Bittersweet Eternity. An open letter addressed to Obsidian Entertainment

[Lephys]

Hmm. You're talking about re-allotting the budget. Specifically Less level design = More writing.

 

OK. In that case, definitely no. That kind of thinking got us Dragon Age 2.

Now now... I'm pretty sure Dragon Age 2's kind of thinking was simply "less level design." I certainly didn't notice any "more writing." More voice-acting, maybe.

 

I think this pretty well illustrates my issue with romances.  I really enjoy them but I hate what they do to the gaming community.

See, I just hate what humans do to the gaming community. It's not a piece of code's fault.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Lephys

[NWN_babaYaga]

so true what the romance faction is doing to rpg games. I dont remember myself thinking about romances when i played dungeon master, the SSI games, gothic 2, temple of elemental evil etc. Baldurs gate was only ONE game that did that... now bioware is rolling along the path of "diversity" and so they choose to include romances for everybody. I´m sure someone at EA had the idea to do it because of MONEY and not because he is such an open minded guy who cares about minoritys and so a game stands for the fight of these people (and i´m right that they did that only for money) as an example. That would be ridiculous to think... it is money nothing more. Why i think that? EA is EA!

 

But back on topic. Romances have nothing to do with RPG´s. I also never romanced anyone in one of our old D&D sessions. Nope no one thought about that. Why is that? I think we have a new breed of people who transform their DREAMS into anyone else games and so they preasure their illusions into the minds of others. RPG´s are adventure games. You are an ADVENTURER and when you know you are going into creepy terrible cave, crypts and dungeons etc. i doubt you would think about some very deep relationship. Anyone think that an indiana jones type of guy or a crusader (choose who you want) thought about romance romance romance and getting laid during their trip? I guess not... so this is all done because of money money and money and they sucked in a lot of strangers imo.

 

So i want to say that veterans like me are adventure RPG gamers and you are new school who have a strange view on rpg games, thats it!

People also like final fantasy games which to me are just strange. I cant play that crap because it´s just strange for a european dude like me. SO whoever wants strange things in regular games play a strange game from a weird company. Nothing against this type of games but it´s something for others and i think it´s better to have games for these and these kind of persons. A clear line between styles and l influence of their cultural heritage. Cultural heritage plays a big role if you want it or not. For me it´s easy to understand gothic and the witcher immediately but not some zelda or whatever game because it´s alien to me. I can play these games for fun but not RPGing that. It´s like you put a wolf in a disco.

Edited July 7, 2014 by NWN_babaYaga

[Valmy]

 

I just hate what humans do to the gaming community. It's not a piece of code's fault.

 

Never said it was the code's fault.  In fact I said the opposite.  I do not understand your contribution unless you are just agreeing with me?  Yes what humans do to the community when romances are involved seems to be a problem.

[anameforobsidian]

so true what the romance faction is doing to rpg games. I dont remember myself thinking about romances when i played dungeon master, the SSI games, gothic 2, temple of elemental evil etc. Baldurs gate was only ONE game that did that... now bioware is rolling along the path of "diversity" and so they choose to include romances for everybody.

 

I really don't feel strongly either way, but Gothic 2 definitely had "romance" of a sort.  It was available if you had the right amount of coin.  That's all, continue with your screed.

 

 Her love for TNO is integral to the story and feels far more tragic than anything else.

 

 

More than Deionarra?  Either way, I'd hate to think the only people we find interesting are psychopaths and addictive personalities.

 

I wouldn't mind if Obs hangs a big NO KISSING sign on their front door. The promancers have Bioware. Surely antimancers deserve a champion as well?

 

 

Isn't that the codex?  Also, nomancers is a better term.

Edited July 7, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[Stun]

buy a trinket, give a trinket, say ur vows, and then now u are married. Thats it, no winning over, shifting their stance towards u, nada. Buy a trinket and bam u are married )

Correct. And that is because the point of the feature was not Romance. And that's why it works, and why it falls right in line with everything else in the game. You do not have to "woo" a potential spouse in Skyrim, just like you don't have to train and feed your Horses.

 

If Bethesda had turned marriage into some pretentious soap opera/emotional drama, the feature would have stuck out like bad breath, and the majority of players would have condemned it.

 

Also, Skyrim.... is about Freedom. Not attachment.

[Lephys]

Also, Skyrim.... is about Freedom. Not attachment.

Is attachment not something one may freely choose to do? It can only be forced, or not exist at all?

[ManifestedISO]

Writers are odd, sure, but actors...

Painters take all the crazy cake.

 

 

Bioware

 

 

 

Obsidian

[Prince of Wales]

Anyone think that an indiana jones type of guy or a crusader (choose who you want) thought about romance romance romance and getting laid during their trip? I guess not... so this is all done because of money money and money and they sucked in a lot of strangers imo.

