Bittersweet Eternity. An open letter addressed to Obsidian Entertainment

[ashtonw]

 

 

And you have to admit that if your character has zero options to express their romantical feelings for a long period of time, said character is either asexual, a person that has serious problems socializing (psychopath) or simply someone not really really interested in any kind of romantical connection. I didn't explicitly said that your character has to be forcibly a psychopath. Again, sorry if you felt ofended but I was talking about the roleplaying.

 

I don't have to admit that at all because that is absurd. Probably my character will never get a chance to fart but that doesn't mean my character never does it. At some point you must concede that the game is an abstraction and not a complete life simulator and some of the role playing is going to have to go on in your own imagination. I could play my character as thirsty for Eder the entire game but maybe off on an adventure is not the right time to discuss these things, or he's not interested, or already has someone, or whatever. Or maybe I really want to slap him upside the head but the game won't let me do that either, so really, how is that any different than wanting to sleep with him?

 

Also why would not romancing another person make you a psychopath, unless you think you will be able to try to force your attentions on someone. THAT would be psychopathic. Ain't nothing wrong with being asexual, either. And certainly nothing wrong with not being interested in the people around you.

 

 

[NWN_babaYaga]

If people would say that they want INTERACTION then i can understand them but if they talk about romances only i dont get it. Interaction is not dating the opposite sex of you and one day you "got" it. Interaction between people is the same as in real life. Friendships, enemys, just random chatter that could matter at a later time etc. So it should be about interaction and not "romancing" i slowly hate that romancing stuff because its just childish. A good relationship between companions dont mean having sex some day. soldiers in the army dont do it with each other just because they are comrades... i hope these "specific" people understand one day that "romance" is only 5 % of human relationship!

Edited July 5, 2014 by NWN_babaYaga

[namelessthree]

 

 

 

And you have to admit that if your character has zero options to express their romantical feelings for a long period of time, said character is either asexual, a person that has serious problems socializing (psychopath) or simply someone not really really interested in any kind of romantical connection. I didn't explicitly said that your character has to be forcibly a psychopath. Again, sorry if you felt ofended but I was talking about the roleplaying.

 

I don't have to admit that at all because that is absurd. Probably my character will never get a chance to fart but that doesn't mean my character never does it. At some point you must concede that the game is an abstraction and not a complete life simulator and some of the role playing is going to have to go on in your own imagination. I could play my character as thirsty for Eder the entire game but maybe off on an adventure is not the right time to discuss these things, or he's not interested, or already has someone, or whatever. Or maybe I really want to slap him upside the head but the game won't let me do that either, so really, how is that any different than wanting to sleep with him?

 

Also why would not romancing another person make you a psychopath, unless you think you will be able to try to force your attentions on someone. THAT would be psychopathic. Ain't nothing wrong with being asexual, either. And certainly nothing wrong with not being interested in the people around you.

 

 

I don't think it's absurd. I guess it comes down to different kind of players and ways of playing. For example, we all assume that our characters eat, drink and fart. But those are biological needs. It's not quite the same as making up a whole realtionship with an NPC in your head. We are not talking simulations here -at least I am not- but roleplaying. You can roleplay a romance if you have an option to do it. Drinking and eating, well, you can just assume it happens. Those are mechanical things and if the mechanic is not included, the options are for us to assume it happens or simply ignore it. A romantic relationship is not a mechanical thing that you need to do like drinking or eating. You need another NPC for that and for that you need a story, a writer, to give you the options. I don't see how your comparisons apply in this case, but that's just my opinion.

 

About your second paragraph: It can make you go psycho I guess (a lot of things can), but that's not the point. I am not judging here or saying this option is better than this other roleplaying option. I think you are sidetracking here. I just used those examples to explain why is not likely that you would not romance anybody for a long period of time. That it can happen is obvious,and it can be for very different reasons (the ones in my example and much others). That's not the point. The point is that without the posibilities to express my character romantically, at least I feel that my character is being forced down a certain path, and that for me, the roleplaying aspect of the game breaks a little bit a that point. I don't know what else to add to try to communicate this idea.

