No romances confirmed

[BruceVC]

Are we really discussing "which IE game is *more* IE" due to... romances?

 

 

 

Oh Hassat I'm so proud of you, you have finally come to conclusion that we need to rate IE games on there Romance implementations. If we continue to see a concerted effort on your part to support Romance you'll be welcomed to promancers camp. But due to the intransigence of your past views around Romance we will need to continue to see you supporting the importance of Romance or you'll be back in anti-romance camp

[Monte Carlo]

    I'm genuinely amused at the fact that most people against romances in RPGs tends to refer to them as "primitive", "juvenile", "poorly-written", even "perverted", etc. It's mostly an offspring of the tendency to call any character, story, quest, etc.  "poorly-written" simply because a person doesn't like it. Romance detractors seem to try and make this a question of correctness instead of taste. In other words, if you like romances in RPGs you're basically an idiot.

    The way I see it, it's an effective way to completely divert the subject from its focus. And the focus should be on the difficulty that these people have to deal with a virtual romance at the same time they want pretty much anything else (friendship, rivalry, etc.) to be present. We have been asking all these years for games to emulate in some way aspects of human relations. We usually look down upon action RPGs precisely because they tend to not provide much in that regard. Still, a vocal minority insists in criticizing romances as detrimental for the CRPG experience, and instead of defending improved implementations of this type of relationship they simply want to get rid of them, a position I believe speaks of a too common uncomfortable attitude towards sex and everything that traditionally is seem as coming along with it (prejudice, guilt, etc.).

    I believe the role of romances is severely downplayed by these people. My own experience with BG2 and PS:T tells me the opposite: I still remember my wonder at watching Aerie and Jaheira fighting over my character, something I had never saw in a game, as well as my subsequent decision to make my character choose Aerie much because I couldn't bear for him to get into a relationship with a widow of a dear companion (Khalid). In PS:T, I remember my character agonizing over his final fate, but taking some comfort over the fact that Fall-from-Grace could very well find him in the Nine Hells, no matter how tragic their relationship was due to her nature.

    None of those experiences, which I remember clearly to this day despite having played the games at their release, almost 15 years ago, would be possible in a game without romance. There's no way PoE won't be a poorer game without them in my view, no matter how excellent other areas prove to be. If we intend in the future to regard RPGs as role-playing games instead of exclusively party-based combat simulators (what they mostly end up being), I can't see the gain in parting with the option of romance in a game instead of trying to improve it.

 

Butt-hurt.

 

And the most specious of your arguments is the familiar "no romance = combat simulator" lie.

 

If you seriously think Obsidian's writers won't provide meaningful NPC interaction in this game then what the hell are you doing haunting these forums? There's the BSN, DA:I is out at the same time as this game.

 

Admit it - you just can't handle the truth that there's no sex-with-NPCs. Tragic, really.

 

[makryu]

Butt-hurt.

 

And the most specious of your arguments is the familiar "no romance = combat simulator" lie.

 

If you seriously think Obsidian's writers won't provide meaningful NPC interaction in this game then what the hell are you doing haunting these forums? There's the BSN, DA:I is out at the same time as this game.

 

Admit it - you just can't handle the truth that there's no sex-with-NPCs. Tragic, really.

 

 

It seems the peak of your ability to argue is to post a Jack Nicholson image and claim you're right. Quite sad, really, because

 

1: I never wrote there would be no meaningful interactions with NPCs; Obsidian is ditching one type of meaningful interaction, incidentally one that many consider relevant.

 

and 2: I never used the argument no romance=combat simulator, I just argued that removing romances does no good to the idea that CRPGs are supposed to be more than combat simulators (it doesn't, unless you somehow believe romancing is a part of combat, a possibility I can't dismiss given you lacking reply).

 

Maybe in your world of Jack Nicholson images what you posted could pass as showing adequate reading comprehension, but it instead suggests you didn't even bother to read my post (maybe because it has more than 140 characters) or you have a serious cognitive disability.

