Jump to content
Zombra

Your PoE Pros and Cons: 5 and 5

Recommended Posts

Pro

 

+ Isometric party based game with RTWP.

 

+ The classes: All of them seem to be incredibly distinct from one another and not merely rehashes of 3 core classes (e.g. Mage, Rogue, Warrior)

 

+ The Adventurers Hall: After a few playthroughs I like to just experiment with different party builds rather than LARP.

 

+ The lore: I love the effort Obsidian has put into crafting a coherent, cohesive setting that accounts for the long history of interactions between races, cultures, languages and so on. No matter how enjoyable the combat of the old I.E. games may have been an incoherent setting simply makes it difficult to truly enjoy them.

 

+ The themes: Promises of exploring themes of institutionalized racism and class conflict combined with the coherent lore make me a very happy monkey.

 

(See also factions, moral choices, C&C, artstyle, focus on world over characters and so on)

 

Cons

 

- The infinite inventory: Seems incredibly out of place. Accounting for inventory maintenance is a standard part of party creation.

 

-   No exp for combat: Obvious.

 

- No pre-buffing.

 

- ... Too much purple and green?

 

- Not on my computer right now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pros:

1.It exists

2.It exists

3.It exists

4.It exists

5.It exists

 

Cons:

1.I can't play it yet

2.I can't play it yet

3.I can't play it yet

4.I can't play it yet

5.I can't play it yet

 

The End. Good night, Moon.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 I'm not against it, but I'm also not interested. It will be game content that I never see if it is included. I would prefer to be able to do any companion related quest material without following a romance plot.

 

Yeah, that's why I think any romance should be mostly dialogue (and ok, you can buy your beloved a flower or a broadsword engraved with "for slicing down any b******s that'd try to hurt you").  The dialogue for doing a given quest might vary slightly, but the quests should still be doable (unless it really makes no sense - like a quest to find a wedding planner - but that'd fall under dumb-writing :lol: )

 

Again, chalk this up to writing quality.  I never finished BG2, so I can't comment directly on how it was handled, but from what I'm seeing here, several characters were written only as romance-fodder; you could either be enemies (but still hang out) or lovers, but nothing else.  I don't think anyone wants to see that in future games.  You should be able to romantically reject someone without destroying the entire relationship (even if this is not always true in real life :)).

 

It's OK with me if occasional quest material is "for lovers only", and then only if the writing makes sense that it wouldn't come up among "just good friends".  I don't need to see every quest on every playthrough; just like there can be assassin quests that my paladin will never do.  But yeah, at least 9 times out of 10, if a character has something they need help with, they'll want help from a strong leader even if they're not screwing them, and it won't make sense to gate that content.

^this

 

Having said that, lack of romance in PoE won't affect my game (though as someone mentioned above, if there's good human/elf/orlan relationship emotional content, that'd be better than simply a 'choose your own adventure lover' )


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And/or it should just be treated like any other aspect of reputation, in a seemingly good reputation system like PoE's.

 

Romance tends to suck when it gets treated like some completely unique thread of events that's separate from the rest of the game world. "You can play the game... OR, if you want to take a break, you can romance! 8D!"

 

Annnnnnnywho. I guess we've talked about it a few times already, :)


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I'm not against it, but I'm also not interested. It will be game content that I never see if it is included. I would prefer to be able to do any companion related quest material without following a romance plot.

 

 

I find this sentiment interesting, because I personally have no interest in playing an "evil" character. Evil quest paths and the like will be game content that I never see if it is included. However, I recognize there are people out there that love "evil" stuff, and so I'd never say it shouldn't be included because I personally don't like it. I am kinda curious why people don't take a similar approach to in game romance.

  • Like 3

"Wizards do not need to be The Dudes Who Can AoE Nuke You and Gish and Take as Many Hits as a Fighter and Make all Skills Irrelevant Because Magic."

-Josh Sawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, I recognize there are people out there that love "evil" stuff, and so I'd never say it shouldn't be included because I personally don't like it. I am kinda curious why people don't take a similar approach to in game romance.

Can't speak for others but as an 'anti-romancer' I have no major issue with the romance content itself. Sure a lot of Bioware's romances are juvenile but for the most part they're easy to ignore and in the few instances when they're not completely horrible they're actually a decent tool to help further define my player-character.

 

What I take issue with is the type of fans the inclusion of romance attracts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

4) no romances

 

to waste effort on what needs be a largely insular and tangential companion side quest that will necessarily be seeming rushed or juvenile 'cause o' limited opportunities to engage in love-talk would be near criminal in a game development with limited resources. 

