No romances confirmed

[AwesomeOcelot]

Especially if we are talking about a completly optional feature you can simply ignore if you do not like it..

I don't accept that you can have "completely optional" and good game design in an RPG. If you're actually writing characters, not romance bots, it's not going to be completely separate from the gameplay and story.

[TrashMan]

On the idea that AAA graphics and cutscenes do not take away from the storytelling:

 

It really doesn't sound like they should. After all a writer writes, the animator animates, so it's not like they take away from eachothers work time.

 

But...the writer has to take into account that all the things he writes will require cutscenes to be made. And art content. Which means more work for the 3D artists and animators.

 

So cutscenes and AAA graphics does take more work and resources... in other words more time. It is a tradeoff, and it will always be. But with new technolgoy and methods, it might become more efficient requiring lesser sacrifices.

 

 

This does not apply to PoE since it doesn't have highly detailed cutscenes with facial animations.

 

Personally I'm not sad to see romances go.

Not every game needs them, and as long as an interesting story and content are provided, ti's all good. After all, there's always headcannon and imagination

[Cubiq]

You've read no arguments how it can be good. Let's see if you remember reading this;

Without *optional* romances, they can use the time and lines to make more conversations for those cutscenes for EVERYONE, allowing them more additional time to flesh out characters in a meaningful way.

 

So instead of NPC X having 10 conversations regular, and 5 romance, (s)he now has 15 conversations to flesh out the character. Then looking at a full party, cross-gender, that means around... 30 *optional* conversations that now can be put to meaningful fleshing out conversations for everyone.

 

What's there not like about THAT?

Except that there's no such thing as "for EVERYONE". It doesn't exist, period.

Those +5 conversations to "flesh out the the character" can be equally bad. Just because it's a non-romance conversation doesn't automatically make it good or even tolerable.

Those 5 extra conversation could be of the character whining about how sad his story is, or making it stretch out for too long.

You don't like romances, but someone else might not like whiny characters that those extra conversations "fleshed" them in to.

 

I don't even care that much for romances but this seems to be the main argument that i see people in this thread keep falling back on, like it's the holy grail of logic, and it doesn't even make sense. It's subjective.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Jesus titty****ing Christ.

 

If there is no romance, that doesn't mean all NPCs will automatically be shallower or deeper, it means that instead of taking the time to implement a certain type of relationship, something else will be implemented instead. This could be anything from a new quest, a kraken battle, a new area to explore, or conversations with a NPC concerning the circumference of a troll's genitals. As most of us aren't actually on the development team, we don't know how resources are allocated.

 

You can stop making the case for or against romance, because that has already been settled. The project lead has stated that they will not be included, because he doesn't think they can do them well with the resources available. It doesn't matter how you feel, the fact is that the person driving the project doesn't have the confidence that romances in PoE could be implemented well and isn't doing them because he wants everything in PoE to be executed well.

 

If you really want romance, wait for a mod or hope that they are included in PoE2(if it is made). If PoE does well, they may have more funds to put into PoE's sequel and be able to implement stuff they didn't have the resources to do in PoE(like a kraken battle). PoE will be fine, despite the exclusion of romance(or whatever else people are butthurt over). If you don't have confidence in Obsidian to deliver a satisfying game without feature X, then giving them money to make the game was a stupid move on your part.

[Valsuelm]

Definitely good news in my opinion.

 

To those who want their in game romance I'll say this: Keep in mind that Baldur's Gate didn't have romances, and Baldur's Gate 2 did. PoE will likely have a sequel. Perhaps romances might work better there.

 

That said. One of the few things I didn't like about BG2 was the romances. The only game that comes to mind where I didn't mind or actually liked the romance was Final Fantasy VII. In Dragon Age, Witcher, and others, romances were yuck. If it adds to the main story like it did in FFVII, great, if it doesn't, keep it out of my RPG please.

[BruceVC]

Jesus titty****ing Christ.