Edited July 5, 2014 by namelessthree

[NWN_babaYaga]

not all people are "romantic dudes" with to much emotions somewhere... We dont want romances. When we talk about "romances" then please "normal" interaction that makes sense. As i said, romantic is nice for a very few guys but not for the most of us. YEs interaction and NO silly romances that are tales straight out a book for oversensitive emos! BEcause seriously when i play a hardcore RPG slasher (i used these words wisely) i dont want to facepalm of stupid romances. We are all very very different in our personalities and most romances "these" days are so generic stupid i dont want them and i dont even want to hear about them. When i need to gulp i visit imdb and read the statement by twilight fanboys there you have facepalm so much and i know that these silly storys /romances have influenced mainstram studios in their thinking what tweens want. But no no no, thats only for the strangers outthere!

 

As for PoE this game has to stand on its own feets and it has the magic to do so. BG and icewind dale games are legends and games that you can take inspiration from but POE is PoE and should stand out on it´s own!!!

 

And one thing i suggest to some people. Use your OWN imagination and romance this or that one and be happy that you have gotten an amazing game in the end. USe your mind and enjoy your "dreams" ! Thats for what your day dreams are for

 

And to people who think biowares romances are good or great then i TELL you NO, only the level has decreased and you are guilty of that. Raising the bar like southpark Cameron had to do is the only option we have to crawl out of that romance garbage!

Edited July 5, 2014 by NWN_babaYaga

[ashtonw]

 

I don't think it's absurd. I guess it comes down to different kind of players and ways of playing. For example, we all assume that our characters eat, drink and fart. But those are biological needs. It's not quite the same as making up a whole realtionship with an NPC in your head. We are not talking simulations here -at least I am not- but roleplaying. You can roleplay a romance if you have an option to do it. Drinking and eating, well, you can just assume it happens. Those are mechanical things and if the mechanic is not included, the options are for us to assume it happens or simply ignore it. A romantic relationship is not a mechanical thing that you need to do like drinking or eating. You need another NPC for that and for that you need a story, a writer, to give you the options. I don't see how your comparisons apply in this case, but that's just my opinion.

 

About your second paragraph: It can make you go psycho I guess (a lot of things can), but that's not the point. I am not judging here or saying this option is better than this other roleplaying option. I think you are sidetracking here. I just used those examples to explain why is not likely that you would not romance anybody for a long period of time. That it can happen is obvious,and it can be for very different reasons (the ones in my example and much others). That's not the point. The point is that without the posibilities to express my character romantically, at least I feel that my character is being forced down a certain path, and that for me, the roleplaying aspect of the game breaks a little bit a that point. I don't know what else to add to try to communicate this idea.

 

Firstly no, not having romance does not make someone go psycho.

 

Secondly yes you are being limited in a way, but again you are also being limited to playing the kind of person that doesn't, say, slap people upside the head or give them noogies and I don't see how one is any more valid than the other. Thirdly not having romances does not preclude having the option to put the moves on characters and be shot down or express your sexuality in some other way. 

 

josh sawyer if you read this plz give my character the option to fart at some point

[namelessthree]

 

 

I don't think it's absurd. I guess it comes down to different kind of players and ways of playing. For example, we all assume that our characters eat, drink and fart. But those are biological needs. It's not quite the same as making up a whole realtionship with an NPC in your head. We are not talking simulations here -at least I am not- but roleplaying. You can roleplay a romance if you have an option to do it. Drinking and eating, well, you can just assume it happens. Those are mechanical things and if the mechanic is not included, the options are for us to assume it happens or simply ignore it. A romantic relationship is not a mechanical thing that you need to do like drinking or eating. You need another NPC for that and for that you need a story, a writer, to give you the options. I don't see how your comparisons apply in this case, but that's just my opinion.