 

 

Gromnir this has been discussed already but its weird to say you think no Romance is a Pro. Romance is optional in an RPG, so if you are opposed to Romance you just wouldn't partake in it.

 

Its like saying you see the implementation of Thievery as a Con, well guess what? Just don't play a Thief.

  • Like 1

"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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pros:

 

1. Isometric party-based RPG in the spirit of the IE games. Been waiting a long time.

2. A well told, engaging story.

3. Well developed characters.

4. The beggining of both an Obsidian-owned IP and (I hope) an adventure that is comparable in length and scale to the BG games and their expansions.

5. Strictly single player focus (not that the lack of MP is a pro per se)

 

Cons:

 

1. No Boo.

2. Possible (perhaps inevitable) minor missteps in tweaking the IE formula to innovate and keep things fresh. This is, of course, also a pro. Might include inventory, buffing system, exp system, or it might not.

3. I decided the last one counts as two.

4. I decided number two actually counts as three.

5. No... romances? Bah, sue me, I'm not averse to the concept. At least that ensures no awkwardly-written ones.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmmmmm, also

Pro:

- no DRM

- no ARM

 

 

Sorry, probably should have edited the last post. Didn't mean to pad my post numbers.

Edited by PieSnatcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cons:

 

1. No Boo.

 

5. No... romances? Bah, sue me, I'm not averse to the concept. At least that ensures no awkwardly-written ones.

 

I also liked Boo, he was cute :cat:

 

Don't be embarrassed about saying you like Romance, there are many people who like Romance and enjoy there implementation in a RPG. It just seems to be politically incorrect on these forums to say that. But the promancer army is alive and well :biggrin:


"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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 I'm not against it, but I'm also not interested. It will be game content that I never see if it is included. I would prefer to be able to do any companion related quest material without following a romance plot.

 

 

I find this sentiment interesting, because I personally have no interest in playing an "evil" character. Evil quest paths and the like will be game content that I never see if it is included. However, I recognize there are people out there that love "evil" stuff, and so I'd never say it shouldn't be included because I personally don't like it. I am kinda curious why people don't take a similar approach to in game romance.

 

well, some o' this is having an obvious answer. raise your hand if you has ever encounter a game npc that simply annoyed you or tried your patience past endurance? everybody? maybe you didn't choose the, "slip a dagger between his ribs" option, but the fact it were there were enticing, and perhaps you even utilized such options on subsequent replays of the game. ironically, evil options makes choosing the bright and shiny path more palatable for Gromnir.

 

that being said, some o' the inherent flaws with evil is indeed same as romance-- some. evil typically gets done as impulse driven and psychotic. this is done for gaming reasons. each evil act is, perhaps necessarily, insular. if you is gonna have the opportunity to good next time encounter, the evil you do in this one must be limited in scope.  also, as developers wants you, the player, to embrace the illusion that you is making the choices and moving the action forward, it is difficult to create smart evil. what we mean is, smart evil is gonna have a plan, but how do developers give evil players a chance to plan? even if developers does work a clever evil plan into a game somehow, it is gonna be the developer's plan and that is possibly gonna annoy players. as such, one great flaw o' romance is same as evil-- it is insular. 

 

but to answer big question o' why we is seeing abandonment o' romance as a positive, that too should be obvious at this point. is many features in games we is unlikely to ever use. the aforementioned evil is one, though we has played evil in past. there is likely gonna be weapons and spells n' such we never use. chances are there is features in the game that even after a dozen replays we will have no interest in exploring, but we don't begrudge their inclusion. so why is romance different? because romance can't be good.

 

we like romance in stories, and that is the problem. as an insular and tangential companion side quest, we can envision no way to improve such romances significantly. best writing in the world won't overcome what we see as insurmountable hurdles. results, regardless o' the best intentions o' the writers, will be juvenile and insulting. is not like druids or dual-wield flails or other such stuff we is unlikely to make use of in multiple replays, 'cause romances can't be considerable better than we sees now from bioware, and to us that guarantees their suckage.

 

we may never play a druid, but we don't see the resources used to implement them as a waste. however, if we knew with absolute certainty that the time resources going into the inclusion would be better used so that cain or avellone could take up salsa dancing (perhaps together) on the company dime, then that would be wasteful, no? am not in favor o' including features that must necessarily be bad, 'cause those same resources could be used to improve the game in other ways.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we could go into all the reasons we thinks crpg romances is irredeemably flawed, but we has done so soooooo many times that we suspect more than a few is tired o' hearing our reasons yet again. we can indulge, but for purpose o' our response here, suffice it to say that romances is a waste o' resources.

