Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

 

Absolutely, I know even without Romance options the writing will still be excellent :)

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaheira is a good example how the friendship and relationship of characters can grow even over more than one game. While she also has some bad written moments she is a prime example of character growth that seems believeable it is a solid romance and same as with vico the game would actually be worse without her.

 

That is why the BG2 romance setup was good you had the classic damsel with issues in Arie the seemingly nympho that cant overcome her racism because of what she has to put up with in vico as well as jaheira that has a slowly developing relation to the character and the world outside the druids and harpers sometimes making her bitter over her loses. All three adding something for different kind of players (male options were not bad too btw but edwin was always.... well edwin hilarois with vico though). While they could be ignored if you dislike this kind of storylines. The second thing that wss great were the face offs between chars with different believes and relationships that sometimes even lead to one leaving for good but I fear the developers dont have the balls for that either ... since it needs to be believable.

 

You can say what you want about the game in other areas and not all of the relationships were good and most too rushed but coming closest to this in the last years with regards to big titels was the ME series.... not with all romance options but with 2 of them.

 

Jack had a character and backstory that made it totally believable that she would push the physical part and bioware had the balls to basically end your relationship at one point if you had sex with her just for the sake of nailing her exploiting her being clearly deeply damaged. While she could have used way more banters to flesh it out I felt she is the one to trust with the bartier against the insects. In her way too short apperance in part 3 she mentions details lkke that and how they impacted her and while still cleary damaged she gives a really sane point about why she cant bother much with you now in a way that vlearly shows growth and seems believable in the context of the roboapocalypse... Solid character that unfortunately was not fleshed out enough but the interaction with the player clearly added yo her (unlike for example with... ash).

 

My personal favorite is Tali... while also awefully short on banters part1 dhe is childish and overly good in an ok way while still giving useful information so when you have her with you on misdions you still get what the char is about. While not being ugly in general she shows to be clearly something different with her arms and legs... well and the mask.

 

Not having her as a romance option part 1 was very useful and gave the char time to grow on me while in some parts it seemed a bit forced (was clearly fanservice) they also made an arc for her missions that was meaningful and showed us her social surtondings forming her. While she showed (unlike other chars in the series) some change due to all the things she saw...

 

In Part 3 she also has a bigger goal... but is simply not able to abonden you. You are part of her goal even if she doesnt realise it first and the way you decide can lead from everything between happily ever after till suicde for her (that shocked me a moment when it happend)

 

While both could have used more dialouge they both show that you can integrate romance in a way that makes sense in the story... same as BG2 showed us.

 

While again... both games are playable without major gameplay downside if you ignore all those options.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?"

 

I know it's not me you're asking, but for me yes it would.  There's other problems I have with it but it would become more acceptable.  It's more the fact that characters shut up and refuse to talk if you don't seek to bone them, and that there seems to be no other kind of relationship than 'to bone or not to bone'. There's no bromance, familial relationships (brother/sister etc), friendly rivalry, teacher-student relationship, parent-child (imagine sticking a PC with a orphan kid they have to look after, actually I liked that Skyrim tried that), etc.  It's as if the dialogue is a 'reward' for bonage. 

 

I think the idea that dialogue is eaten up by the romances, that the developers have spent so much time developing that dialogue but not on the other dialogue, doesn't help people's acceptance of it.  This idea is reinforced when romance-option characters shut up early on when not being romanced but the other characters keep on talking.

  • Like 2

"That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

"Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's not me you're asking, but for me yes it would. There's other problems I have with it but it would become more acceptable. It's more the fact that characters shut up and refuse to talk if you don't seek to bone them, and that there seems to be no other kind of relationship than 'to bone or not to bone'. There's no bromance, familial relationships (brother/sister etc), friendly rivalry, teacher-student relationship, parent-child (imagine sticking a PC with a orphan kid they have to look after, actually I liked that Skyrim tried that), etc. It's as if the dialogue is a 'reward' for bonage.

 

 

 

I think the idea that dialogue is eaten up by the romances, that the developers have spent so much time developing that dialogue but not on the other dialogue, doesn't help people's acceptance of it. This idea is reinforced when romance-option characters shut up early on when not being romanced but the other characters keep on talking.