 

About your second paragraph: It can make you go psycho I guess (a lot of things can), but that's not the point. I am not judging here or saying this option is better than this other roleplaying option. I think you are sidetracking here. I just used those examples to explain why is not likely that you would not romance anybody for a long period of time. That it can happen is obvious,and it can be for very different reasons (the ones in my example and much others). That's not the point. The point is that without the posibilities to express my character romantically, at least I feel that my character is being forced down a certain path, and that for me, the roleplaying aspect of the game breaks a little bit a that point. I don't know what else to add to try to communicate this idea.

 

Firstly no, not having romance does not make someone go psycho.

 

Secondly yes you are being limited in a way, but again you are also being limited to playing the kind of person that doesn't, say, slap people upside the head or give them noogies and I don't see how one is any more valid than the other. Thirdly not having romances does not preclude having the option to put the moves on characters and be shot down or express your sexuality in some other way. 

 

josh sawyer if you read this plz give my character the option to fart at some point

 

 

 

That's not what I understood. Maybe it's my english but I understood your post as the chance of a person having a relationship with another person and this relationship being so abrasive that it triggers some kind of psychopathy in him/her. I guess it can happen. Are you sure it can't?

 

Again, poor comparison, not getting into it. And third, yes, having romances doesn't exclude the option of making moves, being shot down or express your sexuality in some other way but at this point those option are just speculation. Welcomed speculation -it would be nice if they include them- but speculation nonetheless. My concerns were about real options that they said were not pursuing. 

 

And please, don't be an ass (your last sentence). If you are gonna act like that I will simply ignore your comments. I was trying to make an effort and explain my point of view to you. There is no need to be obtuse.

Edited July 5, 2014 by namelessthree

[ashtonw]

Okay from now on I will not bring up farting in any of the millions of "please let me get fantasy laid" threads.

 

I disagree about it being a poor comparison, there are many different types of relationships and a romance is just one type, and not necessarily deeper or more valid than any other. And the idea that our characters will be asexual is also just speculation and no where in your opening post did you say "please let me express my sexuality," you talked specifically of "romance."

 

Maybe I really want to act like a parental figure to an NPC, and not giving me that chance is also limiting my role playing options. Again, why is the option to date a companion any more important than mothering one?

[ManifestedISO]

A noogie and a fart, simultaneously ... Otiluke's Resilient Fartoogie Sphere. Gonna make a thread for this spell, maybe it'll get noticed and implemented. 

[Yonjuro]

....

Maybe I really want to act like a parental figure to an NPC, and not giving me that chance is also limiting my role playing options. Again, why is the option to date a companion any more important than mothering one?

 

 

 Hmm. Some kind of mentoring relationship (perhaps as mentee initially and as mentor later on) could be an interesting part of the story line for a series of games. This idea might deserve its own thread (because, and this is just a hunch, it could be that nobody from Obsidian is reading this thread).

[dr membrano]

I would like my barbarian to be highly abusive in relationships and demand that the devs find a way to introduce Stockholm Syndrome into the NPC psyche. I know of no other way to be satisfied.

[anameforobsidian]

I would like my barbarian to be highly abusive in relationships and demand that the devs find a way to introduce Stockholm Syndrome into the NPC psyche. I know of no other way to be satisfied.

 

To be fair, being in a highly abusive relationship describes all of the Planescape NPCs, particularly Ignus and Dak'kon.  There was far, far more of that than actual romance in Torment.

Edited July 6, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[namelessthree]

Okay from now on I will not bring up farting in any of the millions of "please let me get fantasy laid" threads.

 

I disagree about it being a poor comparison, there are many different types of relationships and a romance is just one type, and not necessarily deeper or more valid than any other. ***And the idea that our characters will be asexual is also just speculation and no where in your opening post did you say "please let me express my sexuality," you talked specifically of "romance."

 

Maybe I really want to act like a parental figure to an NPC, and not giving me that chance is also limiting my role playing options. Again, why is the option to date a companion any more important than mothering one?