 

.

 

You can stop making the case for or against romance, because that has already been settled.

 

 

I don't know Kaine what if you refuse to play PoE unless Romance is implemented? That may work....

[Sir Chaox]

Jesus titty****ing Christ.

 

If there is no romance, that doesn't mean all NPCs will automatically be shallower or deeper, it means that instead of taking the time to implement a certain type of relationship, something else will be implemented instead. This could be ... a kraken battle

 

Can anyone on the development team confirm? 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I've been lobbying for krakens occasionaly. No confirmation yet.

Edited February 18, 2014 by KaineParker

[Ulquiorra]

So what kreken battle is better then more realitic relationships ... then i sugest a pokemon game .. no realism .. only fights

[Amentep]

The obvious solution is a Kraken battle that leads to a Kraken-PC romance.

 

PC: "How silly...we wasted so much of our time fighting over such trivial matters!"

Kraken: "Gwaaarrrrrrphhhhh!"

[Lephys]

Yet people are still posting about why they think romance should be in PE. Even making spinoff topics with scientific reasons for it.............

That's funny. I don't think the OP said anything about specifically putting romance into PoE. It was simply an analysis of romance in games.

 

 

So, despite my arguments for romance

 

Argument for romance, in the no romances confirmed thread. You know the post you liked.

 

I can make an argument for cake, without demanding that anyone specifically eat cake at any specific time. I'm simply objectively assessing cake. "And that's why I think cake is good." You don't hafta say "DANGIT, man! We're STILL not going to get any cake!", 'cause I never said "we should go get some cake."

 

If PoE didn't even exist, everyone could still make arguments for romance, and they obviously couldn't be arguing that it be implemented into a game that doesn't exist.

 

You know this is a sub forum specifically for general discussion about PE? The PE that does not have romances...

And I see people discussing the fact that it is confirmed not to have romances, and the effects they feel that has on PoE. Seems relevant to me. It's pretty "general," but still a relevant "discussion." I don't see a "Should romance be in PoE?" poll in this thread, so it's not some big collective argument for whether or not we should put romance in PoE.

 

If you don't feel it's a worthwhile discussion, then go discuss worthwhile things. But, discussing the effects of a lack of romance on PoE, in general, is not a crime, nor is it against the intended purposes of this forum. So, unless you feel like just telling everyone how worthless you feel their discussion is, I don't really see the point in tossing dead-horse gifs around everywhere.

 

There are like 7 Armor and Weapons Inspiration threads. Are THOSE people beating a dead horse? Should we go over there and tell them they've discussed enough, and should stop now?

 

Again, if it wasn't in the PE general discussion I might agree, but it is in PE general discussion. And guess what? PE has no romances. And I must ask how many threads have there been here about romance in PE....

PoE also had no full misses in attack resolution. People discussed that decision. Then, guess what? PoE suddenly DID have full misses in its design.

 

I guess you didn't do a good enough job, telling those people to stop discussing things because a decision was made.

[rjshae]

The obvious solution is a Kraken battle that leads to a Kraken-PC romance.

 

PC: "How silly...we wasted so much of our time fighting over such trivial matters!"

Kraken: "Gwaaarrrrrrphhhhh!"

 

Careful, that could lead to Kraken god-likes...

 

 

or worse...

 

Edited February 18, 2014 by rjshae

[Sir Chaox]

So what kreken battle is better then more realitic relationships ... then i sugest a pokemon game .. no realism .. only fights

 

The best kraken battle I could hope for in pokemon is tentacruel strangling Ash Ketchum.

[Bos_hybrid]

 

Yet people are still posting about why they think romance should be in PE. Even making spinoff topics with scientific reasons for it.............

That's funny. I don't think the OP said anything about specifically putting romance into PoE. It was simply an analysis of romance in games.

 

Wait, so the topic called 'the case for romance', isn't about making the case for romance and wasn't a reaction to the no romances confirmed.

