Bittersweet Eternity. An open letter addressed to Obsidian Entertainment

[namelessthree]

Nice opening post, can tell you put a ton of heart and thought into it.  That said a "we should include romance" thread literally just got shut down yesterday so your timing is a bit... ironic?  Also as Gromnir mentioned the "no romance" thing is old news and the game is now feature locked.  At least you put a nice argument behind it.

 

I suspect Eternity 2 will find a way to fit it in though.

 

Ha, Ironic indeed. Thank you for your words. I did put a lot of heart into it, not really much because of the importance of romances themselves but because what the lack of them really represents (less roleplaying options). Sorry if this is boring for some of the locals but I am literally new in this forum and I can't really tell what has been debated to death and what doesn't, so I was just voicing out my concerns like I guess any of you would have done with some topic or their interest. One nuance though. Like I said, this post is not about "There should be romances no matter what" but about "Umm, I feel like the game is leaning towards Icewind Dale the most and I would rather have more BG2 and Torment in my game".

 

 

Let me make a few points here:

 

1: While romance is removed, a new role-play concept has been introduced; personality reputation. This means that PoE will likely have more role-play options than the old IE games.

 

2: Keep in mind that Bg1 had no romances, but Bg2 did. This suggest it is entirely possible for romances to be in PoE2.

 

3: While a full blown romance is out of the question; some subtle flirting may still be in the game. If point 2 comes true, that could lead to some very good romance role-playing. Building a relationship over time instead of in one game would be neat. PoE1: We flirt/tease. PoE2: We begin a romance and come into relationship conflict. PoE3: We resolve issue and live happily ever after.

 

4: I have played mod areas and romances and both are fine. In fact, some of the Mod romances were better and more in-depth than Bioware's.

 

1. Well, that remains to be seen. While personality reputation is nice I feel it's only a way to manage content (in this case, friendships with your companions, or that is my guess) not to add new content. We'll have to wait I guess.

 

2. The BG1 argument is no argument really since the companions deepness in BG1 was literally non existent. If what you are saying is that they are following the BG saga schema, well, then that's a scary thought since, like I said BG1 companions were shallow to death.

 

4. The thing is, they don't work for everybody. With all due respect, it's not for me.

 

 

I'm not one of the no-mancers or whatever you want to call them. I remember the romances in BG2 and Torment with fondness, the former because I felt it gave me a chance to better establish my character as something other than a bunch of stats and the latter because TNO's various doomed relationships were thematically important to the game. The lack of romance doesn't make or break the game for me, but if they had included it you wouldn't have found me among those bitching about it. 

 

But I don't see how 'no romance' instantly equates to 'character interaction will be shallow.' Why is the only possible relationship romantic, in your eyes? What about mentor and apprentice or brother and sister or simple close friendship? Was the relationship between Dak'kon and TNO less rich because there was no romantic tension involved? Isn't it entirely possible that they intend in-depth interaction with an NPC outside of a long chain of dialogues leading to awkward fade-to-black sex? 

 

If PoE resembles Icewind Dale in the depth of its character relationships and interaction, you'll find me right here with you bitching about it. Obsidian is keeping the story part of the game tightly under wraps, though, and I don't feel like anyone who doesn't work there is in any position to make that judgement yet. 

 

Just...give them some credit, alright? Given their track record, haven't they earned a little faith in their ability to create memorable NPCs and NPC interaction?

 

I've never said such a thing. I said that if not included, -and I wasn't talking about romance only but also about the option to express your sexuality in general- the game will most certainly be more shallow or less deep than BG2 and Torment. It wasn't and absolute, it was a comparation. And I truly believe so, even if the amount of friendship in PoE is overwhelming, if you cannot express your sexuality or romance towards anybody really, that feels to me like less roleplay capabilities than BG2 and Torment. Again, not a big deal, but a simpton of more Icewind less Baldur's, and again we won't really know, like you said until the game is out. That's way, the first thing I mention in the post is that I was voicing my concerns. This is obviously not a "The game IS this or is that". 

 

Obsidian definitely have earned our faith, hell, everybody here is a backer I think, so that means we are all in the same boat of faith. I think they are an awesome, peculiar and unique dev team, but if I feel concerned about something I feel like I have the right to mention that to them, too. I don't really think is such a big deal. People talk and have concerns about each other all the time. And that's fine.

Edited July 5, 2014 by namelessthree

[Namutree]

I also went ahead and compared Fallout 3 to Fallout: NV.

 

The mechanics were similar, but not quite the same.