Actually, it would seem one common secondary motivation for early settlers of the New World was getting native girls in the sack (the primary motivation would have been wealth). I have no doubt crusaders wouldn't have missed a chance with those exotic Arab women. What do you think went on when a city was sacked? And that's hardly the only way they could have gotten it.

 

Getting laid is one of the oldest, strongest, most basic drives of the human race. It kind of has to, for it to has gotten this far. If you look at human history, you will see it pretty much anywhere, especially when it comes to adventurers 

Edited July 8, 2014 by Prince of Wales

[Stun]

 

Also, Skyrim.... is about Freedom. Not attachment.

Is attachment not something one may freely choose to do?

 

A free person may certainly choose to give up his freedom. Sure.

[Zwiebelchen]

Here's what I thought when entering the thread:

 

"Wow, this is a HUGE amount of text... looks like this guy has some good rea- ... nope, just a romance thread."

Edited July 8, 2014 by Zwiebelchen

[PrimeJunta]

@Prince of Wales, that's usually known as "rape," not "getting laid."

 

I mean, I had heard that some people have difficulties making the distinction, but still...

[Bryy]

 

Anyone think that an indiana jones type of guy or a crusader (choose who you want) thought about romance romance romance and getting laid during their trip? I guess not... so this is all done because of money money and money and they sucked in a lot of strangers imo.

Actually, it would seem one common secondary motivation for early settlers of the New World was getting native girls in the sack (the primary motivation would have been wealth). I have no doubt crusaders wouldn't have missed a chance with those exotic Arab women. What do you think went on when a city was sacked? And that's hardly the only way they could have gotten it.

 

Getting laid is one of the oldest, strongest, most basic drives of the human race. It kind of has to, for it to has gotten this far. If you look at human history, you will see it pretty much anywhere, especially when it comes to adventurers 

 

Way to romanticize rape.

[NWN_babaYaga]

not the first time some mentaly weirdo is fanatical about rape thinking it is romantic. USually people like that are called sadistic beasts for a reason but hey this is not a public forum for a game no it´s some creepy forum somewhere hidden in the darkest borders of the I-net. Welcome to 2014 where everyone can think rape is an element of relationships and love storys too. Muh muh muh where are my pills i´m just an ordinary dude never dated a girl so i have to infiltrate forums remembering city rampages of mass gang rape, child killings and burnings and call it "romantic"... ehehe. Is that a new religion someone has to be choosen to enter?

 

And now i know even more i´m right when i talked about strangers!

 

If this post here is now "considered" to be offensive then why not ask some rape victims what realy means being offended by words and crimes...

Edited July 8, 2014 by NWN_babaYaga

[BruceVC]

Good post Op

 

I have always maintained that Romance adds to deeper interaction with party members and also a more memorable RPG experience in respect to your party members

 

I have had numerous discussions on these forums trying to get people to understand this but it has failed most times

 

I guess what we can hope for is that Obsidian includes Romance in PoE 2 ?

[namelessthree]

my definition of "role playing" in a CRPG most definitely differs from yours. but, I've been playing Baldur's Gate II, and one thing that jumped at me right off the bat: it hardly has any role playing. it has 3 types of responses in dialogues (good, neutral, evil), and most of the time the consequences of your actions boil down to the amount of XP you get (or don't get) as reward. 

 

most lines of dialogue will lead to the same result, so they're there only for fluff. it doesn't matter which one you pick, but I guess this is one way of "role playing" a certain character. you pick a dialogue option that corresponds with your character's alignment, and as a "reward" you get an appropriate response from the NPC. and that's all there is to it!

 

apart from that, BG II is exactly the same as IWD - a string of dungeons of varying difficulty and size. it's very much a dungeon crawler. although, I have to admit, some of the dungeons are designed brilliantly. encounters, on the other hand - not so much. in this respect the IWD games are way better.

 

anyway, to drive the point home, while I think you're correct in your belief, that pre-made party characters with back stories, reactions to your actions etc. make the game feel "alive", we are getting those in PoE. so from that point of view it offers as much role playing as BG II does.

 

as for romances, I can prove to you right here that they were done very poorly in BG II (with one exception - Jaheira). so bringing those up doesn't help your case. 

 

 

I think you are talking about two different things (roleplaying and action&consquence), granted, both are important, at least for me, in an RPG but roleplaying doesn't always have to imply that you are gonna get a different consequence for your actions. When I talk about roleplaying, for me the HOW is as important as the result (more even) that you are gonna get with your answer because that let's you create a character to your liking, you can pretend the character is behaving in a certain way. Even in situations where three or four differents lines of dialogue lead you to the same result, for me there is a huge difference between saying: 1. Please, I don't want to fight with you 2. I don't want to fight you but I will if you don't get out of my way 3. Okay, you asked for this 4. Bring it on, old man 5. I will spread your guts all over this room! 6. Please, don't hurt me, sir!