 

Okay fair enough. Taken more generally, what are your thoughts on optional content? Should it only be experienced at the exclusion of other optional content? Or is there wiggle room here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know it's not me you're asking, but for me yes it would. There's other problems I have with it but it would become more acceptable. It's more the fact that characters shut up and refuse to talk if you don't seek to bone them, and that there seems to be no other kind of relationship than 'to bone or not to bone'. There's no bromance, familial relationships (brother/sister etc), friendly rivalry, teacher-student relationship, parent-child (imagine sticking a PC with a orphan kid they have to look after, actually I liked that Skyrim tried that), etc. It's as if the dialogue is a 'reward' for bonage.

 

 

 

I think the idea that dialogue is eaten up by the romances, that the developers have spent so much time developing that dialogue but not on the other dialogue, doesn't help people's acceptance of it. This idea is reinforced when romance-option characters shut up early on when not being romanced but the other characters keep on talking.

 

Okay fair enough. Taken more generally, what are your thoughts on optional content? Should it only be experienced at the exclusion of other optional content? Or is there wiggle room here?

 

It all depends on just what the content is imho.  For me dialogue with companions isn't really optional, I find the companion relationships important to me, how they react to things and what they do is part of the story and me managing them part of the game.  If it's a party rpg then I expect the party to say and do stuff essentially.

 

As for other content, I recall someone mentioning the Underdark section in another thread and how you were given two options: go with Seamus and get an extra sequence or go through the portal and lose out on it.  This seemed to penalise players who took the latter reason for no discernable reason.  If instead of just cutting out a sequence the portal sent you to a different area of the Underdark to where you eventually end up going with the other option and have a variant sequence instead of just shortcutting it then it would have been better in my opinion.  Kinda like the choice between Bohdi and the Shadow Thieves, or choosing between the Watch and Thieves in Neverwinter Nights 2. 

 

Though having said that, if I am given a choice I expect there to be differences.  If all that happens is a change in the names of the people I am fighting then it feels cheap.  For instance, in the Russian Embassy mission in Alpha Protocol you get a choice of Sie or Albatross as your handler.  If you take Albatross then the ensuing sequence makes sense as the enemy you fight are the types to do a full-frontal assault but if you choose Sie suddenly you are fighting G22 doing a full-frontal assault (which their profile claims they don't do) attacking the embassy to kill a man for apparently no reason other than you chose another handler, making the sequence play out exactly the same way.

"That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

"Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Flint covered it pretty well in this second-to-last post, but

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?"

I don't like romances, true.

But if the creators can make romances AND good character interaction and storyline, fine.

In an OR situation, like this though, were there are not such large funds to do that, and options need to be picked, I definitely prefer them to put their time into fleshing out characters and interruptions during game-world conversations than a completely optional away-from-the-game romance.

 

Though what I have found is in most games with romances (think Mass Effect 2) having romances is *still* an OR situation, and it's inclusion harms the actual main portion of the game, like a missing main plot in ME2.

It's acceptable in BG2 since it doesn't feel like the main game is sacrificed for it. Something recent BioWare titles certainly don't mirror. Which is why the "hate" against it. We don't want the main portion of the game sacrificed just to include romances.

 

Because even if the "promancers" (horrible term) are all saying 'it's so easy, it only takes 3 weeks writing, it costs less than creating a small blacksmith'... it DOESN'T.

And as soon as the people realise, like with the added stretch goals, there's NOTHING "free" about it, and that it's not something we reject because "we hate free content" but it would actually have a cost to it, one in quality of other content (unless a huge dose of cash is thrown at it. And I mean huge) I hope the point made becomes clearer, and there are no more terms thrown at me like 'you hate romance' while I just want the assets spend in an IMO more productive, and gameimproving way.

  • Like 1

^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Didn't realize you were talking about that other thread. My mistake. Doesn't change the fact that an objective analysis of the implementation of romance in video games is relevant to the "general discussion" of a video game that has decided there will not be romance.

 

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.

Then it seems you have selective acknowledgement, and are simply ignoring any posts that are not doing so. I really don't care if you even believe anything I'm saying, or how you feel about this. I'm simply pointing out to you that your "OMG, ENOUGH *dead horse gif*" interjections are not only unwarranted, but also pointless, in regard to the mere discussion of romance as a factor (absent OR present) in the design of games such as PoE.