 

The game experience was similar, but not quite the same.

 

I doubt that was a coincidence.

[Namutree]

namelesstree

 

I think you didn't understand the implication of my second point. 

 

Remember that poe is only the first third of your hero's story; don't be too upset that you can't start a romance in the first act of three. 

[Bryy]

OP,

 

A few things. As others have pointed out, your vague notion of romance and what it "should" be is flawed. You can't properly express what exactly you want, and then you go on to give Planescape's usage of romance as an example, but you also answer your own question as to why it was thematic and needed for that game. Josh Sawyer's comments express that romance was thought of, but only as an extra and not essential to the plot. So at the end of the day, it needed to go to the cutting room floor. 

 

Then, you do the always classic argument of "but it's not REAL if players mod it in afterwards!". 

 

This is all mixed in with patronizing talk of how great the writers are, so obviously adding in new dialogue and arcs would be the easiest thing in the world and the only reason they must not be doing it is because they are stupid. The Lazy Devs argument.

 

Lastly, you end it by basically saying that they don't care about their backers. Classy, dude.

 

 

Josh Sawyer said in this very forum that the team didn't have the time or other resources to implement romances. But basically romances are more dialogue and reaction to it that adds roleplaying options to the player. Why then, if we assume roleplaying options are relevant in a CRPG, not give the backers the opportunity to have a say in this decision? Why not reaching a compromise? If the team doesn't have money or time for both let's say 40 dungeons and romances, why not ask the backers what would they rather have? And no, I don't mean cutting some levels from the megadungeon because what's promised is promised but maybe cutting some other dungeons instead.  Inxile set up polls for decisions as important as deciding if the game were gonna be turn based or action with pause. Why not give the Pillars of Eternity backers the option to give their opinion? To know if they want the maximum amount of dungeons no matter what or if they would rather have less of them so that time and money would go to open more roleplaying options. I really would like something like this to happen. There are 73.986 backers only in the Kickstarter main page. 73.986. Do their opinions not matter?  I know Obsidian has the last say but... is it not possible to even offer that option to the backers? To ask them what would they rather have via email/poll?

 

 

 

 

Because ultimately, backers are not game designers and we don't really know what is good for a game. This is the problem with the new Torment game in which the developers, for some reason, believe it be the backer's choice for something as fundamental as what combat system the game uses. In reality it was the developer's choice.

And honestly, if the backers were making Torment, there would be no female gender option.

[Odd Hermit]

To make a convincing romance in a video game between the player's character and an in game character is extremely difficult to pull off. The player character can be such a variety of different personalities, and trying to make "one size fits all" romance options most often comes off extremely tacky. I'm glad they're staying away from it for now, as it's a lot of work that I'd rather see go into what I'd consider more important aspects of the game.

 

 

 

 

[namelessthree]

 

"Open letter."

 

I wish they'd just stay closed.

 

Pathetic and uncalled for. Go troll elsewhere.

 

Not trolling at all dear boy, I merely have a few issues with these "open letters" that keep cropping up, and their inevitable style:

 

1. Brevity is the soul of wit. Stop rambling make a point with each sentence, set an example and move on. Far more effective method of communication.

2. Why open? Obsidian are eminently contactable, do so, especially if one has backed their project and wishes to raise an objection.

3. No romances mean less deep interaction. This keeps on bing repeated and just sounds more ridiculous every time, there were other characters than Grace and Annah in Torment and they were arguably more interesting. Daakon's instruction in the way of the Zerth was hardly a small whimsical thing.

4. People know other people for years at a time and don't pursue romantic engagements, this doesn't make them psychopaths, asexual or unusual in any way.

5. We're approaching beta, it's a little late for such a complaint, and really if one is going to invest their money in a Kickstarter why would they not not keep their eye on it? Return on investment and whatnot? Caveat Emptor.

6. As a backer you have a perfect right to complain and argue for features you'd like, however rambling "open letters" have the freakish stink of the BSN about them. I'd say that if you wish discussion on the main boards then simply make a thread arguing your position.

7. Personally i'm glad of the no romance ruling and wish other developers would follow suit, especially if it means less content gated off behind romances, more deep characters with more interactions, and more getting to know ones acquaintances rather than engaging in cheesy teenage romance fiction.

 

Edit: The content of the other "open letters" i've seen may have influenced my bias somewhat, one for instance had a mother asking her infant child not to commit rape when he grows up! As if it was the little lads honest wish to be a rapist or that she had no part in his upbring (which she probably shouldn't.) The stultifying idiocy of such letters leaves one quite aghast, so please consider that it is not just your missive that has raised such a scathing dismissiveness within me.

