No romances confirmed

[tajerio]

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.

 

I also doubt that Monte was born on D-Day.  Shocking, isn't it?  How could I possibly trust anything he says anymore oh wait it's a joke.

 

What I don't understand about the promance point of view here is this: Josh said that the PoE team had come to the conclusion that they didn't think they could do romances up to the standard they demand of themselves.  So why don't the promancers trust the devs' own assessment of their abilities and resources?

[alanschu]

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

 

1 out of 5(!) of the IE-games had Romances, and now not doing them in this new game is ignoring all IE-games?

Logic, where have you gone?

I'd argue two do, though PST's is much less detailed and thorough than BG2's.

[makryu]

 

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.

 

I also doubt that Monte was born on D-Day.  Shocking, isn't it?  How could I possibly trust anything he says anymore oh wait it's a joke.

 

What I don't understand about the promance point of view here is this: Josh said that the PoE team had come to the conclusion that they didn't think they could do romances up to the standard they demand of themselves.  So why don't the promancers trust the devs' own assessment of their abilities and resources?

 

 

    Hah! I'm not north american nor european, so D-Day isn't nearly as significant to me, hence why I didn't notice the date. The drunk part does ring true, though .

[BruceVC]

tle

 

 

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.

 

I also doubt that Monte was born on D-Day.  Shocking, isn't it?  How could I possibly trust anything he says anymore oh wait it's a joke.

 

What I don't understand about the promance point of view here is this: Josh said that the PoE team had come to the conclusion that they didn't think they could do romances up to the standard they demand of themselves.  So why don't the promancers trust the devs' own assessment of their abilities and resources?

 

 

    Hah! I'm not north american nor european, so D-Day isn't nearly as significant to me, hence why I didn't notice the date. The drunk part does ring true, though .

 

Don't take Monte too seriously, his good outweighs his bad. I know the first time you experience his posting style it can be a little frustrating( I felt the same ) but if you stay active on the forums you'll see he can very articulate and humorous

[agris]

The existence of threads such as these seem to follow some basic, universal principal. If there is a desire by part of the community for romanceable NPCs, and it won't be included in the game, there will always be threads arguing for its inclusion.

 

I've borrowed a rule from physics and re-purposed it to illustrate why these threads keep cropping up,

 

 

 

We can lock one thread, but the conservation rule still applies...

[Auxilius]

Accurate.

You guys must stop talking about the matter or at the very least, stop getting angry over it. Obs' has spoken and they are the captain of the ship. They is no need to advocate anything. PoE won't have any love Relationship involving the player character. Instead, it will have meaningful dialogues, varied adventures, long dungeons, bright magic, cool antagonists, awesome characters, strong strongholds, smelly inns and a lot of other top stuff so I'm pretty sure we can discard this last romance bit as it is one tiny aspect of a video game and its lack won't influence the quality.

 

Of course, there is a third option:

[rjshae]

[Lephys]

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.

Ahh. In that case, maybe they should "relocate" all the melee combat in the game to other, more fleshed-out aspects of combat. It wouldn't be like they were cutting melee combat. Everyone would just have bows or ranged magic, but just think how non-lacking the combat system would be. 8D

[ManifestedISO]

 

tle

 

 

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.

 

I also doubt that Monte was born on D-Day.  Shocking, isn't it?  How could I possibly trust anything he says anymore oh wait it's a joke.

 

What I don't understand about the promance point of view here is this: Josh said that the PoE team had come to the conclusion that they didn't think they could do romances up to the standard they demand of themselves.  So why don't the promancers trust the devs' own assessment of their abilities and resources?

 

 

    Hah! I'm not north american nor european, so D-Day isn't nearly as significant to me, hence why I didn't notice the date. The drunk part does ring true, though .

 

Don't take Monte too seriously, his good outweighs his bad. I know the first time you experience his posting style it can be a little frustrating( I felt the same ) but if you stay active on the forums you'll see he can very articulate and humorous

 

 

If I were a fan of Formula One, which I am, because it's awesome, and romantic, I would say Monte is every whisker and huff of Nigel Mansell.  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

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.

 

Yet he always has suckers on his arms.

[Stun]

What I don't understand about the promance point of view here is this: Josh said that the PoE team had come to the conclusion that they didn't think they could do romances up to the standard they demand of themselves.  So why don't the promancers trust the devs' own assessment of their abilities and resources?

Because these people would rather have crappy romances than no romances at all.

 

I was going to write up a giant post about this, and about how this very mindset of adopting and accepting low standards is a cancer on the entire industry, but I found myself no longer caring about this beat-up dead horse.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Stun

[BruceVC]

 

What I don't understand about the promance point of view here is this: Josh said that the PoE team had come to the conclusion that they didn't think they could do romances up to the standard they demand of themselves.  So why don't the promancers trust the devs' own assessment of their abilities and resources?