 

You perfectly know it's not about farting but the attitude that you used in that sentence and you are still using to some extent in this first sentence but at least you aknowledge that you were being and ass. So you are saying that including a mechanic of slapping people upside the head or give them noogies (your example) is as deep as a well developed romance like the ones in BG2 or Torment? Do you really think that? Please -Sigh-

 

***No, that's simply not true. It's a long post. I talked about lot of things. Used other as examples (asexual, etc...). I did talk long about my concerns of losing roleplaying options by losing the oportunity to express my character in a sexual way. It was a concern based on some previous content cut that goes along in the direction of expressing your character sexually (romances), but my concerns are only that. I never said otherwise. So don't use my opinion as a fact.

 

Your last sentence: YES. I totally agree with you. That would be very interesting. The thing that happens in most RPG is that you don't have companions to whom being a parental figure. Imoen is the closest thing and you can argue you are a parental figure to her because she is all the time observing your behaviour and asks you about everything to learn from you. I think, there are some cases in cRPG were you were a parental figure in the sense that others take example from you and you are educating them in a way. My favourite is Dakkon where the character in the past was bound to you by a vow, a vow towards a person that was abusive to him but surprise, this new iteration of the nameless one has the option (roleplaying option) of truly being an enlightening kind of parental figure to him. Again, not parental figure in the sense you are related and one of the two is obvioulsy younger (although the second is true XD) but a learning one. And that is extremely interesting. One of my favourite relationships in a videogame ever. Last, but not least, I never said that one kind of relationship is superior to another. If you ever read the post again you will see that what I am talking about is about having options, having roleplaying options and I only expressed my concerns about romances because that is what was officially mentioned by the developers.

 

EDIT: The more I think about it the more I realized that usually the main character is a parental figure to a lot of companions because you are suppossed to be special and others look up to you for learning and enlightment. Those moments feel important because it seems that you actually CAN change something on your companions (Dakkon, Viconia, Dorn, Imoen, Anomen, etc...) and some of these relationships ended up being, at least for me, one of the most interesting ones in the game. It was good to give this subject a thought so thanks for bringing that up.

 

EDIT2: Damn, reinstalling Torment now XD.

Edited July 6, 2014 by namelessthree

[Suburban-Fox]

Problem with romance options is, there is, literally, no way to please everybody. Romances don't write themselves, they have to spend time and resources on writing and scripting them, and if they add one, they will have to add at least another three.

 

Remember the first time this was added in Baldur's Gate 2? It was supposed to be a nice add-in feature, but people started making demands because this add-in feature wasn't to their liking. People didn't thank Bioware for the romance options that they did include, they only complained about the ones that they didn't.

 

Not saying whether I agree or not, simply that I understand if they decide not to. From their point of view, it'll be much better, and far less work, to simply not bother.

[Monte Carlo]

Promancers gonna promance.

[NWN_babaYaga]

... how can someone argue so much about their daydreams of romancing others in a public forum (yes you namelessthree) ? Isnt it a bit scary that people share their insights what they want i mean hey... this is a place (like EVERY other forum) where different people come together and are not interested in the deepest feelings one has about their oppinions about relationships. I always feel like being thrown into a freakshow when someone expresses his view about things normaly only "friends" know of you. Be a bit less open in public thank you and think that the I-net is not your best buddy. It´s a random place and everything you write can never be erased so keep your secrets for yourself. Damn man whats up with all this exhibitionism about feelings and emotions! When people want to be emotional go and do something good for mother nature, plant a tree and dont buy crap etc. But stop that silly romancing arguing about nothing of value!

 

It is not cool and not in your interest to tell others what psycho romances you dream off and how what if this complex situation can be blah blah blah... it´s so boring hell math in school was ehm but this is way more headache!

Edited July 6, 2014 by NWN_babaYaga

[nipsen]

Problem with romance options is, there is, literally, no way to please everybody. Romances don't write themselves, they have to spend time and resources on writing and scripting them, and if they add one, they will have to add at least another three.