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 I'm not against it, but I'm also not interested. It will be game content that I never see if it is included. I would prefer to be able to do any companion related quest material without following a romance plot.

 

 

I find this sentiment interesting, because I personally have no interest in playing an "evil" character. Evil quest paths and the like will be game content that I never see if it is included. However, I recognize there are people out there that love "evil" stuff, and so I'd never say it shouldn't be included because I personally don't like it. I am kinda curious why people don't take a similar approach to in game romance.

 

well, some o' this is having an obvious answer. raise your hand if you has ever encounter a game npc that simply annoyed you or tried your patience past endurance? everybody? maybe you didn't choose the, "slip a dagger between his ribs" option, but the fact it were there were enticing, and perhaps you even utilized such options on subsequent replays of the game. ironically, evil options makes choosing the bright and shiny path more palatable for Gromnir.

 

that being said, some o' the inherent flaws with evil is indeed same as romance-- some. evil typically gets done as impulse driven and psychotic. this is done for gaming reasons. each evil act is, perhaps necessarily, insular. if you is gonna have the opportunity to good next time encounter, the evil you do in this one must be limited in scope.  also, as developers wants you, the player, to embrace the illusion that you is making the choices and moving the action forward, it is difficult to create smart evil. what we mean is, smart evil is gonna have a plan, but how do developers give evil players a chance to plan? even if developers does work a clever evil plan into a game somehow, it is gonna be the developer's plan and that is possibly gonna annoy players. as such, one great flaw o' romance is same as evil-- it is insular. 

 

but to answer big question o' why we is seeing abandonment o' romance as a positive, that too should be obvious at this point. is many features in games we is unlikely to ever use. the aforementioned evil is one, though we has played evil in past. there is likely gonna be weapons and spells n' such we never use. chances are there is features in the game that even after a dozen replays we will have no interest in exploring, but we don't begrudge their inclusion. so why is romance different? because romance can't be good.

 

we like romance in stories, and that is the problem. as an insular and tangential companion side quest, we can envision no way to improve such romances significantly. best writing in the world won't overcome what we see as insurmountable hurdles. results, regardless o' the best intentions o' the writers, will be juvenile and insulting. is not like druids or dual-wield flails or other such stuff we is unlikely to make use of in multiple replays, 'cause romances can't be considerable better than we sees now from bioware, and to us that guarantees their suckage.

 

we may never play a druid, but we don't see the resources used to implement them as a waste. however, if we knew with absolute certainty that the time resources going into the inclusion would be better used so that cain or avellone could take up salsa dancing (perhaps together) on the company dime, then that would be wasteful, no? am not in favor o' including features that must necessarily be bad, 'cause those same resources could be used to improve the game in other ways.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I still don't buy what you are saying Gromnir. You are a highly intelligent and analytical person, I have seen you debate for days specific game features and make convincing arguments based on an impressive understanding of RPG  from your exposure to gaming. Yet when you  are asked to say 5 things that you like about PoE all you can think of for one of your reasons is that there "wont be Romance" ??

 

Out of all the real positive things you can say you mention something that isn't even relevant to the discussion. I really expected something more insightful than that from you Gromnir.

 

IMO people that say " No Romance " in PoE for a Pro  are saying it more to get a reaction than it being a valid reason that they think PoE is going to be a great game :)

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yadda yadda... why don't you give a better response ... yadda yadda

 

(edited down to make for less clutter)

 

we gave rather brief explanations for both our pros and cons. given our difficulty with brevity, full explanations o' our thought process regarding Ten separate features/aspects o' poe woulda' been... excessive.  as we pointed out, we has detailed why we loathe crpg romance elsewhere, so at least that aspect is well-tread ground.

 

HA! Good Fun!


"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 ...

 

I find this sentiment interesting, because I personally have no interest in playing an "evil" character. Evil quest paths and the like will be game content that I never see if it is included. However, I recognize there are people out there that love "evil" stuff, and so I'd never say it shouldn't be included because I personally don't like it. I am kinda curious why people don't take a similar approach to in game romance.

 

 

 

 So, I think we agree? If there were romances, I would prefer it if there were non-romance ways of doing most of the companion related quests and presumably you would like to be able to complete most quests in a 'good' way rather than, say, not seeing half of them at all. Or, did you mean something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gromnir this has been discussed already but its weird to say you think no Romance is a Pro. Romance is optional in an RPG, so if you are opposed to Romance you just wouldn't partake in it.