[Monte Carlo]

^ LOL. D minus.

[BruceVC]

 

Butt-hurt.

 

And the most specious of your arguments is the familiar "no romance = combat simulator" lie.

 

If you seriously think Obsidian's writers won't provide meaningful NPC interaction in this game then what the hell are you doing haunting these forums? There's the BSN, DA:I is out at the same time as this game.

 

Admit it - you just can't handle the truth that there's no sex-with-NPCs. Tragic, really.

 

 

It seems the peak of your ability to argue is to post a Jack Nicholson image and claim you're right. Quite sad, really, because

 

1: I never wrote there would be no meaningful interactions with NPCs; Obsidian is ditching one type of meaningful interaction, incidentally one that many consider relevant.

 

and 2: I never used the argument no romance=combat simulator, I just argued that removing romances does no good to the idea that CRPGs are supposed to be more than combat simulators (it doesn't, unless you somehow believe romancing is a part of combat, a possibility I can't dismiss given you lacking reply).

 

Maybe in your world of Jack Nicholson images what you posted could pass as showing adequate reading comprehension, but it instead suggests you didn't even bother to read my post (maybe because it has more than 140 characters) or you have a serious cognitive disability.

 

 

He's right Monte, he didn't say the things you are accusing him of. Did you read his post ?

[Monte Carlo]

I read all of it. It was butt-hurt. I especially like the bit at the start, where he lays out his stall:

 

 

 

And the focus should be on the difficulty that these people have to deal with a virtual romance at the same time they want pretty much anything else (friendship, rivalry, etc.) to be present. We have been asking all these years for games to emulate in some way aspects of human relations...Still, a vocal minority insists in criticizing romances as detrimental for the CRPG experience, and instead of defending improved implementations of this type of relationship they simply want to get rid of them, a position I believe speaks of a too common uncomfortable attitude towards sex and everything that traditionally is seem as coming along with it (prejudice, guilt, etc.).

 

This bit is saying those of us ('these people' he says, haughtily) who don't like CRPG romances are the ones with the problem. LOL.

 

Which is why he can't handle the truth.

[Monte Carlo]

Then he accuses me of having a 'serious cognitive disability.'

[Alfiriel]

there is never an or decission in character interaction... like romance or other relationship types or romance or shut up.

 

If there is the developers just fail at the core element of a party based rpg. You should not let them off so easily by saying it is ok for you to cut the part of party interaction you like the least.

 

I rather have 10 areas less in the game than losing any party dialohue no matter if it is a silbling story or a romance or minsc and boo... This is actually what should be budgeted first right with the exploration aspect. It is one of the 2 core mechanics. No justification out there to cut any content in that area.

[BruceVC]

I read all of it. It was butt-hurt. I especially like the bit at the start, where he lays out his stall:

 

 

 

And the focus should be on the difficulty that these people have to deal with a virtual romance at the same time they want pretty much anything else (friendship, rivalry, etc.) to be present. We have been asking all these years for games to emulate in some way aspects of human relations...Still, a vocal minority insists in criticizing romances as detrimental for the CRPG experience, and instead of defending improved implementations of this type of relationship they simply want to get rid of them, a position I believe speaks of a too common uncomfortable attitude towards sex and everything that traditionally is seem as coming along with it (prejudice, guilt, etc.).

 

This bit is saying those of us ('these people' he says, haughtily) who don't like CRPG romances are the ones with the problem. LOL.

 

Which is why he can't handle the truth.

 

 

I've never known you to be so sensitive before  and you are firmly in the anti-romance camp so doesn't that make you "these people "

 

And as far as the "don't like CRPG romances are the ones with the problem" ...what about the relevancy of the maxim  " if the cap fits..." and all that ....

 

[Karkarov]

This bit is saying those of us ('these people' he says, haughtily) who don't like CRPG romances are the ones with the problem. LOL.

 

Which is why he can't handle the truth.