 

 

And I see people discussing the fact that it is confirmed not to have romances, and the effects they feel that has on PoE. Seems relevant to me. It's pretty "general," but still a relevant "discussion." I don't see a "Should romance be in PoE?" poll in this thread, so it's not some big collective argument for whether or not we should put romance in PoE.

 

All I see is whining about how NPC's aren't going to be memorable, or as interesting now that they don't contain a dialogue path to romance. And that PE should include them otherwise this game is just IWD.

 

I don't really see the point in tossing dead-horse gifs around everywhere.

 

Because whether or not you see the point, it is appropriate in regards to discussion about romances. To be honest one dead horse doesn't do it justice.

 

                       

 

There are like 7 Armor and Weapons Inspiration threads. Are THOSE people beating a dead horse? Should we go over there and tell them they've discussed enough, and should stop now?

 

But there are weapons and armor in PE. There is no romance in PE. See difference.

 

PoE also had no full misses in attack resolution. People discussed that decision. Then, guess what? PoE suddenly DID have full misses in its design.

 

I guess you didn't do a good enough job, telling those people to stop discussing things because a decision was made.

 

Wait, I thought that people weren't trying to whine until devs change their minds about romance? No you're telling me they are?

 

So this....

I can make an argument for cake, without demanding that anyone specifically eat cake at any specific time. I'm simply objectively assessing cake. "And that's why I think cake is good." You don't hafta say "DANGIT, man! We're STILL not going to get any cake!", 'cause I never said "we should go get some cake."

 

If PoE didn't even exist, everyone could still make arguments for romance, and they obviously couldn't be arguing that it be implemented into a game that doesn't exist.

 

 

Really means, 'we are whining for romance, we're just saying we're not, while we keep posting how we know better then the devs. Eventually they'll see how we are right.'

[Hassat Hunter]

Except that there's no such thing as "for EVERYONE". It doesn't exist, period.

Yes, there is.

 

"My name is Colonel Shephard, and I want to bone you": +5 conversations.

"My name is Colonel Shephard, and I don't want to bone you": +0 conversations.

 

vs.

 

"My name is Pillars of Eternity, and whatever your preferences are, you get +5 conversations. YOU WIN"

 

BUT, we're not done yet. Since non-romance conversations by OE are horrible, as we all know from playing their previous game. Which is why we all backed PoE (including the person I quote who is convinced OE will give terrible quality conversations.)

Those +5 conversations to "flesh out the the character" can be equally bad.

But, we don't need to bone a character just to see them. And thus, by there very definition, will be better.

They might have variations for gender, like a good RPG should. They will vary based on your actions, like a good RPG should. They will be based on your choices you made before and during this conversation, like a good RPG should.

But you don't need to go "I LOVE YOU" just to unlock them in their entirety. And then have no variation in them, like a good RPG should.

Just because it's a non-romance conversation doesn't automatically make it good or even tolerable.

But it will be open for the player. For all their members. No more char X saying nothing since all the lines are for females since he's a romance. You can now talk with him like a bro. And sure, he wont make a sexist comment how he's surprised your boobed character can fight since he's super-macho, but instead give you the "awesome, bro" line, but the rest of his backstory wont be locked unless you take his pants off.

I'm all for content that excludes each other (like group A and B who really hate each other and you need to pick sides), so you have different things to do next game. But I rather not have that skim on character interaction, and there's enough variety to make in it by, as stated, use the PC's actions or previous responses, rather than the arbitrary "love-dovy option"...

Those 5 extra conversation could be of the character whining about how sad his story is, or making it stretch out for too long.

That actually sounds like a BioWare romance or "loyalty" plotline. I have faith Obsidian can make a team without all having daddy issues.

I don't even care that much for romances but this seems to be the main argument that i see people in this thread keep falling back on, like it's the holy grail of logic, and it doesn't even make sense. It's subjective.