 

Those option might or not might end in the same scenario but even if they do, for me is essential they are there, because otherwise I wouldn't perceive the character that I created as mine, it would feel that it was forced to behave in a certain way. That's why even when you have only 3 options ( usually you have more than 3 in BG2 to be fair, although those 3 are always there, they have to) these options are essential and perfectly valid as roleplaying choices. Personally, I rarely felt that my characters in BG2 were forced to behave in a certain way because I didn't find an option to my liking. Usually the opposite is true and the options given were enough according to the context of the situation where these were presented.

 

I never ever choose an answer thinking about the reward I am going to get. I think that misses the whole point of roleplaying a character, and personally I don't have fun playing that way. You are right in saying that sometimes the devs created and optimal path with unbalanced rewards and people might feel tempted to choose the option with the most reward but I don't think that's roleplaying. At that point you are powergaming and all your choices are enslaved to that behaviour, that has nothing to do with roleplaying, you are just metadecisioning every choice.

 

One game that I think excels in giving roleplaying options to the player is Avellone's favourite Arcanum. I still remember the first time that I played the game and how I was blown away but the mountain of options that you could have in certain dialogues. Some of them led to the same result but the how of getting there was extremely satisfactory in certain cases. Torment is also a great example. 

 

As for the romances, I don't know what to say. Maybe for you Jaheira is the only one well writen. I find that the Viconia romance is a very interesting one for characters stubborn enough to see through her inital attitude, specially if you take her all the way with you up until the end in Throne of Bhaal. Even something as poorly writen as the Aerie romance has some interesting rolepalying connotations if you  actually don't romance her. For example, at the begining, if you have Jaheira and Aerie with you, both of them will start hitting on you and eventually Aerie will start insluting Jaheira and even the memory of Khalid. Now, in that dialogue I think that you have some interesting roleplaying options. You can say to Aerie that you actually feel something for Jaheira and that she should stop pestering her. You can join Aerie in insulting the memory of Khalid or you can act in a very whiped fashion by simply siding with Aerie no matter what. You can also tell Aerie that you are only interested in both Jaheira and herself as a friend. Or you can ignore the interest both of them have in you for the time being and focus on Aerie's insults towards Jaheira's dead husband by saying that you will not tolerate such behaviour and insults towards your dead friend. All these are valid roleplaying options and all of them speak volumes about your character, making those roleplaying choices relevant for you and your companions both. I feel this is something very interesting and I am surprised when some people discard the value of this decisions (i don't mean you). 

 

In the end, no game is perfect and yes, BG2 has some bad romances, Torment has some bad combat and even Arcanum sometimes lacks in roleplaying options, it's either a million or a few. What I am trying to say, again, is that at the end of the day each of us set up a balance of pros and cons but those balances are different for every and each of us because we all have different priorities and differente perspectives. No better or worse. Just different.

Edited July 8, 2014 by namelessthree

[namelessthree]

@Prince of Wales, that's usually known as "rape," not "getting laid."

 

I mean, I had heard that some people have difficulties making the distinction, but still...

 

I don't think he was defending rape or mixing the two, just pointing out that some conquerors were ,sadly, too happy in their sacking and for them there was no real difference between having sex or having forced sex. It's very sad but the history of the humanity is indeed a really sad one. In closing, I think what he meant was "sex has been and still is relevant for the bulk of humans that have populated the earth". Which I think is true.

[sorophx]

I was about to write a big reply to you, but then I saw this:

Avellone's favourite Arcanum.

[PrimeJunta]

@namelessthree in #165 -- I strongly dislike empty choices in cRPG's, like the dialog lines that sound different but end up in the same place. This is one reason games like Oblivion or Skyrim leave me completely cold. The only way anything in them means anything is through make-believe, yet it's still so constrained that there's no room for genuine creativity.

 

I enjoy make-believe role-playing tremendously if other people are involved, which is why I play tabletop RPG's. I find it pointless in a computer game, and beyond pointless in a single-player computer game. It's also lazy design; giving the appearance of breadth and depth when in reality there isn't any. 

 

This is why I like the sound of P:E's reputation mechanics a lot. While the immediate consequence of your hypothetical dialog would still be the same, the line you chose would feed into your personal reputation, and that personal reputation would have an impact down the line. That suddenly makes the exercise worthwhile again.

[namelessthree]

I was about to write a big reply to you, but then I saw this:

Avellone's favourite Arcanum.

Do you realize that that was irony, right? I thought that every backer would know by now how Avellone feels about Arcanum.