While his message could have been conveyed better no that isn't it.  He is saying you argue that we need more relationship types in game to be more "realistic and varied" but then argue that we should exclude one of the most common types of relationships that exist in real life.  The idea that optional romance is detrimental to an RPG has always been and will always be pure nonsense.  The problem, like I have said many times, is not the type of relationships but the fact that they are badly written and the characters are one dimensional.  A badly written one dimensional "buddy" character like Jacob (for male character anyway) from ME2 is no better than one of the badly written one dimensional love interests from Jade Empire.

 

PS: I am only targeting Bioware there because I know if I target anything else no one on this forum other than the people who already agree with me will "get it".  Obsidian has plenty of terrible characters under their belt too.

[Webslinger]

We have been asking all these years for games to emulate in some way aspects of human relations. We usually look down upon action RPGs precisely because they tend to not provide much in that regard. Still, a vocal minority insists in criticizing romances as detrimental for the CRPG experience, and instead of defending improved implementations of this type of relationship they simply want to get rid of them

 

Agreed. Great post

Edited February 24, 2014 by Webslinger

[Aryvandaar]

I'm a bit sad that there won't be any romance because all my favourite RPG have romances. However, I understand if the devloper say that they don't have the time.

[rjshae]

 

We have been asking all these years for games to emulate in some way aspects of human relations. We usually look down upon action RPGs precisely because they tend to not provide much in that regard. Still, a vocal minority insists in criticizing romances as detrimental for the CRPG experience, and instead of defending improved implementations of this type of relationship they simply want to get rid of them

 

Agreed. Great post

 

I don't believe that the current state-of-the-art interaction mechanics allow for improved implementations of relationships. You'd need a strong AI backbone that has creative elements and is able to simulate realistic responses. That would require budget for AI coder plus hiring a good romance writer and possibly additional testers. The developers would need to cut other elements of the game in order to fund that content.

 

Hence, this is not a good idea for the current game. It would be better to try this in an AAA effort.

[makryu]

 

 

We have been asking all these years for games to emulate in some way aspects of human relations. We usually look down upon action RPGs precisely because they tend to not provide much in that regard. Still, a vocal minority insists in criticizing romances as detrimental for the CRPG experience, and instead of defending improved implementations of this type of relationship they simply want to get rid of them

 

Agreed. Great post

 

I don't believe that the current state-of-the-art interaction mechanics allow for improved implementations of relationships. You'd need a strong AI backbone that has creative elements and is able to simulate realistic responses. That would require budget for AI coder plus hiring a good romance writer and possibly additional testers. The developers would need to cut other elements of the game in order to fund that content.

 

Hence, this is not a good idea for the current game. It would be better to try this in an AAA effort.

 

 

It seems to me better writing, more dialogue options and avoiding making every character romanceable by either gender would go a long way towards improvement without adding absurd costs related to AI development. Also I believe this kind of game would be the right one to do it, as AAA voiceover has a high cost, making fully voiced high budget games less likely to attempt it.

[makryu]

I read all of it. It was butt-hurt. I especially like the bit at the start, where he lays out his stall:

 

 

 

And the focus should be on the difficulty that these people have to deal with a virtual romance at the same time they want pretty much anything else (friendship, rivalry, etc.) to be present. We have been asking all these years for games to emulate in some way aspects of human relations...Still, a vocal minority insists in criticizing romances as detrimental for the CRPG experience, and instead of defending improved implementations of this type of relationship they simply want to get rid of them, a position I believe speaks of a too common uncomfortable attitude towards sex and everything that traditionally is seem as coming along with it (prejudice, guilt, etc.).

 

This bit is saying those of us ('these people' he says, haughtily) who don't like CRPG romances are the ones with the problem. LOL.

 

Which is why he can't handle the truth.

 

Between your insistence in calling me butt-hurt and posting Jack Nicholson images, you failed to address any of my arguments.