If you're not then why make posts going all "if there's no romance, the ONLY alternative is horrible horrible dialogue." I am confused.

Why back Obsidian, have no faith in them, and think automatically all the additional free character arch to play with will be of a horribly degenerate quality. Rather than be happy with the rest of us; "Yay, they got more time now to flesh out the characters, write in-conversation teammate responses (rather than all talk in camp and never a reaction in the real gameworld) and all that which make a character get... character!

 

If you cannot follow the logic that "more character interaction in an Obsidian game" is good, and makes sense... I do have to wonder. Why exactly DID you back Project Eternity?

[alanschu]

Of course they'll say this.  That way no one will expect them and then when people have them, it'll be a surprise rather than going into the game with expectations on who to romance!

Really, it's about getting the BG2 experience, right?

 

 

 

 

But, we don't need to bone a character just to see them. And thus, by there very definition, will be better.

 

Taken more generally, does this mean that you feel that it should be possible for the player to have every possible character conversation interaction be available on a given playthrough regardless of which choices were made by the player?

Edited February 19, 2014 by alanschu

[Hassat Hunter]

In conversations; Probably not (party size limitation).

"Camp" conversations; Yes. The difference being it's contents changing based on the player, rather than being completely absent for it's potential choice not to romance.

 

So, like I said, I would prefer 13 conversations with great variety in it based on your actions, that all players will be able to initate, than 10 of those and 5 romance conversations which are locked out if not.

Would you not?

[alanschu]

 

"Camp" conversations; Yes. The difference being it's contents changing based on the player, rather than being completely absent for it's potential choice not to romance.

 

So, like I said, I would prefer 13 conversations with great variety in it based on your actions, that all players will be able to initate, than 10 of those and 5 romance conversations which are locked out if not.

Would you not?

 

So the issue is more that there is content that romance people see that non-romance people don't, while people that romance aren't required to miss anything themselves?  If this is true, is the issue less with the romances and more with the lack of alternative-to-romance content?

[Hassat Hunter]

That is it for me... not doing romances allows them to use the time to write them to flesh out characters with other conversations, adding interruptions by them in regular conversations, etc.

 

It's somewhat surprising to me people automatically assume with no romances that interaction is weakened or non-existant, even if OE explicitely stated they put the effort instead in improving those.

And that can only get more applause from me...

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Lephys, considering that you've said in the other romance thread that you don't discriminate and see reasonable arguments on the no romance side of the discussion. What are your reasonable arguments that you would not want to see romances in PoE? Why don't you want romances in PoE?

[BruceVC]

Of course they'll say this.  That way no one will expect them and then when people have them, it'll be a surprise rather than going into the game with expectations on who to romance!

Really, it's about getting the BG2 experience, right?

 

 

 

 

But, we don't need to bone a character just to see them. And thus, by there very definition, will be better.

 

Taken more generally, does this mean that you feel that it should be possible for the player to have every possible character conversation interaction be available on a given playthrough regardless of which choices were made by the player?

 

Do you think that's what Obsidian is doing? Do you think they are pretending to say " we won't have Romance" but in fact they want to surprise us? I'm not sure if you are joking because you very seldom joke

[Stun]

Of course they'll say this.  That way no one will expect them and then when people have them, it'll be a surprise rather than going into the game with expectations on who to romance!

Really, it's about getting the BG2 experience, right?

LOL what you're describing is more like the NWN2 experience. Because that's exactly how they approached the issue when that game was in development. They made no mention at all about any romances during the development cycle and the pre-release hype up.

 

Then the game came out.

 

Then we all started playing it. Then we started noticing that Neeshka was getting jealous whenever we'd talk to a Female NPC, so people began thinking that she must be a Romance option. But then the game throws Shandra at us. It makes her the obligatory "damsel in distress" AND the mandatory party member, AND you get to buy her a gift (her portrait). So suddenly people began thinking that she must be a romance option.