 

 

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? :o

 

Nope. You're arbitrarily assuming I'm telling you that by coloring outside the lines of my words.

 

Put simply, something was announced to not be in the game, people discussed it anyway (not demanded that it be in a bunch... actually said "Here are effects I'm seeing of that component's absence in this design"), and the dev team obviously found that useful in regard to the inclusion of that component, even after it was already decided not to put it in the game.

 

Thus, discussion of already-decided-upon thing was objectively relevant to the game's design.

 

You don't have to insist on a particular choice, just to point out objective impacts of a specific decision.

 

Like right now. I'm telling you your dead horse posts are pointless, but I'm not in any way insisting that you stop posting them. It's totally up to you. I just thought you might like to know that your dislike for other people's advocacy of romance and the exploration of its implementation and the effects of that implementation (or its absence) doesn't in any way make that exploration moot. Nor does the decision that romance will not be in the game (Once again, if you missed it, see "full misses" example above.)

 

I really don't know what else to say on the matter. I've bypassed the "whose opinion is better" arena entirely by presenting empirical evidence that discussion of something already decided upon as not being in the game's design is potentially useful. If you'd like to insist on continuing a bunch of irrational justification of your own "I'm sick of hearing about romance" sentiments, then, totally feel free to waste everyone's time (including your own).

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on just what the content is imho. For me dialogue with companions isn't really optional, I find the companion relationships important to me, how they react to things and what they do is part of the story and me managing them part of the game. If it's a party rpg then I expect the party to say and do stuff essentially.

Dialogue, in general, may not be "optional" though depending on how one roleplays, whether or not dialogue would be experienced could still be optional. Romances are technically optional, but we've established that that is seen as unfair towards those that do not like romances. But how about a companion quest? If it is not required to finish the game, it could be considered "optional" and if the companion quest was to kill an NPC (that maybe you liked), you could choose to not do it as part of your RP experience. Should something like this only exist if there is an alternative piece of content to make up for not doing this particular quest?

 

 

As for other content, I recall someone mentioning the Underdark section in another thread and how you were given two options: go with Seamus and get an extra sequence or go through the portal and lose out on it. This seemed to penalise players who took the latter reason for no discernable reason. If instead of just cutting out a sequence the portal sent you to a different area of the Underdark to where you eventually end up going with the other option and have a variant sequence instead of just shortcutting it then it would have been better in my opinion. Kinda like the choice between Bohdi and the Shadow Thieves, or choosing between the Watch and Thieves in Neverwinter Nights 2.

I can see both sides of this with various pros and cons, though I actually agree with you with respect to the Underdark choice. Fair or not, a player will feel "punished," even if it could be valid that "hey, not all choices are equal."

 

 

It's been a while since I last played Bloodlines. Do the other vampire groups have equivalent quests to the Tremere ones? (I think some might, but not all. Not sure) I imagine "you got some unique content because of the class you chose" would be irksome, unless each class received their own unique content?

Edited by alanschu
Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that the BG franchise was one of my all time favourites and it all started with BGI (no romance), well at the end of the day, whilst I am slightly disappointed about the fact that there won't be any, I look at this from this perspective:

 

Take all the best aspects of BG2/IWD/PS:T and merge them into one.

 

What do we get from the merger?

 

PS:T = Story (doubt many will disagree on this one)

BG2 = Exploration (not a lot of it but IMO it was very exceptional/well done)

IWD = Combat (challenging combat FTW)

 

And (not sure if this was ever confirmed anywhere), but I was thinking within the realms of possibility that OE may make another PoE game (PoE2?) that continues the story in some way/shape/form from where PoE will leave us hanging and in that game I would hope to see:

 

- Same protagist from PoE

- Returning characters (reflecting back on Minsc and Boo, one of the most memorable characters of all time)

- Returning villians

- Romance (in some form)

 

I can see why people are upset about no romance for PoE, to get to know someone on a personal level such as through romance can yield interesting and wonderful insights into the nature/motivations/desires of said characer (reflecting back on Jaheira/Viconia relationships from BG2) but alas I agree with Sawyer, time/resources would be better spent on creating greatness as this is a new IP. Imagine if they can smash this out of the park, word gets around and then by the time another Kickstarter is created for PoE2 we get even more funds... with an established engine, setting, a previous plot to work from, established game mechanics that just need to be expanded upon etc, this sets OE up for the potential to add romance down the track...