[rjshae]

 

 

 

We have been asking all these years for games to emulate in some way aspects of human relations. We usually look down upon action RPGs precisely because they tend to not provide much in that regard. Still, a vocal minority insists in criticizing romances as detrimental for the CRPG experience, and instead of defending improved implementations of this type of relationship they simply want to get rid of them

 

Agreed. Great post

 

I don't believe that the current state-of-the-art interaction mechanics allow for improved implementations of relationships. You'd need a strong AI backbone that has creative elements and is able to simulate realistic responses. That would require budget for AI coder plus hiring a good romance writer and possibly additional testers. The developers would need to cut other elements of the game in order to fund that content.

 

Hence, this is not a good idea for the current game. It would be better to try this in an AAA effort.

 

 

It seems to me better writing, more dialogue options and avoiding making every character romanceable by either gender would go a long way towards improvement without adding absurd costs related to AI development. Also I believe this kind of game would be the right one to do it, as AAA voiceover has a high cost, making fully voiced high budget games less likely to attempt it.

 

Possibly. Possibly not. But it's always a trade-off, and would still cost some amount of budget to implement.

 

I like to think that a DLC is a better means to implement romance--the players who want the romance option could then pay for it, and the forecast added budget can be used to hire a skilled writer.

[Monte Carlo]

 

I read all of it. It was butt-hurt. I especially like the bit at the start, where he lays out his stall:

 

 

 

And the focus should be on the difficulty that these people have to deal with a virtual romance at the same time they want pretty much anything else (friendship, rivalry, etc.) to be present. We have been asking all these years for games to emulate in some way aspects of human relations...Still, a vocal minority insists in criticizing romances as detrimental for the CRPG experience, and instead of defending improved implementations of this type of relationship they simply want to get rid of them, a position I believe speaks of a too common uncomfortable attitude towards sex and everything that traditionally is seem as coming along with it (prejudice, guilt, etc.).

 

This bit is saying those of us ('these people' he says, haughtily) who don't like CRPG romances are the ones with the problem. LOL.

 

Which is why he can't handle the truth.

 

Between your insistence in calling me butt-hurt and posting Jack Nicholson images, you failed to address any of my arguments.

 

 

I apologize. You win the internet. I have no answer to the colossus that is your force of argument in favour of imaginary sexual relationships with videogame characters.

[Hassat Hunter]

If there is the developers just fail at the core element of a party based rpg. You should not let them off so easily by saying it is ok for you to cut the part of party interaction you like the least.

 

I rather have 10 areas less in the game than losing any party dialohue no matter if it is a silbling story or a romance or minsc and boo... This is actually what should be budgeted first right with the exploration aspect. It is one of the 2 core mechanics. No justification out there to cut any content in that area.

Somneone didn't read the statements of the devs?

 

The reason we give slack for 'cutting party interaction' is because that's not happening. It's just being relocated from "romances" to other (and in many's opinion better and more useful ways) ways to flesh out character interaction.

 

No cutting, no mismanagement, just... what's always been planned, what always would have been.

The core is completely and utterly intact, and as strong as it ever was. Don't get why anyone would assume otherwise.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Are we back to the cutting arguments?

 

We can't know what the devs cut because we do not have access to what they were planning to do. I can't complain that they cut a Kraken battle to implement X, because I don't know if they were planning to implement a Kraken battle in the first place.

[Nonek]

I wanna romance the Kraken!

 

Edit: The mother of all tentacle porn.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Nonek

[Webslinger]

 

 

We have been asking all these years for games to emulate in some way aspects of human relations. We usually look down upon action RPGs precisely because they tend to not provide much in that regard. Still, a vocal minority insists in criticizing romances as detrimental for the CRPG experience, and instead of defending improved implementations of this type of relationship they simply want to get rid of them

 

Agreed. Great post

 

I don't believe that the current state-of-the-art interaction mechanics allow for improved implementations of relationships. You'd need a strong AI backbone that has creative elements and is able to simulate realistic responses. That would require budget for AI coder plus hiring a good romance writer and possibly additional testers. The developers would need to cut other elements of the game in order to fund that content.

 

Hence, this is not a good idea for the current game. It would be better to try this in an AAA effort.