 

Remember the first time this was added in Baldur's Gate 2? It was supposed to be a nice add-in feature, but people started making demands because this add-in feature wasn't to their liking. People didn't thank Bioware for the romance options that they did include, they only complained about the ones that they didn't.

 

Not saying whether I agree or not, simply that I understand if they decide not to. From their point of view, it'll be much better, and far less work, to simply not bother.

This stuff is always predictable, though. Josh says they don't put in romances, because they have to be done really well to be satisfying, and they'd rather spend time on other things.

 

And there's always some jackass who literally says: "NO, WE WANT SIMPLISTIC CARTOON SEX AND BADLY WRITTEN COME-ONS FROM FICTIONAL GIRLS IN THE GAME TO PLEASE MY BADLY SUPPRESSED SEXUALITY!".

 

Suddenly, it's the most popular thread on the forum. And that's both poetic and appropriate to bring up the next time someone even /seems/ to be expressing an opinion about anything, isn't it. 

[Monte Carlo]

I'm bummed that there ain't turn-based sandwich preparation in Pillars of Eternity.

[Hormalakh]

I know that you guys have heard Obsidian didn't put romances into this game, but I wanted to let you in on a little secret about why. They said officially that they didn't have enough time or resources to make "a proper" romance, but the reality was that they couldn't figure out the chemical compounds that made Orlan and Aumaua sweat erotic to their species.

 

It might take a few more years of animancy, but I stand fully erect behind the Obsidian staff in their un-come-primising dedickation towards finding the chemical makeup of these sudoriferous glands one day.

 

 

[Stun]

I'm bummed that there ain't turn-based sandwich preparation in Pillars of Eternity.

I agree. We were promised role playing in PoE. But without turn-based sandwich preparation (or even real time with pause sandwich preparation) this is going to be nothing more than another Icewind Dale clone.

[redneckdevil]

Ill be honest, i havent really seen romance done well in games though i havent finished bg2 so im not sure about it. Planescape teh romance was ok but was overshadowed by the interactions with other companions. The latest games ive played that romance did it ehh how do i put it. DA:O was subpar but bearable, DA2 and ME was a huge ego stroking orgy fest.

Tbh the reason why im glad romance is out because its mainly there to stroke the players ego.

in fonv there wasnt any romaces besides a random hooker or a sexbot, but it did not deter my enjoyment nor the closeness i had with the companions. I actually cared what the companions would think or react to certain situations. From a strictly roleaying experience it helped shaped some dicisions and made some even more painful because how it interacted with them. In no way shape or form did i feel like an asexual but was freely able to express my sexuality if i cared in the game if i chose to.

 

Hell its because of the game fonv being my first obsidian game and never being able to get into this type of game they are making the reason why i threw so much money at them. Fonv they proved they can deliver a very well done story with multiple c&c and very great and deep interaction between my companions. Everytime i did think to try to romance up a characterit was purely from a ego stroking frame of mind, not to expand on the story but mainly in the end to make me feel more important and more badass. And on top of that there was romance in the game, just not ours because in the end fonv wasnt about the courier but everyone elses stories and how we interacted with their stories and influenced their outcomes or endings.

 

So no, romances not being in the game wont automatically mean ull lose rileplaying experiences, though it will mean less oppertunities for ego stroking.

[namelessthree]

Ill be honest, i havent really seen romance done well in games though i havent finished bg2 so im not sure about it. Planescape teh romance was ok but was overshadowed by the interactions with other companions. The latest games ive played that romance did it ehh how do i put it. DA:O was subpar but bearable, DA2 and ME was a huge ego stroking orgy fest.

Tbh the reason why im glad romance is out because its mainly there to stroke the players ego.

in fonv there wasnt any romaces besides a random hooker or a sexbot, but it did not deter my enjoyment nor the closeness i had with the companions. I actually cared what the companions would think or react to certain situations. From a strictly roleaying experience it helped shaped some dicisions and made some even more painful because how it interacted with them. In no way shape or form did i feel like an asexual but was freely able to express my sexuality if i cared in the game if i chose to.