 

 

 

1. I wasn't try to be witty, I was trying to elaborate some concerns and for that I need to argument my case, otherwise we can fall in reductionism very easily. 

 

2. I saw Obsidian devs responding here so I just assumed this is as good of a place as any to raise and objection. In retrospective, maybe you are right but didn't even know you could contact Obsi outside these forums.

 

3. The thing is the whole point of the letter wasn't a discussion about if romances mean deeper or shallower interaction. I do feel the same way and I think a good friendship can be as deep as a good romance if done right. For example, what you mention about Dakkon, character which I love inmensely. No, the letter  was a case in favor of roleplaying options. I think this is gonna sound ironic but I barely romance when I roleplay BUT that doesn't mean I want those options excluded, because in the long run they are just that, options and I feel that each of them have the capability of enrichen the experience for a vast variety of players. So really this post was really about voicing concerns against the cut of roleplaying options. Like I said, I prefer more Baldur and Torment than Icewind in my game.

 

4. True, but this is not the reality, this is a game. And I assume that in the game, if there are not time restrictions to finish the main quest, you can potentially spend years adventuring. It feels unrealistic that you cannot express your atraction towards anybody in the game (or the other way around) during a long period of time. And I say express because that is what I feel it is really important here, that you have the option to roleplay the character the way you want. Otherwise, like I said, you are forcing me to be some kind of character and that can pull some players out of the experience.

 

5. Too much faith in Obsidian? When they were talking about BG2 and Torment in the pitch, that was enough for me to send money their way. Really, BG2 + Torment + Obsidian was a no brainer and in my head the idea of Obsi letting me down was impossible I guess. I just assumed that when they were talking about a successor for BG2 and Torment, it was a successor with all the consequences. Why voicing my concerns this late? Simple. I was trying to read the less about the game as possible so the whole experience would be a surprise. It seems that journalism got in the way and you know the rest I guess. I guess it can be summarized as too much faith.

 

6. Sorry if you felt it was a ramble. I was simply trying to elaborate. Maybe I am too long winded? The thing is I don't know how to do the other things that you mention so, being new to the forums as I am, I just posted inside the part of the forums I thought it would make the most sense to post it, meaning the PoE main discussion thingy.

 

7. And personally I don't mind gating content behind a companion. I find it more realistic in the same way that in real life you wouldn't know cetain things about somebody unless this person is your couple. Also, gating contents means more replay value. I don't see the difference between gating content behind companions and gating it behind classes. You have to play with another character if you want to experience ways differently in both cases. Also, romances don't have to be neither teenager ego stroking neither cheesy. You have to have good writers behind them, though. But Obsi wrote Torment so I wouldn't sweat over things going cheesy.

 

Edit: Apology accepted I guess but that doesn't mean you have to respond to a person writing their first post with a witty-jerky comment. Why not exposing the points of your argument like you did in your second post? Or if you are burned out with the subject, why not ignoring these posts altogether? Sorry If my post felt redundant ( I am new here afterall), and I am shocked about the other open letters that you mention, but like I said, let's all be polite. 

Edited July 5, 2014 by namelessthree

[Bryy]

Edit: Apology accepted I guess

He wasn't apologizing for anything. In fact, you were the one that took it as an insult. And then you tell him to just ignore you if he disagrees with you? 

[namelessthree]

OP,

 

A few things. As others have pointed out, your vague notion of romance and what it "should" be is flawed. You can't properly express what exactly you want, and then you go on to give Planescape's usage of romance as an example, but you also answer your own question as to why it was thematic and needed for that game. Josh Sawyer's comments express that romance was thought of, but only as an extra and not essential to the plot. So at the end of the day, it needed to go to the cutting room floor. 

 

Then, you do the always classic argument of "but it's not REAL if players mod it in afterwards!". 

 

This is all mixed in with patronizing talk of how great the writers are, so obviously adding in new dialogue and arcs would be the easiest thing in the world and the only reason they must not be doing it is because they are stupid. The Lazy Devs argument.

 

Lastly, you end it by basically saying that they don't care about their backers. Classy, dude.

 

 

I don't think that you understood the whole point of the letter. It's not a case in favor of romances but roleplaying options. Also, how is the concept of romance that I used vague? Is as specific as two different and valid options: Bg2 and Torment. The first is not thematic the second is.  Very well, the devs decided it wouldn't be possible to add those roleplaying options but at the same time we have a megadungeon of 15 levels. See where I am going? I am not saying that the devs should do this and the devs should do that but why not give the backers the chance to, at least, express their opinion in the matter? Just because you are fine with what they decided? That's a poor argument.

