Jokei Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) For what it's worth, I found the romances in Baldur's Gate hilarious. Edited March 3, 2014 by Jokei https://soundcloud.com/wulfgold
Auxilius Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 The horse has been beaten so long and so hard, it has turned into a frothy, meat & bone soup. Now you've killed a whole 'nother horse and continue by beating it instead: The "Omg guys, talking about romance is beating an extremely dead horse" horse. The "I can't believe this thread is still going" posts might even possibly outweigh the actual romance discussion posts. So basically, it's a dead horse on top of a dead horse. This is starting to look like a cemetary, or a chinese restaurant. Although I do CAN'T believe this thread is still going. 1
Sir Chaox Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 So basically, it's a dead horse on top of a dead horse. This is starting to look like a cemetary, or a chinese restaurant. Although I do CAN'T believe this thread is still going. An equine massacre... somebody get a stew going
Hiro Protagonist II Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I want to see it hit 20 pages. And there you have it. Oh and obligatory dead horses. 3
Lephys Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 You guys say "beating a dead horse," I say "making glue." It's kind of a half-full/half-empty thing. Seriously though... the dead horse is not the actual discussion of romance. It's the "who's right"/"Put/don't-put romance in PoE." 2 Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u
Whitefox789 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Seriously though... the dead horse is not the actual discussion of romance. It's the "who's right"/"Put/don't-put romance in PoE." I seriously wonder how we drifted so far off from the creator of the topics original intentions. Then again it is the internet...
Valsuelm Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) You guys say "beating a dead horse," I say "making glue." It's kind of a half-full/half-empty thing. Seriously though... the dead horse is not the actual discussion of romance. It's the "who's right"/"Put/don't-put romance in PoE." Oh no.... all you mention are dead horses. The discussion, and the discussion of the discussion. Like vampires who once lived as horses, then rose to be undead horses, and yet had stakes driven through their hearts and their heads chopped off, the discussion of romance in PoE is in every way is beyond a dead horse. When the sequel to PoE is announced perhaps these dead horses can be resurrected in some unholy manner yet again, but right now everything to do with this subject deader than dead, and the folks trying to continue this discussion are like some aberrant perpetrators of necrophiliactic undead bestiality, as that is how dead and overdone this subject is on the PoE forums. I look forward to the day when I can look at the first page of this forum and not see the word 'romance' anywhere on it. Really. Let this thread and subject die please, either that or someone please move these threads to the off-topic or the general forum. This game deserves better threads and subjects discussed than this one, which is far beyond a dead horse at this point. Edited March 4, 2014 by Valsuelm
Lephys Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 The thing is, "romance" does not equal only what you specifically want it to just so you can go "Ahhh, you promancers. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE IN THE GAME!" The thing about this OP is, I don't think he in any way made reference to "putting romances in the game" or anything like that. He simply analyzed the aspect of romance/relationship/emotional attachment in a virtual, interactive game, in general. Why the science? Well, why do we want to make any choices in a game with our character, whatsoever? Because of how we feel about those choices. So, yes, I want to be able to have my character make a choice regarding emotional attachment/interest (even if its to stave it off, etc.) just as much as I want to have him make a choice to do something good, or to do something out of greed, or any other emotional aspect or motivation. This doesn't automatically mean there must either be a whole sub-set of the game... a whole arc or sub-plot, devoted to the entirety of courting someone, then ultimately marrying them and/or being with them forever, any more than greed or any other of those aspects needs its own entire sub-story in the game. Just because some people can't deal with the fact that "romances" will not be in the game does not mean we're somehow not allowed to discuss, on a bloody discussion forum, how romance fits into a role-playing game as a mere aspect of character choice/interaction throughout the game rather than some huge, detached sub-plot that's just all about a love story or something. To put it simply... people are subject to feelings of emotional attachment, and virtual people are no different. I understand the animosity toward "the promancer" crowd, but I think it's about time people just ignore those who are never going to be happy and stop pretending that the word "romance" instantly means we've gotta devolve into a big yes-vs-no battle on whether or not PoE should copy Bioware games and allow marriage and children and arbitrary "yay I got this person to love me" choices. Many people don't want that, but also don't want our characters to be arbitrarily devoid of the human aspect of emotional attachment. And, since Obsidian hasn't said "there will be no such thing as the character aspect of feelings and emotional attachment," I'd like to know what might still be in the game, and discuss that, just like any other topic on these forums, if you don't mind. And if you don't wish to do this, then you can simply refrain from posting anything, just as with any other topic you don't wish to discuss. Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u
SqueakyCat Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 For the love of all that's holy, please, please, please start another thread and let this have a well-deserves rest in peace.
Monte Carlo Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I feel your pain squeaky, but maybe this thread is a great place to contain them. Although I say... 4
Hiro Protagonist II Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I wish Metiman would come back. We need him to continue to show his views on the subject and liven up the thread.. He seems to have vanished.
