Relationship/Romance Thread IV

[Sacred_Path]

I'd like to assume that my character knows when they're hungry and how to plan to have food available to them when traveling.

 

I don't like to assume my character knows how I want them to interact with other people.

 

I can't understand this arbitrarity. If you allow for the fact that your character has enough experience in his world to take care of his physical needs, why don't you just guess that he also knows how to satisfy his emotional needs?

 

A character doesn't have to be in a romance to live; they do have to eat* to live.

 

Thanks, but that means there's more reason to have food in the game than romance, u know?

 

I'd like to assume dialog with other characters can lead to unexpected outcomes. If I eat bread, I should eat bread. Not roll for initiative and try to hit with my teeth.

 

When you hit a monster with a sword, it dies. Not much variation in the outcome there either. Still it's in the game

 

The only way these two situations - in my opinion - could be remotely relatable is if I have to have dialog options with my food to successfully eat or something. Which is just weird enough concept to be worth it.

 

Absolutely. If I could romance a pie [and eat it], we'd all be happy and I'd buy 10 copies of this game.

[Mandragore]

I'd like someone who supports romance in games argue against a food mechanic. Anyone?

 

I'd like to assume that my character knows when they're hungry and how to plan to have food available to them when traveling.

 

I don't like to assume my character knows how I want them to interact with other people.

 

A character doesn't have to be in a romance to live; they do have to eat* to live.

 

I'd like to assume dialog with other characters can lead to unexpected outcomes. If I eat bread, I should eat bread. Not roll for initiative and try to hit with my teeth.

 

The only way these two situations - in my opinion - could be remotely relatable is if I have to have dialog options with my food to successfully eat or something. Which is just weird enough concept to be worth it.

 

*or some eating equivalent if we're talking plant people or something

 

Seconded. This isn't fallout or some other game were basic survival is one of the main challenges. Presumably your character is smart enough to buy rations at the inn before departing, not to mention that in most fantasy settings there are a surfeit of tasty non-irradiated animals frolicking about. I'm usually all for realism and verisimilitude, but in a game like PE i think this would just be obnoxious. Unless what we've seen and heard so far has been misleading and the setting is a post-apocalyptic wasteland, my answer to this is a resounding no.

[Sacred_Path]

This isn't fallout or some other game were basic survival is one of the main challenges.

#

 

then why not make it one? I'm generally interested in why romance is preferrable to food

 

Presumably your character is smart enough to buy rations at the inn before departing

 

that would imply that there is a food mechanic in the game. If no gold is subtracted from my party's bag than they obviously didn't buy any food.

 

not to mention that in most fantasy settings there are a surfeit of tasty non-irradiated animals frolicking about.

 

Nice, then why not simulate hunting? Does your wizard really catch deer with his little dagger? How come no arrows are used up in your quivers?

 

I also think there will be enough delicious damsels frolicking about in the cities, so why not simply assume that your character gets some?

Edited November 12, 2012 by Sacred_Path

[Mandragore]

I'd like to assume that my character knows when they're hungry and how to plan to have food available to them when traveling.

 

I don't like to assume my character knows how I want them to interact with other people.

 

I can't understand this arbitrarity. If you allow for the fact that your character has enough experience in his world to take care of his physical needs, why don't you just guess that he also knows how to satisfy his emotional needs?

 

A character doesn't have to be in a romance to live; they do have to eat* to live.

 

Thanks, but that means there's more reason to have food in the game than romance, u know?

 

I'd like to assume dialog with other characters can lead to unexpected outcomes. If I eat bread, I should eat bread. Not roll for initiative and try to hit with my teeth.

 

When you hit a monster with a sword, it dies. Not much variation in the outcome there either. Still it's in the game

 

The only way these two situations - in my opinion - could be remotely relatable is if I have to have dialog options with my food to successfully eat or something. Which is just weird enough concept to be worth it.

 

Absolutely. If I could romance a pie [and eat it], we'd all be happy and I'd buy 10 copies of this game.