 

I am not patronizing anybody, believe me. Some people are fine with modded content, others are not.

 

How am I saying the devs are lazy? I am just saying that maybe there are some more options out there. Don't be simplistic, please.

 

EDIT: If he wasn't, that is for him to say. It feels to me that he was trying to explain why he was aghast and biased about this kind of posting, seems to me like apologizing somehow, but then again, is that really important? What matters is that we have a dialogue. And I didn't take anything as an insult, really.  I didn't tell him to simply ignore what I have to say, again, you are being reductionist here. I told him that why not post his arguments points like he did in his second post instead of being jerky about my post in the first place. Because that doesn't help any kind of communication. So, in the scenario where you only peek a post to be witty-jerky, why not ignore it alltogether instead?  Again, he isn't like that given his argumented and elaborated response and I am glad we could have a dialogue, so I don't really know what else do you want.

Edited July 5, 2014 by namelessthree

[namelessthree]

To make a convincing romance in a video game between the player's character and an in game character is extremely difficult to pull off. The player character can be such a variety of different personalities, and trying to make "one size fits all" romance options most often comes off extremely tacky. I'm glad they're staying away from it for now, as it's a lot of work that I'd rather see go into what I'd consider more important aspects of the game.

 

Maybe you are right. If they don't feel like they can do it right now, it's better to leave that out of the way. It's a shame though.

[namelessthree]

namelesstree

 

I think you didn't understand the implication of my second point. 

 

Remember that poe is only the first third of your hero's story; don't be too upset that you can't start a romance in the first act of three. 

 

Like I said in other respones. Really, not such a big deal in the sense losing romances but roleplaying options. But maybe you are right, if they are planning a trilogy, this could be interesting.

[Nonek]

 

1. I wasn't try to be witty, I was trying to elaborate some concerns and for that I need to argument my case, otherwise we can fall in reductionism very easily. 

 

7. And personally I don't mind gating content behind a companion. I find it more realistic in the same way that in real life you wouldn't know cetain things about somebody unless this person is your couple. Also, gating contents means more replay value. I don't see the difference between gating content behind companions and gating it behind classes. You have to play with another character if you want to experience ways differently in both cases. Also, romances don't have to be neither teenager ego stroking neither cheesy. You have to have good writers behind them, though. But Obsi wrote Torment so I wouldn't sweat over things going cheesy.

 

 

1. Not really a case of being witty sir, more a case of effectively arguing ones viewpoint. In a vast morass of words meanings and ideas become difficult to find, however in a sharp, short and concise bullet point style one retains a punchy and memorable first impression. Brevity works, this is why memes, slogans and sayings are existant.

 

7. Content gating is fine, so long as one path is not the obviously optimal one. In the case of romances one either has a number of responses and interactions with the love interest, or they effectively disappear from the game. This is not really content gating, it's punishment for those whom choose not to partake in romance, and it comes at the cost of the npc themselves, making of them nothing but a romantic partner rather than an actual character.

 

Re: Apology, explanation. Take it as you wish sir, I may have been a little flippant in my first post.

 

Edit: And as we all know stripping romance interaction does not mean less interactions, it means simply choosing from a near infinite list of other interaction opportunities. More interaction at the cost of no romances, a fine thing in my mind, i'd far prefer to investigate animancy, cultural mores, traditions, stereotypes, the Engwithan legacy and the more in-depth parts of the setting.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Nonek

[namelessthree]

 

 

Because ultimately, backers are not game designers and we don't really know what is good for a game. This is the problem with the new Torment game in which the developers, for some reason, believe it be the backer's choice for something as fundamental as what combat system the game uses. In reality it was the developer's choice.

 

To your main thesis, that Pillars of Eternity is more like Icewind Dale than Baldur's Gate and hence it is more combat oriented than story oriented, I find this belief to be unfounded. First and foremost, you have yet to even play the game, so you have no idea as to what kind of roleplaying options the game has. You assume that the lack of 'romance' (and use your definition for the word romance) means the lack of most interaction between party members, of friendship and the like. While this has a certain logic, I don't find this logic to be reasonable. You assume that the developers use your definition of romance, the definition which the character interactions in Planescape: Torment fall under. However, I find it more likely that when the developers used the word romance, they meant it under the standard, more contemporary definition, and as such, other character interactions would certainly be in the game without contradiction.