Hiro Protagonist II Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Good one. Metiman has a KS account and in a different country to you. Also, he appears to be from the Codex from what I can tell. Not sure if he uses the Metiman name on the Codex or if it's just an alt. His comments on this forum and KS also have a Codex feel to them. His KS comments are quite funny too.
SqueakyCat Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I feel your pain squeaky, but maybe this thread is a great place to contain them. Although I say... True enough, Monte. The entertainment value can't be underestimated either. (Someone PM Metiman when this gets close to post limit so he can finish it off in style. Ahh, the olde days.)
ManifestedISO Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Who cares about anything. Scarlett Johansson is pregnant. Now there is no beauty, or art, or romance, or anything worthwhile left in the world. Video game romance is as stupid as a crush on a movie star--no matter how perfect we would have been, together. Oh, ScarJo, why ... 2 All Stop. On Screen.
Stun Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) The thing about this OP is, I don't think he in any way made reference to "putting romances in the game" or anything like that. He simply analyzed the aspect of romance/relationship/emotional attachment in a virtual, interactive game, in general.In other words, the thread's subject is nothing more than general gaming discussion. It has nothing to do with Pillars of Eternity nor is it meant to have anything to do with Pillars of Eternity. So... why's it here in the Pillars of Eternity forum? Edited March 5, 2014 by Stun 3
Lephys Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 In other words, the thread's subject is nothing more than general gaming discussion. It has nothing to do with Pillars of Eternity nor is it meant to have anything to do with Pillars of Eternity. Or, it's an attempt at an intellectual discussion of the aspect of romance in a cRPG, which *gasp*, is what PoE is! There are plenty of topics (such as Armor and Weapon Design: Part V) that are discussions of "general gaming" stuff. And yet, people are on the PoE forum to discuss them. PoE will have weapons and armor, and people are interested in the potential designs of weapons and armor, even if they're not specifically talking about specific weapons and armor that will definitely be in PoE. Sheesh... What's being done here is like jumping into that Armor and Weapon Design thread and saying "you either want every single image you're posting in this thread to be in PoE in its exactness, or else you don't want weapons and armor in PoE." So... why's it here in the Pillars of Eternity forum? Good question for the mods, I suppose. Maybe you can badger them all day about it, since its presence here is so catastrophically problematic that you felt compelled to ask this question for the 73rd time. 1 Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u
Stun Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) In other words, the thread's subject is nothing more than general gaming discussion. It has nothing to do with Pillars of Eternity nor is it meant to have anything to do with Pillars of Eternity. Or, it's an attempt at an intellectual discussion of the aspect of romance in a cRPG, which *gasp*, is what PoE is! Fallout New Vegas and South Park Stick of Truth are also cRPGs. So why is this thread here, instead of on one of those forums? Oh wait. I know why. Because the OP's point was to whine about Obsidian's decision to not have Romances in PoE and to put up an "intelligent" argument for why PoE should have them. There are plenty of topics (such as Armor and Weapon Design: Part V) that are discussions of "general gaming" stuff. And yet, people are on the PoE forum to discuss them. PoE will have weapons and armor, and people are interested in the potential designs of weapons and armor, even if they're not specifically talking about specific weapons and armor that will definitely be in PoE.There's a huge and obvious difference of course, between discussing weapon and armor concepts for a game that will have weapons and armor, vs. discussing Romances for a game that will not have any Romances. Duh. Edited March 5, 2014 by Stun
BruceVC Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 In other words, the thread's subject is nothing more than general gaming discussion. It has nothing to do with Pillars of Eternity nor is it meant to have anything to do with Pillars of Eternity.Or, it's an attempt at an intellectual discussion of the aspect of romance in a cRPG, which *gasp*, is what PoE is! Fallout New Vegas and South Park Stick of Truth are also cRPGs. So why is this thread here, instead of on one of those forums? Oh wait. I know why. Because the OP's point was to whine about Obsidian's decision to not have Romances in PoE and to put up an "intelligent" argument for why PoE should have them. " was to whine about Obsidian's" You see the moment I see a comment like this I realize that despite all the apparent endless discussions about Romance some people in the anti-Romance crowd still don't understand what promancers have been saying. We aren't whining, we are logically and intelligently articulating the various reasons why Romance enhances the RPG experience. I have yet to see a single valid reason posted by anyone that explains how optional Romance dilutes the anti-romance gaming experience. But there have been many reasons posted why Romance adds to deeper interaction with party members and a more memorable RPG gaming experience Stun if you are honest with yourself you know I'm right 1 "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "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