 

 

I think people in general tend to like genre-appropriate romances. Romances in Alpha Protocol were cool, because "womanizing super-spy" is a character concept with strong resonance in pop culture. (Although I personally think they could have been written in a more tongue-in-cheek style. The game had this fairly gleeful attitude towards engaging in nonsensical spy movie tropes, they could have pumped a bit more of it into this aspect.)

 

OTOH, fantasy romances tend to be... not worthy of emulation.

  • Like 1

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IMO people that say " No Romance " in PoE for a Pro  are saying it more to get a reaction than it being a valid reason that they think PoE is going to be a great game :)

 

 

Please don't do that. Its more than a little rude to ascribe meaning to the statements of others without attempting to engage them to get a better sense of what they are trying to say.

 

Anywho, I can't speak for others, but I love the fact there are no romances because the ones I have seen in games have been incredibly fake and they turn party discussions into a bad highlight reel of a high fantasy version of the Bachelor. God, that was the absolute WORST part of BG2. Having Aerie whine and cry about her damn wings, Jaheira go on and on about her dead hubbie and Viconia being the hurt outsider.. and having to suffer through all that poorly written mess just to find out it was Biowares poor attempt at bringing a Japanese dating sim to American shores when each of them tried to have a go at my character. That sucked me out of my game experience very very quickly. It turned all my joinable NPCs into datable NPCs. When I am running about, trying to save creation from apocalypse, should the primary means of developing kinship with my party members be a damn dating sim? Its stupid. Its just plain stupid.

 

What shocked me even more was all the damn dating sim mods that came out for BG2. Some sick bastards even made incest mods so you could freaking romance your SISTER. There is no accounting for taste. Those people will probably be able to modify the game files and make their own twisted romances to their heart's delight but, thankfully, Obsidian won't be wasting development time on that adolescent rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are perfectly entitled to dislike content types for whatever reason they wish, and I agree that it's not cool to say, "You only said that because you want this."

 

However, it doesn't really count as a "Pro" to say "does not have something I dislike".  "Lack of broken glass" isn't a "feature" to be excited about, and "lack of romance" isn't either.  It's just something that's not there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

IMO people that say " No Romance " in PoE for a Pro  are saying it more to get a reaction than it being a valid reason that they think PoE is going to be a great game :)

 

 

Please don't do that. Its more than a little rude to ascribe meaning to the statements of others without attempting to engage them to get a better sense of what they are trying to say.

 

Anywho, I can't speak for others, but I love the fact there are no romances because the ones I have seen in games have been incredibly fake and they turn party discussions into a bad highlight reel of a high fantasy version of the Bachelor. God, that was the absolute WORST part of BG2. Having Aerie whine and cry about her damn wings, Jaheira go on and on about her dead hubbie and Viconia being the hurt outsider.. and having to suffer through all that poorly written mess just to find out it was Biowares poor attempt at bringing a Japanese dating sim to American shores when each of them tried to have a go at my character. That sucked me out of my game experience very very quickly. It turned all my joinable NPCs into datable NPCs. When I am running about, trying to save creation from apocalypse, should the primary means of developing kinship with my party members be a damn dating sim? Its stupid. Its just plain stupid.

 

What shocked me even more was all the damn dating sim mods that came out for BG2. Some sick bastards even made incest mods so you could freaking romance your SISTER. There is no accounting for taste. Those people will probably be able to modify the game files and make their own twisted romances to their heart's delight but, thankfully, Obsidian won't be wasting development time on that adolescent rubbish.

 

 

I appreciate your response, sorry if I was generalizing :)

 

But I want to ask you a question, do you generally partake in Romance in games or do you ignore them and focus on other aspects of party interaction?


"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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, it doesn't really count as a "Pro" to say "does not have something I dislike".  "Lack of broken glass" isn't a "feature" to be excited about, and "lack of romance" isn't either.  It's just something that's not there.

 

That's a terrible argument. So when posters in this thread say on the Pro side, No combat xp because they dislike it. Then it doesn't really count as a Pro?

 

eg. 'doesn't really count as a "Pro" to say "does not have something I dislike".  "Lack of combat xp" isn't a "feature" to be excited about, and "lack of combat xp" isn't either.  It's just something that's not there.'

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, it doesn't really count as a "Pro" to say "does not have something I dislike".  "Lack of broken glass" isn't a "feature" to be excited about, and "lack of romance" isn't either.  It's just something that's not there.