 

I question your idea that there would be a lack of friendship or a lot of character interaction. Romance is not most of the roleplay in an IE game. There is also many, many other interactions; to say the the lack of romance means the lack of roleplay, is silly indeed. Take Baldur's Gate, a game that originally had no romances, or Baldur's Gate 2 and remove the romances. Do these still have important character interaction and roleplay? I believe so, and this is what I expect in Pillars of Eternity and at least this viewpoint is supported by evidence

 

Take the article by PCgames.de (link below). In it, the journalist details that there will be a ton of party interaction, and that your decisions will effect what party you have and whether characters live, die, or leave. Such consequences as these cannot take place save character interaction take place, and such is the evidence for my viewpoint.

 

http://freetexthost.com/ia2eflp4ra

 

Edit:

 

Finally, the lack of romance has been discussed to death, and the topic has been closed. Nothing will change, the game is already being put into beta stage as we speak. I would expect an administrator or moderator wont look well on this thread, but we will see.

 

 

 

Backers are not designers. Right. But we can still voice our opinions, no? Is it not even interesting or valuable for the devs to know what their clients think it is important? I don't see any harm in a poll. Not to change anything at this poit like you said but just to have an idea about your client's opinions in those matters. I think you are understimating both backers and devs. Not every backer throw every whim without and argument, hell, some of them even have nice ideas!  And devs are obviously not dumb. Nor Inxile nor Obsi is going to be chained to every backer desire, but they can listen, and in listening you always learn something. Maybe you discard it later, maybe it leads you to an interesting idea. You never know.

 

It is unfounded, that's way it wasn't a thesis but some concerns. Those concerns though are based on facts, meaning, ruling out roleplaying capabilites. Nothing more beyond that. Like you said the rest is speculation and we'll have to wait and see. Regarding the meaning of romance, I would expect from Obsidian to use the term in nonconventional ways. After all, this guys did Torment. But yeah, we don't know really.

 

I've never said that the lack of romance means lack of interaction but LESS interaction, less roleplaying options. If you have to game with the same amount of interaction in friendships and the second has also romances, which of the two has more roleplaying options? That's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Too much posting.

[namelessthree]

 

 

1. I wasn't try to be witty, I was trying to elaborate some concerns and for that I need to argument my case, otherwise we can fall in reductionism very easily. 

 

7. And personally I don't mind gating content behind a companion. I find it more realistic in the same way that in real life you wouldn't know cetain things about somebody unless this person is your couple. Also, gating contents means more replay value. I don't see the difference between gating content behind companions and gating it behind classes. You have to play with another character if you want to experience ways differently in both cases. Also, romances don't have to be neither teenager ego stroking neither cheesy. You have to have good writers behind them, though. But Obsi wrote Torment so I wouldn't sweat over things going cheesy.

 

 

1. Not really a case of being witty sir, more a case of effectively arguing ones viewpoint. In a vast morass of words meanings and ideas become difficult to find, however in a sharp, short and concise bullet point style one retains a punchy and memorable first impression. Brevity works, this is why memes, slogans and sayings are existant.

 

7. Content gating is fine, so long as one path is not the obviously optimal one. In the case of romances one either has a number of responses and interactions with the love interest, or they effectively disappear from the game. This is not really content gating, it's punishment for those whom choose not to partake in romance, and it comes at the cost of the npc themselves, making of them nothing but a romantic partner rather than an actual character.

 

Re: Apology, explanation. Take it as you wish sir, I may have been a little flippant in my first post.

 

 

1. Umm, I don't agree with you. Brevity works in advertising, where you are trying to sell something. All memes, slogans, ads and the like share the same quality, they are being simplistic therefore there are more prone to misunderstundings because people assume what is left out. If I would have talked about romances without explaining what those meant to me, every person responding would have just assumed I was refering myself to the way they understand romance. I think elaborating is a more valuable tool in an argument where sharpness and brevity can be dangerously misleading. In any case, nothing worked better for Bioware in the old times like "To the eyes, Booo!!" so I might be wrong.

 

7. In the particular case that you mention, I agree with you. If the character is only going to be there as a romantic thing and nothing else, they might as well leave all that out. But I've seen some positive cases where these characters where interesting either romanced or not just to think Obsidian would botch romances like that.

 

Well, in any case, it was nice to talk with you, sir.

[Bryy]

I've never said that the lack of romance means lack of interaction but LESS interaction, less roleplaying options. If you have to game with the same amount of interaction in friendships and the second has also romances, which of the two has more roleplaying options? That's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Too much posting.