 

I noticed that others have said "modders will handle it". Well tbh I am not so sure, I never found a NPC romance mod for BG2 that didn't at some point strike me as somewhat cheezy, obnoxious or just not in fitting the theme with the original game.

 

Anyways, that's my two cents.

 

Silver

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Take all the best aspects of BG2/IWD/PS:T and merge them into one.
 
What do we get from the merger?
 
PS:T = Story (doubt many will disagree on this one)
BG2 = Exploration (not a lot of it but IMO it was very exceptional/well done)
IWD = Combat (challenging combat FTW)

 

Ya know...

 

Having played all of the above games, IWD really didn't have better or more challenging combat than BG/BG2.

 

At no point in IWD did I find myself up against an encounter that wiped me and I had to reload more than once or twice, and reloading at all was rare. There were points in both BG and BG2 I had to do this. (I always play on 'hardcore AD&D rules difficulty setting).

 

IWD lacked the story and depth of BG and PST, and retroactively it's said that it focused on combat. I do not think having played them all, that IWD had the best combat by any means. In fact IWD2 had the worst combat AI out of all of them in my opinion.

 

Baldur's Gate 1 beats Baldur's Gate 2 hands down in the exploration department. No good RPG game before or since has done exploration as well as BG did it in my opinion. That was one of the few things BG2 did the opposite of improve upon over BG1.

 

PST of course has the best story I've ever come across in a video game of any genre. I'd compare it to some of the best books I've read. It's really in a video game class by itself insofar as story goes. That said, the one thing BG1&2 did that I liked that PST didn't do insofar as story didn't do, is that BG2 was a true sequel, picking up where BG1 left off and continuing the story. PST of course never had a sequel (nor should it have one, that story ended (and ended well)), but PoE is supposed to have a sequel someday, and when it does, I want a true sequel in the same manner as BG2 was a true sequel.

 

So my opinion has been let's take all the best aspects from BG/BG2/PST, and that's about it. The IWD franchise, while better than many other franchises out there, were by far the weaker of the infinity engine games, and really are not in the same class as BG 1/2 and PST.

 

But on topic. Let the storytellers tell their story. Romance isn't in every story, it need not be in this one.

Edited by Valsuelm
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It all depends on just what the content is imho. For me dialogue with companions isn't really optional, I find the companion relationships important to me, how they react to things and what they do is part of the story and me managing them part of the game. If it's a party rpg then I expect the party to say and do stuff essentially.

Dialogue, in general, may not be "optional" though depending on how one roleplays, whether or not dialogue would be experienced could still be optional. Romances are technically optional, but we've established that that is seen as unfair towards those that do not like romances. But how about a companion quest? If it is not required to finish the game, it could be considered "optional" and if the companion quest was to kill an NPC (that maybe you liked), you could choose to not do it as part of your RP experience. Should something like this only exist if there is an alternative piece of content to make up for not doing this particular quest?

 

 

I'd say no, you can have companion quests without having alternatives and it's then your choice whether they are important enough to do something you don't really want to do, but then I'd say that the choice should be taken into account by the quest.  For instance, in your example I'd say not killing the NPC should result in the companion leaving or possibly even turning on the player.  Take Zaeed in ME2 for instance: last time I played it I did his loyalty mission after the main questline had been completed, chose to save the people and then at the end left Zaeed to die under the cliche pillar (I'd prefer to have put a bullet in his head as I left, I don't like leaving business unfinished), I consider that just as valid a quest completion as getting his loyalty for my character. 

 

 

 

 

As for other content, I recall someone mentioning the Underdark section in another thread and how you were given two options: go with Seamus and get an extra sequence or go through the portal and lose out on it. This seemed to penalise players who took the latter reason for no discernable reason. If instead of just cutting out a sequence the portal sent you to a different area of the Underdark to where you eventually end up going with the other option and have a variant sequence instead of just shortcutting it then it would have been better in my opinion. Kinda like the choice between Bohdi and the Shadow Thieves, or choosing between the Watch and Thieves in Neverwinter Nights 2.