Because these people would rather have crappy romances than no romances at all.

 

I was going to write up a giant post about this, and about how this very mindset of adopting and accepting low standards is a cancer on the entire industry, but I found myself no longer caring about this beat-up dead horse.

 

 

Now you are discriminating against dead horses, please don't do that and please find it in yourself to care. Dead horses have feelings to

Edited February 25, 2014 by BruceVC

[ManifestedISO]

I know, I don't understand being admonished to give up. Even a cavalry parade of deceased equines will not sway me to continue to hope for an enhanced experience, without making the type of demands the anti-fun, chorizo snorters are. If need be, perhaps I'll stick it to Vivienne, in the mean time. 

[BruceVC]

I know, I don't understand being admonished to give up. Even a cavalry parade of deceased equines will not sway me to continue to hope for an enhanced experience, without making the type of demands the anti-fun, chorizo snorters are. If need be, perhaps I'll stick it to Vivienne, in the mean time. 

 

I like your logic and I support your view indubitably

[adam77]

Romances in the game are annoying and childish. My vote - no romances. Get a real one in real life.

[Hassat Hunter]

Ahh. In that case, maybe they should "relocate" all the melee combat in the game to other, more fleshed-out aspects of combat. It wouldn't be like they were cutting melee combat. Everyone would just have bows or ranged magic, but just think how non-lacking the combat system would be. 8D

No, a better comparrison would be;

 

Devs want to implent for weapons regular, incendiary, hollow, explosive and rubber.

However due to this, the only really have time to do all banal, like just being modified damage, since they need to make them, place them throughout the game, balance them.

Then one dev figured they just take out hollow, and now they had the time to add to all other types, so incdendiary puts people on fire, explosive, well, explodes, and rubber knocks people down.

And the game got the better for it.

[Alfiriel]

I refuse to believe that we reached the peak of romance writing in rpgs like 13 years ago. Also with the proof its doable out there... and obsidian being known for good writing skill.... I still fail to see how it is anything but either

 

bad resource management that leads to cuts in the crucial character interactions department.

 

lazy writers

 

or

 

weighting other aspects of the game like pew pew skills higher...

 

The argument that it is not cutting necause the time will be invested in other things that would not be there otherwise is crap.

 

first from a purely practical view there is no proof that this other interactions would be not there whilie it is fact that one option will be missing.

 

From a fan perspective it is crap because why cant we have all the char interactions? I would value a game way more that finally allows me a lot of group interactions and experiences ... usual as unusual ones... way more than one that gives me 10 similar looking forest screens or 2 classes more to explore than any other game... budget where it is needed please...

[Hassat Hunter]

So you really really REALLY can't see how they rather want to spend the time making romances to develop other parts of character interaction more. Really? It has to be one of those 3 reasons? Really?

 

"We rather want to have friendships rather than romances"
"LAZY!"

 

"We think we better off spending our time on adding more NPC intercuts in conversations than roamnces"
"Bad resource management!"

 

"We spend this time in more character interaction"
"Pew Pew preferencers!"

 

 

Also, feel free to prove it's doable (since apparently 'it's out there'). And if you say Mass Effect or Dragon Age, I will get violent.

Also, feel free to give me "ALL CHAR INTERACTIONS."
Like it's a checkbox. I want to make sure they made all of the possibilities out there... and add none that are technically impossible in your obvious all-inclusive list...

[agris]

From a fan perspective it is crap because why cant we have all the char interactions? I would value a game way more that finally allows me a lot of group interactions and experiences ... usual as unusual ones... way more than one that gives me 10 similar looking forest screens or 2 classes more to explore than any other game... budget where it is needed please...

There are finite resources, and the game wasn't pitched as a romance/interaction simulator. I believe Brandon already pointed out the fallacy of the "romance would be easy/cheap to implement!" argument several pages back.

 

Most of the people advocating for its inclusion seem to have no idea what finite resources and a tight planning schedule dictate in a project. OE has made a series of promises to the community about PoE, and romance was not one of them and more than that, has been categorically rejected from inclusion.

 

You can have all the opinions you want, but poorly informed opinions don't advance the conversation. There isn't going to be romance, there aren't the resources for it, and the game won't suffer for it (i'd argue it'll benefit from the exclusion, actually).

 

 

If you really want a romance intensive game experience..

 

Sex if You Win, Sex if You Lose

 

Edited February 25, 2014 by agris

[BruceVC]

 

From a fan perspective it is crap because why cant we have all the char interactions? I would value a game way more that finally allows me a lot of group interactions and experiences ... usual as unusual ones... way more than one that gives me 10 similar looking forest screens or 2 classes more to explore than any other game... budget where it is needed please...