 

So slaughtering fantastic beasts with a sword is as mundane and commonplace a task as eating bread? What drugs are you on and how can I acquire them?

[Sacred_Path]

So slaughtering fantastic beasts with a sword is as mundane and commonplace a task as eating bread? What drugs are you on and how can I acquire them?

 

So eating can't be in the game because it's more mundane than sex or talking to other people? Stay away from my stash, your stuff is better than mine.

[Amentep]

I'd like to assume that my character knows when they're hungry and how to plan to have food available to them when traveling.

 

I don't like to assume my character knows how I want them to interact with other people.

 

I can't understand this arbitrarity. If you allow for the fact that your character has enough experience in his world to take care of his physical needs, why don't you just guess that he also knows how to satisfy his emotional needs?

 

Because the choices should be mine - not choices on what to eat and when, but what to do in the "important" stuff that develops who the character is or how the story unfolds. Who I pick as my ally is defining, not eating a sandwich. Without the choices that count being mine, I'd just be watching a movie. Which is fine activity but not really what I want for a game.

 

I'll admit that I'm a bit idiosyncratic in this regard, but to me food requirements are pointless busywork; you have a meter that goes down and is replenished by pressing a button. The button only works if you have a resource in your inventory.

 

So essentially all that has been added is a button I'm required to push and a money sink that I have to spend money on. I'd actually rather pay an upkeep fee for things like this and not worry about pressing the button.

 

I also confess that back in the C64 era I played a RPG that had a food mechanic and got stuck in a situation where I needed money to buy food but didn't have any but starved to death every time I tried to go to the outerlands to find a monster to kill for gold. Arguably realistic but for me not a fun experience at age 13 or 14.

 

The only way these two situations - in my opinion - could be remotely relatable is if I have to have dialog options with my food to successfully eat or something. Which is just weird enough concept to be worth it.

 

Absolutely. If I could romance a pie [and eat it], we'd all be happy and I'd buy 10 copies of this game.

 

I think we have Obsidian's next Kickstarter here.

 

EDIT: rereading this, I was struck by my previous idea that to me RPGs are more story with a character I control working through the definition of the character and story established/allowed by the game. Its entirely possible that I'm more in favor with game elements that concentrate on the aspects I like (which is story & character) vs those that I don't like that don't add value to story and character (heavy sim aspects, like eating). This may explain why I don't see a logical disconnect between being pro-romance and anti-button-press-eating while others do.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Amentep

[Mandragore]

Nice, then why not simulate hunting? Does your wizard really catch deer with his little dagger? How come no arrows are used up in your quivers?

 

I also think there will be enough delicious damsels frolicking about in the cities, so why not simply assume that your character gets some?

 

While I think the idea of a hunting minigame that you could engage in while your party is at camp sounds awesome, the second part of your post leaves me with a bizarre mental picture of you chasing down frolicking maidens while wearing a bright orange vest and carrying a shotgun.

[Sacred_Path]

Because the choices should be mine - not choices on what to eat and when, but what to do in the "important" stuff that develops who the character is. Who I pick as my ally is defining, not eating a sandwich. Without the choices that count being mine, I'd just be watching a movie. Which is fine activity but not really what I want for a game.

 

1. Few things would be more important than food.

 

2. There can be choices about food - do you actively kill monsters/ animals and eat them, do you use a character's skill (like setting snares) to simulate hunting, or do you fight humanoid enemies to buy food with their gold?

 

I'd actually rather pay an upkeep fee for things like this and not worry about pressing the button.

 

that is a primitive food mechanic, one that I'm not averse to. Sadly you don't even have that usually

[Mandragore]

1. Few things would be more important than food.

 

 

 

Now you're just being facetious. Important yes, but to your health, not to the advancement of the plot or evolution of your character.

[Sacred_Path]

Now you're just being facetious. Important yes, but to your health, not to the advancement of the plot or evolution of your character.

 

The same thing applies to healing.