I can see both sides of this with various pros and cons, though I actually agree with you with respect to the Underdark choice. Fair or not, a player will feel "punished," even if it could be valid that "hey, not all choices are equal."

 

 

It's been a while since I last played Bloodlines. Do the other vampire groups have equivalent quests to the Tremere ones? (I think some might, but not all. Not sure) I imagine "you got some unique content because of the class you chose" would be irksome, unless each class received their own unique content?

 

 

Yeah, I wouldn't expect equal results for both choices, otherwise there still isn't a choice.  The problem with the Underdark is both choices conveniently put you in exactly the same place regardless of how you got there at the beginning of the Underdark section, it's just that one jumps a section, reinforcing the perception that one choice is just a short cut.

 

Yeah, at least some of the other clans have their own quests.  I know the Nosferatu have their own one and can get a clan haven as well.  I don't think the Tremere actually get any quests for their haven though, I believe the quests are still doable by everyone and it just requires you to make some choices in certain quests.  You also lose out on the standard haven upgrade (the downtown apartment the other clans get) and you can't betray Strauss to the Hollywood Baron without losing out on the Tremere haven (I played through Bloodlines again just end of last year as a Tremere ironically), so you do make sacrifices for the extra content. 

 

I wouldn't find it irksome that a class got unique content and others different, it depends on the situation, hard to say.

 

All this is just my opinion though, others still have the right to their own opinions of course (for now...).

Edited by FlintlockJazz

"That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

"Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say no, you can have companion quests without having alternatives and it's then your choice whether they are important enough to do something you don't really want to do, but then I'd say that the choice should be taken into account by the quest. For instance, in your example I'd say not killing the NPC should result in the companion leaving or possibly even turning on the player.

Though it loses the optional aspect if, once the player learns about it, some sort of consequence happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo, anyone want to place bets on how fast the dialogue system gets deconstructed and how fast after that romances get inserted?

"You know, there's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it"

 

"If that's what you think, you're DOING IT WRONG."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo, anyone want to place bets on how fast the dialogue system gets deconstructed and how fast after that romances get inserted?

I don't want any part of romances that are merely inserted into a dialogue system, in any game.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be interesting to mod in a romantic thread exclusively through past lives and the concept of soul rebirth. Perhaps you find unique articles that are energetically linked to a previous existences when you met and partnered your cosmically linked spiritual mate? These mods could be hidden as easter eggs throughout the game, telling a story unto itself.

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo, anyone want to place bets on how fast the dialogue system gets deconstructed and how fast after that romances get inserted?

Nude mods is first, then romances will follow.

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlshot

"I'm fine with humanity being wiped out" - majestic

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then prostitution. I wish I was kinding but the sheer popularity of these mods on Nexus made me lose all hope in humanity. Or at least in the Elder Scrolls  community since the Fallout games seem to have been spared the atrocity.

 

I think we can manage without a horribly creepy community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then prostitution. I wish I was kinding but the sheer popularity of these mods on Nexus made me lose all hope in humanity. Or at least in the Elder Scrolls  community since the Fallout games seem to have been spared the atrocity.

Nothing that can be modded will be spared creepy sex mods.

 

I think we can manage without a horribly creepy community.

Yeah, but the codexians keep coming.

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlshot

"I'm fine with humanity being wiped out" - majestic

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Doesn't change the fact that an objective analysis of the implementation of romance in video games is relevant to the "general discussion" of a video game that has decided there will not be romance.

 

First of there was nothing objective about it. Secondly it's an equivalent to a thread about how much better turn based combat is. It's irrelevant to PE now.

 

Then it seems you have selective acknowledgement, and are simply ignoring any posts that are not doing so. I really don't care if you even believe anything I'm saying, or how you feel about this. I'm simply pointing out to you that your "OMG, ENOUGH *dead horse gif*" interjections are not only unwarranted, but also pointless, in regard to the mere discussion of romance as a factor (absent OR present) in the design of games such as PoE.

 

And I'm pointing out romance discussion in the PE forums is now pointless. Wasn't 5 months ago, wasn't 2 months ago. But it is now.