They both have the same amount of content.

 

I mean, you said so yourself. 

 

So, if they both have the same amount of content... one doesn't automatically have MOAR content because they have different content.

 

You're making huge, absolutist claims while at the same time saying that you're not. That's no way to discuss anything. 

Edited July 5, 2014 by Bryy

[C2B]

Obsidian, doesn't like doing romances , they aren't good at it and in their previous games it was forced in by publishers.

 

Thats really the only thing that counts for me. Writing romances isn't easy, in fact imo one of the hardest things you can attempt.

 

 

 

And theres no lack of interactions or role playing options in a game without romances. NO game could contain a field as vast.

 

(The trade-off of any crpg really. You will never be able to accomadate for every possible option. Entirly depends on what you focus on in the end)

Edited July 5, 2014 by C2B

[namelessthree]

When I was about 13-16 having romance options in games were really important to me. I hadn't ever had a relationship before, and my family was really dysfunctional, so when there were some gems out there like some of the Final Fantasy games that included some options I really felt connected to the characters in a meaningful way. However I quickly came to realize that these are in fact just games, and as much as I enjoy playing them, the characters are just scripted events. It takes the fun out of the romance for me now. Especially now a days when it's almost an expectation like when you go to the movies, the guy always seems to shack up with a gal even though the span of the film might be all of a few days. The thing is, that's not even remotely like real life, and if it is where you live, no wonder you're sad and searching for it in a game. There's a time and a place for romance, but it doesn't have to be in every game or movie you play, even a roleplaying game. Personally, I'd rather a relationship develop over the series of Pillars games. It might not happen in this first installment, but it doesn't mean it won't occur in an expansion or another sequel. Plus, if it was in the game, then that gets your expectations so high and if it's not what you were hoping for you'd rather they didn't even put it in there. Don't lose hope though, I'm sure they're gonna start working on the expansion soon enough, and likely there's enough interest in romance options, it'll be in at some point.

 

I am really sorry that you have those problems, I hope you are in a better place now. (It seems that way). My case is different. I've never had a problem to make friends or have girlfriends or anything and for me games always were games and reality always has been reality. The post wasn't really that much about romances (if they had cut friendships I would have written the same letter just changing romances for friendships) but the idea of cutting roleplaying options. More concern that anything else really, because cutting roleplaying options is always bad news, justified or not. Even if you don't use them. I always like to read for example, the evil-mean respones that you can give in BG2 even though I rarely use them. Just imagine the devs saying they are cutting those, I would have be concerned all the same. It was more about that. Just fear that the game will be more Icewind that Torment. But, let's have faith in Obsi I guess. I still like the rest of what they are showing a lot.

Edited July 5, 2014 by namelessthree

[Nonek]

 

1. Umm, I don't agree with you. Brevity works in advertising, where you are trying to sell something. All memes, slogans, ads and the like share the same quality, they are being simplistic therefore there are more prone to misunderstundings because people assume what is left out. If I would have talked about romances without explaining what those meant to me, every person responding would have just assumed I was refering myself to the way they understand romance. I think elaborating is a more valuable tool in an argument where sharpness and brevity can be dangerously misleading. In any case, nothing worked better for Bioware in the old times like "To the eyes, Booo!!" so I might be wrong.

 

 

This is my problem with modern English users, they forget the basics of the language and what an effective tool it can be if used correctly, elaborating on a point is fine if it needs expanding, if not they are wasted words. An example I often like to use is Shakespeare, whom it is very fashionable to knock, but who it cannot be argued birthed the modern English language:

 

Iago could spout paragraphs of prose on why Desdemona is guilty, he can refute her outraged cries with long sentences, instead he simply say. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much!" A worm of doubt that sneaks into Othello's ear and lays its venomous seed, why is she so outraged? Why does she not simply laugh?

 

Elaboration is fine but rambling over the same simple points is a waste of words, it simply loses ones audience, and Shakespeare knew how to keep an audience on the edge of their seats while making masterful use of his native tongue to argue his points. Worth bearing in mind if you wish to grab your audience, and make an impression.

[namelessthree]

 

I've never said that the lack of romance means lack of interaction but LESS interaction, less roleplaying options. If you have to game with the same amount of interaction in friendships and the second has also romances, which of the two has more roleplaying options? That's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Too much posting.

They both have the same amount of content.

 

I mean, you said so yourself. 

 

So, if they both have the same amount of content... one doesn't automatically have MOAR content because they have different content.

 

You're making huge, absolutist claims while at the same time saying that you're not. That's no way to discuss anything. 