[Mandragore]

Now you're just being facetious. Important yes, but to your health, not to the advancement of the plot or evolution of your character.

 

The same thing applies to healing.

 

Seriously? One is a mechanic necessary for risk and recovery in combat, the other is completely extraneous.

[Lurky]

You are asking for something that isn't remotely similar to the precursor games.

 

Again and again and again and again.

 

Romances. A tiny part of BG2. Tiny.

 

You are projecting your need for fan-service, and that's all it is. You don't have to like it. And you are the reasonable end of the promance spectrum, god help us when the rest turn up.

 

Considering that he asked for simple stuff, for just "court the person and if you succeed you have sex with them", I'm not sure if he's on the reasonable side of the spectrum :|

 

I mean, I would expect a reasonable pro-romancer to understand that some people want variety in their NPC interactions, instead of replying to a list of potential possiblities with "Uhhh that's too many! Stick to the simple stuff!". I would expect that if Avellone said that there would be a variety of relationships with the companions, a reasonable person would understand that wanting a lot of the same type (romance for everyone) is not in line with what he said. I would expect that if the game was marketed as "mature", it can't hide from criticism with the "it's a fantasy RPG what are you expecting" argument, which means that it can't really be used as defense.

 

Seriously guys (not addressing all of you), we can disagree in our priorities, but damn, put up some intellectual effort to justify yours at least :\

 

Or maybe he's trolling. You can never really tell.

 

Also, how many of the people who want chainmail bikins are in favor of chainmail boxers too? Equality, guys!

[Amentep]

Because the choices should be mine - not choices on what to eat and when, but what to do in the "important" stuff that develops who the character is. Who I pick as my ally is defining, not eating a sandwich. Without the choices that count being mine, I'd just be watching a movie. Which is fine activity but not really what I want for a game.

 

1. Few things would be more important than food.

 

2. There can be choices about food - do you actively kill monsters/ animals and eat them, do you use a character's skill (like setting snares) to simulate hunting, or do you fight humanoid enemies to buy food with their gold?

 

1. In real life, yeah. In a game? Not to me because that's not what interest me - the story & characters are. If I wanted to play a sim game, I'd play the Sims and be forced to feed my Sim and guide them to the bathroom to poop and all that.

 

2. Again making complex systems to handle what is essentially a money/time sink button press element ("Press 'Y' to not starve to death") isn't interesting to me.

 

I won't hate it if a food mechanic is in, but its not something I have an interest in.

[Sacred_Path]

Seriously? One is a mechanic necessary for risk and recovery in combat, the other is completely extraneous.

 

And food a permanent money/skill sink that makes the player better contemplate on how he coordinates his journey and how to spend gold.

 

Extraneous yes, just like romance. By no means is romance required to develop your character or give it depth.

[Sacred_Path]

1. In real life, yeah. In a game? Not to me because that's not what interest me - the story & characters are. If I wanted to play a sim game, I'd play the Sims and be forced to feed my Sim and guide them to the bathroom to poop and all that.

 

2. Again making complex systems to handle what is essentially a money/time sink button press element ("Press 'Y' to not starve to death") isn't interesting to me.

 

I won't hate it if a food mechanic is in, but its not something I have an interest in.

 

I know, that's basically what it comes down to. Personal preference and interest or lack thereof.

[Amentep]

Extraneous yes, just like romance. By no means is romance required to develop your character or give it depth.

 

I never argued romance was required, though, only one "tool in the toolbox" for developers to use if/when it made sense (to them, not to us)

 

On the flip side, really don't want to see a non-toggle-able food mechanic because I find them a bore in games and a lot harder to ignore than optional dialogue.

 

 

I know, that's basically what it comes down to. Personal preference and interest or lack thereof.

 

Can't argue that it isn't, but ultimately that's what most of these things boil down to from our (the game players) perspective

Edited November 12, 2012 by Amentep

[Sacred_Path]

On the flip side, really don't want to see a non-toggle-able food mechanic because I find them a bore in games and a lot harder to ignore than optional dialogue.