There are finite resources, and the game wasn't pitched as a romance/interaction simulator. I believe Brian already pointed out the fallacy of the "romance would be easy/cheap to implement!" argument several pages back.

 

Most of the people advocating for its inclusion seem to have no idea what finite resources and a tight planning schedule dictate in a project. OE has made a series of promises to the community about PoE, and romance was not one of them and more than that, has been categorically rejected from inclusion.

 

You can have all the opinions you want, but poorly informed opinions don't advance the conversation. There isn't going to be romance, there aren't the resources for it, and the game won't suffer for it (i'd argue it'll benefit from the exclusion, actually).

 

 

If you really want a romance intensive game experience..

 

Sex if You Win, Sex if You Lose

 

 

 

Okay I hear you about the limited resources. So what if we drop the option for choice around races and different classes so the Devs can include Romance? That should give them ample resources?

 

 

Problem solved

[agris]

You seem to be missing the part where the game has already been pitched and features promised...

 

Oh wait, you're kidding!

[BruceVC]

You seem to be missing the part where the game has already been pitched and features promised...

 

Oh wait, you're kidding!

 

Don't you think I'm funny Agris 

[Lephys]

Also, feel free to prove it's doable (since apparently 'it's out there').

Feel free to prove something's not doable, simply because it "isn't out there." With that kind of thinking, we'd still all be cavemen.

 

"SHOW ME AN EXAMPLE OF USEFUL TECHNOLOGY, AND THEN I'LL CREATE SOME!"

 

Haha...

 

Because these people would rather have crappy romances than no romances at all.

GROUPIST!

 

Okay, seriously though. That's the very definition of a stereotype.

 

Makryu, amongst others, specifically pointed out that existing romances in existing games are not the pinnacle of design quality, and that the goal should be to do better than that, not copy a bunch of bad examples.

 

If some people are worshipping Bioware romances and demanding those in all future games, then yeah, tell those people they're silly people. But, there's no point in just ignoring the rest, and pretending they're all saying the same thing the irrationals are saying.

 

There are irrational people on both sides of the argument. It's very rare for one whole side of an argument to be irrational.

 

Personally, I understand that there are more reasons than "that's STUPID" to not implement romances into a game, and I grasp why PoE is not aiming for them. However, the "a bunch of people have done this crappily, and therefore it's obvious that it's impossible and we should never do it, and it's stupid to advocate attempts to not-do it crappily" argument doesn't really fly. It's just plain irrational. That doesn't mean "Haha! The right thing to do is like romance, and the wrong thing to do is dislike it!". Nobody wins here, except reason. And reason isn't a person.

[makryu]

    It's pretty simple, really, and most don't seem to get it: people who wanted romances wanted more OPTIONS, no one is trying to shove romances down the throats of the people who dislike them. That said, critics of the inclusion of romance seem to value any other possible interaction over it. That's ok (though odd, in my opinion at least), but don't try to convince me it's a matter of reason or logic, it's a matter of taste, and when that is pointed out don't treat those who do it like idiots when your arguments don't hold any water.

 

    People are saying this was never pitched. No, it wasn't, but that doesn't mean people can't complain about the exclusion regardless. Considering we were all invited to this forum and many are backers, I don't see why someone's opinion of what is an acceptable topic should prevail over other opinions. Also, I must point out that the devs opportunistically didn't state there wouldn't be romance in the game during the funding campaign (I wouldn't either if I were them, they were bound to lose some backers if they did), at least I did not read it anywhere. But being the game pitched as inheriting the legacy of previous IE games, and the MOST FAMOUS AND PRAISED OF THOSE GAMES (PS:T AND BG2) HAVING ROMANCES OF SOME SORT, it is only logical that there would be at least some legitimate complaints in these forums from people expecting to see some kind of romance in it. After all, people even complained about the game being real-time-with-pause instead of turn-based, and there was no reason for someone to remotely believe it would be turn-based.

 

    The argument that implementing whatever will be implemented with the resources that would be spent doing romances is better and somehow the "superior" way to go is completely baseless: it's the way to go FOR YOU. For those who wanted romances, it will certainly DETRACT from the experience. The devs went your way, congrats, but this doesn't mean we can't complain about it for as long as we feel the need to and point out the fact that Obsidian took the easy way out (if they can't write romances, hire someone who can. It's not like the gaming industry doesn't hire and fire people at will according to development needs).

Edited February 25, 2014 by makryu

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

Also, I must point out that the devs opportunistically didn't state there wouldn't be romance in the game during the funding campaign.

 

Good for you. I feel similarly about the exclusion of a 'fruit ninja' style minigame. I like those. They make me feel fuzzy and I sorta hoped they might put one in.

 

And here's Jack Nicholson with a piece of fruit.