 

 

 

I was quoting that post in support of what I view as a problem with RPG gaming development, generally. That is, if devs (not necessarily Obsidian . . . for that matter, I'm not even talking about Pillars of Eternity specifically) don't like romance, there tends to be a quick knee-jerk reaction to simply omit it entirely as opposed to attempting to be innovative and move RPGs forward. Romance is a part of roleplaying, and the lack of it does not somehow equate to addition by subtraction.

Budgetary reasons aside and all other things being equal, the lack of a roleplaying option does not make roleplaying games better.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Webslinger

[Malcador]

I wanna romance the Kraken!

 

Edit: The mother of all tentacle porn.

 

I always knew there was something off about you.

[makryu]

 

 

I read all of it. It was butt-hurt. I especially like the bit at the start, where he lays out his stall:

 

 

 

And the focus should be on the difficulty that these people have to deal with a virtual romance at the same time they want pretty much anything else (friendship, rivalry, etc.) to be present. We have been asking all these years for games to emulate in some way aspects of human relations...Still, a vocal minority insists in criticizing romances as detrimental for the CRPG experience, and instead of defending improved implementations of this type of relationship they simply want to get rid of them, a position I believe speaks of a too common uncomfortable attitude towards sex and everything that traditionally is seem as coming along with it (prejudice, guilt, etc.).

 

This bit is saying those of us ('these people' he says, haughtily) who don't like CRPG romances are the ones with the problem. LOL.

 

Which is why he can't handle the truth.

 

Between your insistence in calling me butt-hurt and posting Jack Nicholson images, you failed to address any of my arguments.

 

 

I apologize. You win the internet. I have no answer to the colossus that is your force of argument in favour of imaginary sexual relationships with videogame characters.

 

 

    You could have refrained from posting about it or admitted it in your first reply and spared all of us the time spent reading your gibberish. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that you're 69 years old, as stated in your profile. It's a lot easier to believe that you're probably drunk, also as stated in your profile.

[Malcador]

hmm... in the poll if i recall there where abou 3 hundret people FOR romances and 1 hundred aginst, so MOST people want romances 3 peoples want 1 don't. Sill this one person can play the game not engadeing in romance (even i biowere games if i recall). The olny reason, why most people seeing this topic think that "there are more romance haters then pro-romancers" is that the most trolls, and illogical Zealots are on the "romance haters" side. As we see in the first 6 pages of this topic there are more trolling then "conversation".

 

So many of people that woud like to see romance are not wasteing their time with discussion with such persons (and for examle im not talking about you)

 

So calling people that whoud like to see romances "there is something with them" is a bit silly. And even sex in my opinion in not "weird" becouse today games are more like interactiv videos then "mario bros" type of games.

 

The last question "why people are not giving up on this ?" Becouse their where never fighting or "pushing" obsidian to do them. If obsidian sad that thay will not do them then thats okey, but still it doesn't meat that all pro-romancers must "shut-up" becouse some zealots don't like it, this is still a topic even if not "about adding romances" then for "why they cut that out" or "why i think they are doin't wrong" or "why i think that inputing romances whoud make this game better" or as you "why people ar still consern about this" or as some of you people "yeaaahh... proromancers ... DIE" ...

 

Proromancers are not talking to them selfs, Coversation must be done on two sides (there must be more then 1 side of view, and people that are pushing them). And the most funny thing is that the most posts in this thred are made by people that don't want romances (both logical, zealots, trolls, etc) so they are mosty pushing this conversation foreword.. not proromancers ...

First off, was talking about people who are already against the romance and how they view you people and your desire for this feature in the game.

 

And you would think this was a fight, based on this topic being around since the campaign was started last year. People are very ardently for a feature where your avatar gets to work with an algorithm to output the desired romantic text on their screen.

[Nonek]

 

I wanna romance the Kraken!

 

Edit: The mother of all tentacle porn.

 

I always knew there was something off about you.

 

One thing i've got to admit, the Kraken is a shellfish lover.