 

Mebbe it should be treated like romance then. A pop up message that says "You happen to have some bread in your backpack. It looks delicious. Your stomach growls when you look at it, though you do not know why. You feel strangely compelled to sink your teeth into it. Give in to this seduction y/n" Completely optional.

[Amentep]

On the flip side, really don't want to see a non-toggle-able food mechanic because I find them a bore in games and a lot harder to ignore than optional dialogue.

 

Mebbe it should be treated like romance then. A pop up message that says "You happen to have some bread in your backpack. It looks delicious. Your stomach growls when you look at it, though you do not know why. You feel strangely compelled to sink your teeth into it. Give in to this seduction y/n" Completely optional.

 

Now we're back on the winning track with pop-a-bread gameplay and romance pies!

[SGray]

Few things would be more important than food.

Well, you have a point. Then we'll go one step further and implement breathing mechanics! And hartbeating mechanics! Everything controlled by the player! Few things are more important than this!

If you wish to refuse common reason and want to intentionally exaggerate - you could happily play your "being mundane human" simulator and give orders to each one of your muscles every time you want to move or to breath in. Quite an immersive gameplay I'd say.

If you are able to make such things interesting to most of the players - good luck with that. Some running simulator was quite a success as I remember.

 

P.S. I'm really interested in your justification of any plot (without romances) versus manual breathing. All on your terms, prove your position is better (not mundane troll), I'll listen carefully )

[Monte Carlo]

Romance is the food of love. Or is that music?

[Sacred_Path]

Well, you have a point. Then we'll go one step further and implement breathing mechanics! And hartbeating mechanics! Everything controlled by the player! Few things are more important than this!

If you wish to refuse common reason and want to intentionally exaggerate

 

Does it take any effort on your part to satisfy your hunger?

 

 

OTOH, does it take any effort to keep your heart beating?

 

 

There are better examples to refute food mechanics (such as, wouldn't all this camping in the wilderness in bad weather cause rheumatism? And with no blankets to boot? Better introduce some housing!)

[BetrayTheWorld]

On the flip side, really don't want to see a non-toggle-able food mechanic because I find them a bore in games and a lot harder to ignore than optional dialogue.

 

Mebbe it should be treated like romance then. A pop up message that says "You happen to have some bread in your backpack. It looks delicious. Your stomach growls when you look at it, though you do not know why. You feel strangely compelled to sink your teeth into it. Give in to this seduction y/n" Completely optional.

 

Or, you know, they could just have some options at the beginning of the game that you can toggle on/off.

 

Click Start New Game.

Please select the options for your new game:

 

Optional Content:

1. Have to eat food <on/off>

2. Blood/Gore <on/off>

3. Romantic interactions <on/off>

4. Racy cut scenes <on/off>

etc, etc.

 

With some of the divisive topics that appear on the forums, I really don't understand why it's so hard for a community to get behind a simple idea like toggleable options that please both sides. This idea should be a thread ender, but it never is.

Edited November 12, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[Sacred_Path]

Ah, but you probably won't miss out on much if you toggle food off. No romances OTOH will possibly bereave you of mucho content.

[SGray]

OTOH, does it take any effort to keep your heart beating?

It's really important to control your heart. During dialogs, especially while bluffing. Such control is even more important when you are bleeding, or when you are poisoned. Same importance when your protagonist is freezing or overheating. So much useful and entertaining, each time wrong choice could cause even death! Such choices could have far consequences also! How could we miss such an important part of gameplay?

 

And what about breathing? I asked specifically about it.

Edited November 12, 2012 by SGray

[Sacred_Path]

OTOH, does it take any effort to keep your heart beating?

And what about breathing then? I asked specifically about it.

 

If you find breathing is a chore that takes much effort mebbe stop it?

 

this is degenerating into derp but that's probably because romance is involved

Edited November 12, 2012 by Sacred_Path