interaction scenes do not write themselves and are not done in two hours in between design meetings (were they might be, if you work at Bioware). On a project like PE, with limited funding and people, effective usage of manhours is essential. But we've been over this already in this thread, several times, and we obviously do not agree with one another's premises.

[BBMorti]

There’s something that’s been bugging me in this thread and I think it’s the argument I keep reading that developing romances would somehow swallow up so great a proportion of the ‘character’ budget that it would reduce the funds available to develop well rounded interesting non-romanceable companion subplots to a triviality.

 

Now this would in fact be a pretty reasonable argument in a Bioware AAA game where the romances have unique models, cinematics, additional voice acting and even unique animations associated with them but I don’t think these features are even on the table for PE.

 

One of the greatest advantage for me of a non cinematic or text based game is the ability for it to include so many more dialogue options for the NPCs and PCs because it’s just so much cheaper to produce them when it’s text typed in a box without all the fancy bells and whistles associated with modern AAA titles.

 

So assuming that no cinematic, animation or special resources are required for developing a romantic subplot for some characters (because we aren’t having the grand kissy-kissy scenes) I fail to see how adding a romance could eat up any more budget than any other branching type of NPC character exposition. And if romances in fact aren’t any more expensive to implement than other NPC features doesn’t the whole argument really devolve into an individual’s personal opinion that they would prefer it if the money was to be spent elsewhere or aspects other than romance were focused on? Just as the support for romances is a statement of personal opinion that an individual enjoys this feature and would like it included.

 

I feel that having available to them close to 4 times the asking price for funding the original PE model then the developers should be able to provide us with quite a comprehensive array of possible NPC interactions including friendships, rivalries, dislike, affection and romantic love.

The companion interaction scenes do not write themselves and are not done in two hours in between design meetings (were they might be, if you work at Bioware). On a project like PE, with limited funding and people, effective usage of manhours is essential. But we've been over this already in this thread, several times, and we obviously do not agree with one another's premises.

Yet you repeat it as if it is some golden nugget of an argument. The more depth they can squeeze into each companion the better. It is irrelevant if I want to explore them all as I play, personally, but it boggles the mind when people want to dictate if part of their writing should hold one thing or another.

Anything that enhances is welcome, imo

 

I am curious, since you happen to be mentioning this funding argument for the, likely, 100'th time, as far as I understand, during these threads. How much did you back this project with, yourself?

Edited October 26, 2012 by BBMorti

[Malcador]

Uh oh evdk, if you didn't put up more money than him your word is meaningless!

 

The point that it's not very effective use of time (I still think they should have made it a stretch goal, that way you people can pay for the extra time needed) may or may not be true - which is what this is all about - but it is something worth considering. Then again, why Obsidian would give a rat's tail about threads wanting X,Y and/or Z is another question.

[BBMorti]

Uh oh evdk, if you didn't put up more money than him your word is meaningless!

 

The point that it's not very effective use of time (I still think they should have made it a stretch goal, that way you people can pay for the extra time needed) may or may not be true - which is what this is all about - but it is something worth considering. Then again, why Obsidian would give a rat's tail about threads wanting X,Y and/or Z is another question.

You almost get my point which is why I provoke him. I see too many pledgers who think they should 'dictate' things that, imo, they shouldn't. It is tiring to hear arguments based on the money this kickstarter collected and refreshing when people put forward a coherent argument. I don't get all the people who feels a need to decide what is the best use for the money.. they obviously had little faith in Obsidian to begin with, or want another game than was described by them from the start.

I strongly hope Obsidian doesn't care a rats ass about all these threads with x,y and z wanting this and that, because their brains might melt if they did, by now.

Edited October 26, 2012 by BBMorti

[evdk]

Yet you repeat it as if it is some golden nugget of an argument. The more depth they can squeeze into each companion the better. It is irrelevant if I want to explore them all as I play, personally, but it boggles the mind when people want to dictate if part of their writing should hold one thing or another.

Anything that enhances is welcome, imo

 

I am curious, since you happen to be mentioning this funding argument for the, likely, 100'th time, as far as I understand, during these threads. How much did you back this project with, yourself?

A lot, relatively to my income, not much relatively to the maximum possible pledge. Does not mean I can't voice any concerns either way.