 

That's a terrible argument. So when posters in this thread say on the Pro side, No combat xp because they dislike it. Then it doesn't really count as a Pro?

 

eg. 'doesn't really count as a "Pro" to say "does not have something I dislike".  "Lack of combat xp" isn't a "feature" to be excited about, and "lack of combat xp" isn't either.  It's just something that's not there.'

 

I think it's slightly different - "lack of combat xp" is more about "quest xp and multiple equally valid ways to complete certain quests without losing xp" - ie, it's more about what IS there instead and the consequences thereof.

So yeah, "lack of combat XP" is a negative way of stating what's really meant.  If there IS combat XP, then you MUST slaughter left,  right and centre to be levelled enough.

"Lack of romance" isn't something that they've replaced with an alternative that has the potential to be better (YMMV).  (Unless they HAVE initiated a superior 'party-relationship' system.)

  • Like 3

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So yeah, "lack of combat XP" is a negative way of stating what's really meant.  If there IS combat XP, then you MUST slaughter left,  right and centre to be levelled enough.

 

 

That's not necessarily true (wasn't true for PS:T, f'rexample). Mind, I'm all for "no combat xp" - worked well enough in Deus Ex (a game literally about shooting people) and Vampire: Bloodlines, but combat xp in itself doesn't mean a systemic need for violence.

 

(Disregard if original sentence was sarcastic.)


"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's slightly different - "lack of combat xp" is more about "quest xp and multiple equally valid ways to complete certain quests without losing xp" - ie, it's more about what IS there instead and the consequences thereof.

So yeah, "lack of combat XP" is a negative way of stating what's really meant.  If there IS combat XP, then you MUST slaughter left,  right and centre to be levelled enough.

"Lack of romance" isn't something that they've replaced with an alternative that has the potential to be better (YMMV).  (Unless they HAVE initiated a superior 'party-relationship' system.)

 

Not different at all. What other examples do you need where people have put things in the Pro argument that aren't in the game? No dlc where a lot of people are happy with? Why is it okay to agree on one and not the other and use the argument, if it's not in the game then it's not a Pro? Personally, I think if you can keep a turd (whatever that turd may be) out of a game where other companies do keep a turd in, then that's a Pro.

 

And Obsidian are known for their superior writing so we can expect more 'quality' interactive party relationships. That's great in my book. if you want an alternative, then there you have it. Quality interaction with party members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pros:
- Interesting mechanics
- Great aesthetics
- Obsidian rpg without publisher pressure/overseering
- Nice old-school style with modern feel/touch

- It's huge

Cons:
- Haven't seen actual ingame footage so I don't know if any of the above might stand true!
- Haven't played the game yet so I don't know if any of the above stand true
- Haven't played the game yet
- Haven't played the game yet
- Haven't played the game yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it's slightly different - "lack of combat xp" is more about "quest xp and multiple equally valid ways to complete certain quests without losing xp" - ie, it's more about what IS there instead and the consequences thereof.

So yeah, "lack of combat XP" is a negative way of stating what's really meant.  If there IS combat XP, then you MUST slaughter left,  right and centre to be levelled enough.

"Lack of romance" isn't something that they've replaced with an alternative that has the potential to be better (YMMV).  (Unless they HAVE initiated a superior 'party-relationship' system.)

 

Not different at all. What other examples do you need where people have put things in the Pro argument that aren't in the game? No dlc where a lot of people are happy with? Why is it okay to agree on one and not the other and use the argument, if it's not in the game then it's not a Pro? Personally, I think if you can keep a turd (whatever that turd may be) out of a game where other companies do keep a turd in, then that's a Pro.

 

And Obsidian are known for their superior writing so we can expect more 'quality' interactive party relationships. That's great in my book. if you want an alternative, then there you have it. Quality interaction with party members.

 

 

But we don't just want quality interaction with party members. This is something we have come to expect from Obsidian, we want quality interaction and  Romance options. Its not a fitting substitute to say " well there is no Romance but there is engaging interaction" for most promancers?


"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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But we don't just want quality interaction with party members. This is something we have come to expect from Obsidian, we want quality interaction and  Romance options. Its not a fitting substitute to say " well there is no Romance but there is engaging interaction" for most promancers?

 

Bruce, do you agree that if it's not in the game then it's not a Pro? Can you explain the logic? If you can't explain the logic, then you're arguing from a fallacy. I expect better from you. Please use logic instead of fallacious arguments please. :)

 

Here's an easy question: Why is it that if something like combat xp is not in the game, it's a Pro?

 

And please give me the courtesy of answering the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...