 

 

 

No, they don't!! XD How is it possible that they do have the same amount of content? Both have let's say 5000 lines of content for friendships and the second one has 3000 more for romances (just examples). They definitely don't have the same amount of content. Maybe you are reading what I am saying as claims but I assure I am only trying to express what I think and what is only my opinon. That's all. 

Edited July 5, 2014 by namelessthree

[PrimeJunta]

I don't think that you understood the whole point of the letter. It's not a case in favor of romances but roleplaying options.

Sorry, dude, but your original post was too about romances (plural), not roleplaying options in general. You did assert that no romance = no roleplaying options, but that's an obvious non sequitur.

 

If you had been concerned about roleplaying options, then you would have written a completely different post. Romance might have been mentioned in there somewhere, but it would not have been the main theme. Like this, for example:

 

"Hi folks. One thing's been bugging me about P:E from the start. It's all been very mechanically oriented, and most of the stretch goals were stuff like a megadungeon, a stronghold, and more character classes. I really enjoyed the relationships I built with my party members in PS:T and BG2, and I'm concerned Obsidian might be neglecting this aspect to make a more IWD-like dungeon crawler thing. What are your thoughts on that?"

 

Had you done that, I'm pretty sure you would've gotten a warmer reception here, and the discussion would've been better too.

 

'Cuz the romance thing with P:E is the to end all 's.

[Namutree]

 

 

I've never said that the lack of romance means lack of interaction but LESS interaction, less roleplaying options. If you have to game with the same amount of interaction in friendships and the second has also romances, which of the two has more roleplaying options? That's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Too much posting.

They both have the same amount of content.

 

I mean, you said so yourself. 

 

So, if they both have the same amount of content... one doesn't automatically have MOAR content because they have different content.

 

You're making huge, absolutist claims while at the same time saying that you're not. That's no way to discuss anything. 

 

 

 

No, they don't!! XD How is it possible that they do have the same amount of content? Both have let's say 5000 lines of content for friendships and the second one has 3000 more for romances (just examples). They definitely don't have the same amount of content. Maybe you are reading what I am saying as claims but I assure I am only trying to express what I think and what is only my opinon. That's all. 

 

They have limited development time for the game. Every moment they spend on romance lines comes at the expense of something else. So, what would you sacrifice for romance? That is the crux of the issue.

 

I doubt many would object to romance if it were cost free. 

Edited July 5, 2014 by Namutree

[namelessthree]

 

 

1. Umm, I don't agree with you. Brevity works in advertising, where you are trying to sell something. All memes, slogans, ads and the like share the same quality, they are being simplistic therefore there are more prone to misunderstundings because people assume what is left out. If I would have talked about romances without explaining what those meant to me, every person responding would have just assumed I was refering myself to the way they understand romance. I think elaborating is a more valuable tool in an argument where sharpness and brevity can be dangerously misleading. In any case, nothing worked better for Bioware in the old times like "To the eyes, Booo!!" so I might be wrong.

 

 

This is my problem with modern English users, they forget the basics of the language and what an effective tool it can be if used correctly, elaborating on a point is fine if it needs expanding, if not they are wasted words. An example I often like to use is Shakespeare, whom it is very fashionable to knock, but who it cannot be argued birthed the modern English language:

 

Iago could spout paragraphs of prose on why Desdemona is guilty, he can refute her outraged cries with long sentences, instead he simply say. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much!" A worm of doubt that sneaks into Othello's ear and lays its venomous seed, why is she so outraged? Why does she not simply laugh?

 

Elaboration is fine but rambling over the same simple points is a waste of words, it simply loses ones audience, and Shakespeare knew how to keep an audience on the edge of their seats while making masterful use of his native tongue to argue his points. Worth bearing in mind if you wish to grab your audience, and make an impression.

 

 

Well, I am definitely not Shakespeare XD, I am not even a native english speaker so maybe that's one of the reasons I cannot be more concise in english. Thanks for the response though, it was interesting and I would certainly keep that in mind if I become a writer As it is, I was just trying to do my best with the knowledge of english I have.

Edited July 5, 2014 by namelessthree

[C2B]

 

 

I've never said that the lack of romance means lack of interaction but LESS interaction, less roleplaying options. If you have to game with the same amount of interaction in friendships and the second has also romances, which of the two has more roleplaying options? That's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Too much posting.

They both have the same amount of content.

 

I mean, you said so yourself. 

 

So, if they both have the same amount of content... one doesn't automatically have MOAR content because they have different content.