 

Hell its because of the game fonv being my first obsidian game and never being able to get into this type of game they are making the reason why i threw so much money at them. Fonv they proved they can deliver a very well done story with multiple c&c and very great and deep interaction between my companions. Everytime i did think to try to romance up a characterit was purely from a ego stroking frame of mind, not to expand on the story but mainly in the end to make me feel more important and more badass. And on top of that there was romance in the game, just not ours because in the end fonv wasnt about the courier but everyone elses stories and how we interacted with their stories and influenced their outcomes or endings.

 

So no, romances not being in the game wont automatically mean ull lose rileplaying experiences, though it will mean less oppertunities for ego stroking.

 

Romances don't have to be about ego stroking. So yes, there are romances out there that are about roleplaying (BG2&Torment only being some of the good examples). You should play those games. Try those romances. See for yourself. For the love of god, don't compare them with the EA/Bioware ego bull****.

 

Whoring and flirting with  Fisto are not romances though but options for the player to express their sexuality. New Vegas did good in this front, with plenty of lines of dialogue where your could imply your tastes and let's face it, which other game let's you have sex with a robot? And a Fisto robot for that matter. Crazy stuff. All those options are some of the reasons why New Vegas is so awesome. I've beaten the game 5 times so far and I discover new content in every playthrough.

[ashtonw]

 

You perfectly know it's not about farting but the attitude that you used in that sentence and you are still using to some extent in this first sentence but at least you aknowledge that you were being and ass. So you are saying that including a mechanic of slapping people upside the head or give them noogies (your example) is as deep as a well developed romance like the ones in BG2 or Torment? Do you really think that? Please -Sigh-

 

I haven't yet insulted you personally. If your problem is that I don't take the subject seriously enough, that's too bad, because to me romances are fun additions and not something to be taken 100% seriously. 

 

You could reduce romances to a mechanic for boinking your party members. Or you could say that giving them noogies deepens your role-playing options by letting you have a fun, rough-housing relationship with them. Different types of relationships- again, neither is more valid than the other.

 

Constantly bringing up BG2 and Torment means nothing to me; I've never gotten very far in Torment, and I always played a female character in BG2. My only option was Anomen, who was a jerk and an idiot. Not something I would hold up as a good example.

 

 

 

If you ever read the post again you will see that what I am talking about is about having options, having roleplaying options and I only expressed my concerns about romances because that is what was officially mentioned by the developers.

 

Your concern was that having no romances would mean all the character interaction would be shallow and limited, because romance is somehow deeper and better than any other type of interaction, or at least that's how I interpreted it.

[redneckdevil]

 

 

Ill be honest, i havent really seen romance done well in games though i havent finished bg2 so im not sure about it. Planescape teh romance was ok but was overshadowed by the interactions with other companions. The latest games ive played that romance did it ehh how do i put it. DA:O was subpar but bearable, DA2 and ME was a huge ego stroking orgy fest.

Tbh the reason why im glad romance is out because its mainly there to stroke the players ego.

in fonv there wasnt any romaces besides a random hooker or a sexbot, but it did not deter my enjoyment nor the closeness i had with the companions. I actually cared what the companions would think or react to certain situations. From a strictly roleaying experience it helped shaped some dicisions and made some even more painful because how it interacted with them. In no way shape or form did i feel like an asexual but was freely able to express my sexuality if i cared in the game if i chose to.

 

Hell its because of the game fonv being my first obsidian game and never being able to get into this type of game they are making the reason why i threw so much money at them. Fonv they proved they can deliver a very well done story with multiple c&c and very great and deep interaction between my companions. Everytime i did think to try to romance up a characterit was purely from a ego stroking frame of mind, not to expand on the story but mainly in the end to make me feel more important and more badass. And on top of that there was romance in the game, just not ours because in the end fonv wasnt about the courier but everyone elses stories and how we interacted with their stories and influenced their outcomes or endings.