Hiro Protagonist II Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) " was to whine about Obsidian's" You see the moment I see a comment like this I realize that despite all the apparent endless discussions about Romance some people in the anti-Romance crowd still don't understand what promancers have been saying. We aren't whining, we are logically and intelligently articulating the various reasons why Romance enhances the RPG experience. I have yet to see a single valid reason posted by anyone that explains how optional Romance dilutes the anti-romance gaming experience. But there have been many reasons posted why Romance adds to deeper interaction with party members and a more memorable RPG gaming experience Stun if you are honest with yourself you know I'm right No Bruce. The OP's first post has been proven to be biased with it's so called science and not using science for it's against argument. It's neither intelligent nor logical. Bruce, you should take note of the intelligent posts that highlighted the OP's biased first post and not ignoring those posts. And there's been valid reasons why not to have romances. This post of yours is trolling. It really is. And I think you know it does as you're just **** stirring by saying things like, not seeing one valid reason and saying to other posters to be honest with themselves. Seriously, it's just trolling posters on this forum and everyone can see it. Edited March 5, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II
BruceVC Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 " was to whine about Obsidian's" You see the moment I see a comment like this I realize that despite all the apparent endless discussions about Romance some people in the anti-Romance crowd still don't understand what promancers have been saying. We aren't whining, we are logically and intelligently articulating the various reasons why Romance enhances the RPG experience. I have yet to see a single valid reason posted by anyone that explains how optional Romance dilutes the anti-romance gaming experience. But there have been many reasons posted why Romance adds to deeper interaction with party members and a more memorable RPG gaming experience Stun if you are honest with yourself you know I'm right No Bruce. The OP's first post has been proven to be biased with it's so called science and not using science for it's against argument. It's neither intelligent nor logical. Bruce, you should take note of the intelligent posts that highlighted the OP's biased first post and not ignoring those posts. And there's been valid reasons why not to have romances. This post of yours is trolling. It really is. And I think you know it does as you're just **** stirring by saying things like, not seeing one valid reason and saying to other posters to be honest with themselves. Seriously, it's just trolling posters on this forum and everyone can see it. Nah, I reject your assessment of the Op's post. Lets not throw the term "trolling" around whenever we don't agree with the sentiment of others. Its counterproductive to the objective of the actual debate. 2 "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "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
GrayAngel Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Stop just stop this is pointless. Whey continue this Obsidian don't give a f**k about what we want there will be no romance Chris know better then everyone. PS. Sorry Chris if there is someone even more oppose to romance then you in this team but you sir are most vocal about it.
Monte Carlo Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Bruce, you are trolling. Drama-queenish, passive-aggressive trolling (although that's more like Lephys) but trolling nonetheless. Personally it doesn't bother me, but the butt-hurt threads informing the developers why they are wrong not to introduce your precious romance mini-game in this project is boring.
centurionofprix Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) In other words, the thread's subject is nothing more than general gaming discussion. It has nothing to do with Pillars of Eternity nor is it meant to have anything to do with Pillars of Eternity.Or, it's an attempt at an intellectual discussion of the aspect of romance in a cRPG, which *gasp*, is what PoE is! Fallout New Vegas and South Park Stick of Truth are also cRPGs. So why is this thread here, instead of on one of those forums? Oh wait. I know why. Because the OP's point was to whine about Obsidian's decision to not have Romances in PoE and to put up an "intelligent" argument for why PoE should have them. " was to whine about Obsidian's" You see the moment I see a comment like this I realize that despite all the apparent endless discussions about Romance some people in the anti-Romance crowd still don't understand what promancers have been saying. We aren't whining, we are logically and intelligently articulating the various reasons why Romance enhances the RPG experience. I have yet to see a single valid reason posted by anyone that explains how optional Romance dilutes the anti-romance gaming experience. But there have been many reasons posted why Romance adds to deeper interaction with party members and a more memorable RPG gaming experience Stun if you are honest with yourself you know I'm right This has been posted repeatedly, probably for years now, but there are many crucial aspects to human existence besides romance that make for meaningful themes in RPGs. Philosophy, art, groovy things like vanities and pop idol culture, parties, science, and theology, to name a few. Not all of these can reasonably be implemented as elements of gameplay in one game*; to include one aspect will inevitably divert the focus of the game from the others. Resources and development time as a matter of pragmatics are likewise limited. There is no reason whatsoever to clamour for romance to be included over other parts of life if another (say, philosophy or theology) is more relevant to the story. Romance would be as detrimental then as forcefully added, abstract explorations of philosophy or theology in a game otherwise about romance and adventure. Strangely, one never sees someone beg for those to be included in stories to which they aren't relevant, which kind of suggests one is dealing in the case of "promancers" with a yearning for a selection of waifus rather than with a general concern for meaningful themes. I like playing romances sometimes, but that is no argument at all for their inclusion over other equally interesting themes, and, crucially, over ones deemed more relevant to what PoE is about. * (certainly not in a game like PoE, which also concerns itself with combat and an adventure storyline.) Edited March 5, 2014 by centurionofprix 1
Recommended Posts