Edited July 8, 2014 by namelessthree

[sorophx]

I enjoy make-believe role-playing tremendously if other people are involved, which is why I play tabletop RPG's. I find it pointless in a computer game, and beyond pointless in a single-player computer game. It's also lazy design; giving the appearance of breadth and depth when in reality there isn't any. 

pretty much this^

 

sums up my thoughts on all Bioware games since BG II

[namelessthree]

@namelessthree in #165 -- I strongly dislike empty choices in cRPG's, like the dialog lines that sound different but end up in the same place. This is one reason games like Oblivion or Skyrim leave me completely cold. The only way anything in them means anything is through make-believe, yet it's still so constrained that there's no room for genuine creativity.

 

I enjoy make-believe role-playing tremendously if other people are involved, which is why I play tabletop RPG's. I find it pointless in a computer game, and beyond pointless in a single-player computer game. It's also lazy design; giving the appearance of breadth and depth when in reality there isn't any. 

 

This is why I like the sound of P:E's reputation mechanics a lot. While the immediate consequence of your hypothetical dialog would still be the same, the line you chose would feed into your personal reputation, and that personal reputation would have an impact down the line. That suddenly makes the exercise worthwhile again.

 

To be clear, I am not defending the all-answers-lead-to-the-same-scenario design. Actually, I concede great importance to choice&consequence but I don't think BG2 abused that particular design although it was very guilty of  it sometimes. Icewind Dale on the other hand, you will struggle to find a choice that didn't lead to combat there. That's why while BG2 had those designs sometimes the fact that it wasn't like that the whole time can make you forgive its sins while in Icewind it was everytime and it's harder to forgive, at least for me. Anyway, I am sidetracking; like I said, I believe that even when you have this all-answers-lead-to-the-same-scenario, is very important to give the player roleplaying options to at least let them decide HOW they want to get in this scenario. Like I said, this might be important to some players, less important or irrelevant to others, that's why I mentioned in #165 that each of us have different conceptions and priorities when we start playing a RPG and that's fine.

 

I am also very excited about PoE reputation mechanics. I think it's a very interesting addition and helps gives coherence to the roleplaying choices and personality of your character. I really can't wait to see this system in action.

Edited July 8, 2014 by namelessthree

[Chilloutman]

Good post Op

 

I have always maintained that Romance adds to deeper interaction with party members and also a more memorable RPG experience in respect to your party members

 

I have had numerous discussions on these forums trying to get people to understand this but it has failed most times

 

I guess what we can hope for is that Obsidian includes Romance in PoE 2 ?

 

I was thinking where are you so long, been on holiday or something?

[Fearabbit]

@namelessthree in #165 -- I strongly dislike empty choices in cRPG's, like the dialog lines that sound different but end up in the same place. This is one reason games like Oblivion or Skyrim leave me completely cold. The only way anything in them means anything is through make-believe, yet it's still so constrained that there's no room for genuine creativity.

 

I don't think that's true. I mean, it wasn't make-believe when I rose to the top of the Thieves Guild, or when I brought the Dark Brotherhood back to former glory. Those were, in my opinion, excellent storylines with interesting characters. In general I think that the quests in Skyrim were quite good - although the main quest really was too short and the civil war didn't really happen.

There were lots of features like marriage that are just there, and you can use them or leave them. If you don't like "make-believe", you can ignore them and still have a game full of amazing quests to choose from.

 

Then again I don't have a problem with "empty" choices. I think it's actually important to include different flavors without forcing a consequence down the player's throat.

[PrimeJunta]

But all those stories were entirely linear, and had no impact whatsoever on the world at large. You could do all of them, become master of all guilds, complete all quests for all factions, and none of it affected anything in the least bit. That made the whole thing feel hollow and pointless. If none of it makes any difference and there's nothing to discover but another dungeon that looked just like every other dungeon, and more monsters and bandits just like the other monsters and bandits you've fought, why bother?

[Prince of Wales]

 

 

 

Anyone think that an indiana jones type of guy or a crusader (choose who you want) thought about romance romance romance and getting laid during their trip? I guess not... so this is all done because of money money and money and they sucked in a lot of strangers imo.

Actually, it would seem one common secondary motivation for early settlers of the New World was getting native girls in the sack (the primary motivation would have been wealth). I have no doubt crusaders wouldn't have missed a chance with those exotic Arab women. What do you think went on when a city was sacked? And that's hardly the only way they could have gotten it.

 

Getting laid is one of the oldest, strongest, most basic drives of the human race. It kind of has to, for it to has gotten this far. If you look at human history, you will see it pretty much anywhere, especially when it comes to adventurers

Way to romanticize rape.

Did I? I was rather aiming for the opposite. My point is that real world "adventurers" were selfish jerks who were in it for the booty (gained mostly through theft) and the other kind of booty, often gained without the other party's consent, yes. Edited July 8, 2014 by Prince of Wales