 

Nope. You're arbitrarily assuming I'm telling you that by coloring outside the lines of my words.

 

Obviously not given:

 

Put simply, something was announced to not be in the game, people discussed it anyway (not demanded that it be in a bunch... actually said "Here are effects I'm seeing of that component's absence in this design"), and the dev team obviously found that useful in regard to the inclusion of that component, even after it was already decided not to put it in the game.

 

Thus, discussion of already-decided-upon thing was objectively relevant to the game's design.

 

You don't have to insist on a particular choice, just to point out objective impacts of a specific decision.

 

You still seem to think romance in PE is a possibility. It's not.

 

Obsidian decision to not have romance was not a design choice, or because the devs don't like romance, or because a bunch of posters said ewww. It was because the devs did not believe they had the resources to make a good romance arc.

 

Posting about how romances make games better will not change anything. Because the issue of resources has not changed.

 

Like right now. I'm telling you your dead horse posts are pointless, but I'm not in any way insisting that you stop posting them. It's totally up to you. I just thought you might like to know that your dislike for other people's advocacy of romance and the exploration of its implementation and the effects of that implementation (or its absence) doesn't in any way make that exploration moot. Nor does the decision that romance will not be in the game (Once again, if you missed it, see "full misses" example above.)

 

Should people start discussing how PE would work in First Person? Should a long winded non-objective analysis of the pros of turn based combat be started? How about discussion about Sci-fi being a better setting than fantasy? 

 

There comes a time in a games development, when a certain type of discussion becomes irrelevant. That time has come for romances.

 

I really don't know what else to say on the matter. I've bypassed the "whose opinion is better" arena entirely by presenting empirical evidence that discussion of something already decided upon as not being in the game's design is potentially useful.

Err no.

 

Adding full misses in attack resolution is substantially different to adding romance arcs to characters at this time, when there are no resources for it. Again no romances was a budget decision.

 

If you'd like to insist on continuing a bunch of irrational justification of your own "I'm sick of hearing about romance" sentiments, then, totally feel free to waste everyone's time (including your own).

 

If you'd like to insist on continuing a bunch of irrational justification of your own "I want romance" sentiments, then, totally feel free to waste everyone's time (including your own).

cylon_basestar_eye.gif
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say I'm not disappointed. Ever since the beginning this project was sold as a merge of PS:T, BG2 and IWD. Romance in the two of those that had it was well done and worth playing through for those who like this sort of thing. I do believe a large enough amount of people expected it to justify the inclusion in the game.

 

Would it take away resources from other areas? Yes, it would. Just like I could say 11 classes is a bit too much for me and I can't imagine myself playing more than 2 or 3 at most, then maybe the resources could be redirected towards more monsters, races, etc. I wouldn't make that argument (I'm all for variety, after all, even if it won't benefit me directly), but when people defend no romance option using the same reasoning I'd say it's selfish and short-sighted.

 

Obsidian is wasting the opportunity of making meaningful romances the right way (avoiding silencing romanceable characters who are not romanced, for instance) and taking the easy way out. It kind of makes me fear for how much of a focus on dialogue and story there will REALLY be in the game, after all, since most of the arguments against romances can be made for all optional dialogue trees (be they a path of friendship, rivalry, etc.), and I believe most if not all backers, even those against romances, would like those in the game.

 

Not a deal breaker, but somewhat worrying, at least.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sooo, anyone want to place bets on how fast the dialogue system gets deconstructed and how fast after that romances get inserted?

Nude mods is first, then romances will follow.

 

 

 

Then prostitution. I wish I was kinding but the sheer popularity of these mods on Nexus made me lose all hope in humanity. Or at least in the Elder Scrolls  community since the Fallout games seem to have been spared the atrocity.

 

I think we can manage without a horribly creepy community.

 You guys are right, Mods can add some exciting enhancements to Romance options so those are good suggestions.

 

I never understand this aversion to adult mods in RPG. So its okay to kill children, use magic, slaughter hundreds of humanoid creatures and other humans,  summon demons and basically commit gratuitous acts of violence with your party but the thought of your characters in a party experiencing nudity or sex is somehow considered profane and perverse :blink:

 

Yeah right.....

Edited by BruceVC

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...