 

You're making huge, absolutist claims while at the same time saying that you're not. That's no way to discuss anything. 

 

 

 

No, they don't!! XD How is it possible that they do have the same amount of content? Both have let's say 5000 lines of content for friendships and the second one has 3000 more for romances (just examples). They definitely don't have the same amount of content. Maybe you are reading what I am saying as claims but I assure I am only trying to express what I think and what is only my opinon. That's all. 

 

 

Thats

 

The weirdest generalization I have ever seen.

Edited July 5, 2014 by C2B

[namelessthree]

 

I don't think that you understood the whole point of the letter. It's not a case in favor of romances but roleplaying options.

Sorry, dude, but your original post was too about romances (plural), not roleplaying options in general. You did assert that no romance = no roleplaying options, but that's an obvious non sequitur.

 

If you had been concerned about roleplaying options, then you would have written a completely different post. Romance might have been mentioned in there somewhere, but it would not have been the main theme. Like this, for example:

 

"Hi folks. One thing's been bugging me about P:E from the start. It's all been very mechanically oriented, and most of the stretch goals were stuff like a megadungeon, a stronghold, and more character classes. I really enjoyed the relationships I built with my party members in PS:T and BG2, and I'm concerned Obsidian might be neglecting this aspect to make a more IWD-like dungeon crawler thing. What are your thoughts on that?"

 

Had you done that, I'm pretty sure you would've gotten a warmer reception here, and the discussion would've been better too.

 

'Cuz the romance thing with P:E is the to end all 's.

 

 

But if the only roleplaying options that I know they are being left out are romances why would I talk about anything else? That's the whole point. But that doesn't mean this is not about cutting roleplaying options. That is really what is important to me and I think I am clear about it. If OBsi were cutting other kind of content (like evil roleplaying options I would have started with that too). And I would have argumented why I think those are important in the same way I argumented why I think romances are important. I wrote what I wrote in the way I wrote it for probablly various reasons, and maybe you are right and there was a better way of putting it, but I also wanted to elaborate in why I thought those options were imporant. 

[C2B]

 

 

I don't think that you understood the whole point of the letter. It's not a case in favor of romances but roleplaying options.

Sorry, dude, but your original post was too about romances (plural), not roleplaying options in general. You did assert that no romance = no roleplaying options, but that's an obvious non sequitur.

 

If you had been concerned about roleplaying options, then you would have written a completely different post. Romance might have been mentioned in there somewhere, but it would not have been the main theme. Like this, for example:

 

"Hi folks. One thing's been bugging me about P:E from the start. It's all been very mechanically oriented, and most of the stretch goals were stuff like a megadungeon, a stronghold, and more character classes. I really enjoyed the relationships I built with my party members in PS:T and BG2, and I'm concerned Obsidian might be neglecting this aspect to make a more IWD-like dungeon crawler thing. What are your thoughts on that?"

 

Had you done that, I'm pretty sure you would've gotten a warmer reception here, and the discussion would've been better too.

 

'Cuz the romance thing with P:E is the to end all 's.

 

 

But if the only roleplaying options that I know they are being left out are romances

 

No

 

I can assure you 100% with everything I've got this will not be the case. Its not possible for a crpg of all things to account for every imaginable/possible role-playing option.

[namelessthree]

 

 

 

I've never said that the lack of romance means lack of interaction but LESS interaction, less roleplaying options. If you have to game with the same amount of interaction in friendships and the second has also romances, which of the two has more roleplaying options? That's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Too much posting.

They both have the same amount of content.

 

I mean, you said so yourself. 

 

So, if they both have the same amount of content... one doesn't automatically have MOAR content because they have different content.

 

You're making huge, absolutist claims while at the same time saying that you're not. That's no way to discuss anything. 

 

 

 

No, they don't!! XD How is it possible that they do have the same amount of content? Both have let's say 5000 lines of content for friendships and the second one has 3000 more for romances (just examples). They definitely don't have the same amount of content. Maybe you are reading what I am saying as claims but I assure I am only trying to express what I think and what is only my opinon. That's all. 

 

They have limited development time for the game. Every moment they spend on romance lines comes at the expense of something else. So, what would you sacrifice for romance? That is the crux of the issue.

 

I doubt many would object to romance if it were cost free. 

 

 

I know that and like you said, that is the crux of the issue. What to cut instead? My idea was some dungeons but like others pointed me out, the game is feature locked.

 

@C2B

I know that, like I said, I was offering the idea of cutting some dungeons instead of those roleplaying options.