 

 

But then she gets killed.

 

Then before you realize what's going on, Elanee comes out of nowhere, informs you that she's been stalking you since you were a baby, then asks you to go to bed with her. And everyone is like: WTF!

Edited February 19, 2014 by Stun

[BruceVC]

 

Of course they'll say this.  That way no one will expect them and then when people have them, it'll be a surprise rather than going into the game with expectations on who to romance!

Really, it's about getting the BG2 experience, right?

LOL what you're describing is more like the NWN2 experience. Because that's exactly how they approached the issue when that game was in development. They made no mention at all about any romances during the development cycle and the pre-release hype up.

 

Then the game came out.

 

Then we all started playing it. Then we started noticing that Neeshka was getting jealous whenever we'd talk to a Female NPC, so people began thinking that she must be a Romance option. But then the game throws Shandra at us. It makes her the obligatory "damsel in distress" AND the mandatory party member, AND you get to buy her a gift (her portrait). So suddenly people began thinking that she must be a romance option.

 

 

But then she gets killed.

 

Then before you realize what's going on, Elanee comes out of nowhere, informs you that she's been stalking you since you were a baby, then asks you to go to bed with her. And everyone is like: WTF!

 

 

You do realize that if Alan is right than it can only enhance the Romance debate, because then we need to continue discussing Romance and the various connotations around how they could be implemented in PoE. I hope he is right

[alanschu]

That is it for me... not doing romances allows them to use the time to write them to flesh out characters with other conversations, adding interruptions by them in regular conversations, etc.

 

It's somewhat surprising to me people automatically assume with no romances that interaction is weakened or non-existant, even if OE explicitely stated they put the effort instead in improving those.

And that can only get more applause from me...

 

Sorry, I more mean: if there were dialogue options that were available to non-romance players but not to romance players, would that make romances more palatable for you?

 

Or is it simply "I do not like romances at all, and therefore they shouldn't be in because it's content that I'll only see doing something that I don't want to do?"

[alanschu]

LOL what you're describing is more like the NWN2 experience. Because that's exactly how they approached the issue when that game was in development. They made no mention at all about any romances during the development cycle and the pre-release hype up.

 

Then the game came out.

 

Then we all started playing it. Then we started noticing that Neeshka was getting jealous whenever we'd talk to a Female NPC, so people began thinking that she must be a Romance option. But then the game throws Shandra at us. It makes her the obligatory "damsel in distress" AND the mandatory party member, AND you get to buy her a gift (her portrait). So suddenly people began thinking that she must be a romance option.

 

 

But then she gets killed.

 

Then before you realize what's going on, Elanee comes out of nowhere, informs you that she's been stalking you since you were a baby, then asks you to go to bed with her. And everyone is like: WTF!

 

 

 

Haha. I was mostly being silly. I don't think romances will exist in the game (aside: I do disagree with Jaheira and Annah not being romances, though hey people have different opinions. I just don't see a romance as "requiring sex" although Jaheira does have that, and it's expanded upon in Throne of Bhaal).

 

 

I never did the "romance" in NWN2 (I think it's only Elanee right? I didn't care much for her), so honestly I cannot remember (I played through the OC only once, and it was right at release).

 

 

Although on a personal level, I *did* enjoy Jaheira's romance a lot in BG2, and a large part of it was because the concept was novel to me (I definitely wasn't expecting it). That said, hers (and probably Annah's) are the only ones that really made me go "Hey I like this!"

 

 

Do you think that's what Obsidian is doing? Do you think they are pretending to say " we won't have Romance" but in fact they want to surprise us? I'm not sure if you are joking because you very seldom joke

I do not think that Obsidian is doing this. I'm just joking. I wouldn't expect any romances in the game, though I'd encourage you to go into an open mind still as there's a good chance the writing will still be excellent. It just means it's a different type of story.

Edited February 19, 2014 by alanschu