 

So no, romances not being in the game wont automatically mean ull lose rileplaying experiences, though it will mean less oppertunities for ego stroking.

Romances don't have to be about ego stroking. So yes, there are romances out there that are about roleplaying (BG2&Torment only being some of the good examples). You should play those games. Try those romances. See for yourself. For the love of god, don't compare them with the EA/Bioware ego bull****.

 

Whoring and flirting with Fisto are not romances though but options for the player to express their sexuality. New Vegas did good in this front, with plenty of lines of dialogue where your could imply your tastes and let's face it, which other game let's you have sex with a robot? And a Fisto robot for that matter. Crazy stuff. All those options are some of the reasons why New Vegas is so awesome. I've beaten the game 5 times so far and I discover new content in every playthrough.

I agree the fisto and the hookers arent romance options but were as i said was some of the ways the game let u express ur sexuality. The romances i said were in the game but not our own was the tragic story of veronica and her lost love, the troubled couple who wanted to free of one of the casinos grasp, the history of boone and his wife, setting up the boomer with a love seen from far away, etc etc. They were other peoples romances that we got to interact with. Thats what i meant romance was in the game and im sure that romance in that form will be in this game.

 

My point i was trying to make is that games can be incredible games with lots of roleplay oppertunities that dont need romance for our characters and still be a great game that doesnt need or be complete without the need for romance in it. Fonv didnt have any romances in it and it didnt suffer at all from a roleplays point of view from the lack of it. Just because PoE wont have romance options right now does not mean obsidian cant still craft a game that will give us plenty of roleplay options and deep character interaction between npcs and party members.

it can be a great game without romance options and still not feel like somethings missing because of the lack of it AND the bioware examples was there to show what could happen as well or even skyrim with its marriage that feels so damn empty and halfass u wonder why it gets the praises it does in a game.

seriously the marriage option in skyrim is very praised by plenty of people who wanted romance in their game (not counting u in this at all because i dont know ur stance on that which u problemly share my view on it) that i dont even understand how without headroleay outta game makes up for it for most people.

there are plenty of examples of romance going wrong in a game with very few examples of it being done right. While that isnt a good example of not putting it in a game, it is when its a new ip that u are trying to make the best on all fronts and i rather they play on tbeir strengths which they have already shown they can give us deep and fulfilling roleay options without romance and the options to express our sexuality and motives.

[Bryy]

Sorry If you felt ofended. But that is not quite right. I mentioned nothing about the people here (obviously!), I was talking about the characters. And you have to admit that if your character has zero options to express their romantical feelings for a long period of time, said character is either asexual, a person that has serious problems socializing (psychopath) or simply someone not really really interested in any kind of romantical connection. I didn't explicitly said that your character has to be forcibly a psychopath. Again, sorry if you felt ofended but I was talking about the roleplaying.

You do know they are not real, right?

 

 

 

Problem with romance options is, there is, literally, no way to please everybody. Romances don't write themselves, they have to spend time and resources on writing and scripting them, and if they add one, they will have to add at least another three.

 

Remember the first time this was added in Baldur's Gate 2? It was supposed to be a nice add-in feature, but people started making demands because this add-in feature wasn't to their liking. People didn't thank Bioware for the romance options that they did include, they only complained about the ones that they didn't.

 

Not saying whether I agree or not, simply that I understand if they decide not to. From their point of view, it'll be much better, and far less work, to simply not bother.

This stuff is always predictable, though. Josh says they don't put in romances, because they have to be done really well to be satisfying, and they'd rather spend time on other things.

But working on other things is stupid.

 

They should just cut a few dungeons to make way for romance.

 

Said the guy that is arguing for more content.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Bryy

[ashtonw]

Also the idea that less dungeons = more writing doesn't make sense. Do you think the people who would be creating the dungeons are going to be put to work writing?