Valmy Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 Why not, some freak brought it up last time Oh dear. 1
Malcador Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) Way back during the campaign on KS, though, post is probably lost and I can't be worked to go find it currently. But was some guy wanting to essentially play a rapist or mind-controlling one, anyway. Not too sure he was serious though. Ah hah, there it is - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60688-romance-in-project-eternity-how-important-how-much/page-14?do=findComment&comment=1211861 Edited July 15, 2014 by Malcador Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Mannock Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 Haven't the devs already stated that romance won't be happening in PoE?Yep. Although, sadly, they were very polite to the promancers when giving them the 'bad news'. If I was a dev, the announcement would have been far more... colorful. Like this: [image] LOL (edit: saw this one in another romance thread here and just had to steal it) Seriously? An image of child abuse as something funny? My bet is you don't have any kids of your own. Feel free to bash on romances all you want, but please don't put it in the same box as child abuse. It's disgusting. I'll do it, for a turnip. DnD item quality description mod (for PoE2) by peardox
Valmy Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 Way back during the campaign on KS, though, post is probably lost and I can't be worked to go find it currently. But was some guy wanting to essentially play a rapist or mind-controlling one, anyway. Not too sure he was serious though. Ah hah, there it is - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60688-romance-in-project-eternity-how-important-how-much/page-14?do=findComment&comment=1211861 What the.... I don't know he seemed pretty serious about it.
Undecaf Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 Seriously? An image of child abuse as something funny? My bet is you don't have any kids of your own. Somewhere there was the context...... Anyway, people have different tolerances for dark humor and that sort of symbolism, and that's ok, but the picture isn't laughing at child abuse. 3 Perkele, tiädäksää tuanoini!"It's easier to tolerate idiots if you do not consider them as stupid people, but exceptionally gifted monkeys."
Lephys Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) You could just cast an illusion spell as a servant or any other possible person like their *gasp* parents. Servants can't always go everywhere, and can't freely search someone's room with someone else in it. And they could be orphans, or at least lacking in living relatives. Also, I never said anything about romancing them. Just disguising yourself and passing as that person. Plus, that wasn't in this thread. It was from a completely different thread, in completely different context. You're the one who ripped it out of context and brought it up in this thread, for the sole purpose of trying to make me look bad. So, *applause*. Why don't you actually try being constructive, for once? Edited July 15, 2014 by Lephys Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u
Hiro Protagonist II Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) Servants can't always go everywhere, and can't freely search someone's room with someone else in it. And they could be orphans, or at least lacking in living relatives. Also, I never said anything about romancing them. Just disguising yourself and passing as that person. Plus, that wasn't in this thread. It was from a completely different thread, in completely different context. You're the one who ripped it out of context and brought it up in this thread, for the sole purpose of trying to make me look bad. So, *applause*. Why don't you actually try being constructive, for once? LOL. I wasn't taking it out of context. It was a quote I recall which was something similar and took all of 2 seconds to find? You actually said in this thread: "That would be "romance," but wouldn't actually be "a romance," - Lephys in this Thread So you still tried to say it was 'romance' and what now you're saying you don't 'romance them'? Which is it? Are you romancing them or not? And there are various ways to deceive that person. You pick the one that 'romances' them. All it is, is a fake deceptive 'romance' at best. It's sole intention is to deceive the person and nothing else. And countering your points is being constructive. Edited July 15, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II
Stun Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 Seriously? An image of child abuse as something funny?You mean Promancer abuse. Absolutely. My bet is you don't have any kids of your own.Thank God, no. 1
Lephys Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 And countering your points is being constructive. That's absolutely true. If only you'd ever actually do it. This is well beyond 3 strikes, so I'll not indulge your little game any further. If anyone else doesn't understand what I meant in that quote that's been hurled into this thread, I would be happy to clarify it. Otherwise, we'll just continue with the regularly-scheduled programming. Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u
Hiro Protagonist II Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) That's absolutely true. If only you'd ever actually do it. This is well beyond 3 strikes, so I'll not indulge your little game any further. If anyone else doesn't understand what I meant in that quote that's been hurled into this thread, I would be happy to clarify it. Otherwise, we'll just continue with the regularly-scheduled programming. Ah Lephys, I do. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're not being constructive. The fact that you brought up casting an illusion spell on yourself, the fact that you suggested you could 'romance' the betrothed that's already with another person to gain access to 'other stuff', the fact that I pointed out that it's just a game of deception and there are various ways to deceive someone by casting an illusion spell as someone else (parents, brother, sister, servant, travelling dignitary, etc) to deceive that person and you don't need to 'romance' them, and now you turn around and say - "I never said anything about romancing them". LMAO. If you want romances in a video game, then it doesn't help your argument when you suggest something like romancing someone's betrothed to gain access to 'other stuff' and then turn around and say "I never said anything about romancing them". There are many NPC interactions you can have that are deep and meaningful and can be explored without having to resort to romance. Edited July 15, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II
BruceVC Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 That's absolutely true. If only you'd ever actually do it. This is well beyond 3 strikes, so I'll not indulge your little game any further. yo If anyone else doesn't understand what I meant in that quote that's been hurled into this thread, I would be happy to clarify it. Otherwise, we'll just continue with the regularly-scheduled programming. There are many NPC interactions you can have that are deep and meaningful and can be explored without having to resort to romance. Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really? "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Hiro Protagonist II Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really? No. You can have deep and meaningful relationships without having them be romances. The mentor and student is one. The parent and child is another. And there may be instances (eg. vocation) where a person can't have a romance but still experience deep and meaningful relationships. Edited July 16, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II 1
BruceVC Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really? No. You can have deep and meaningful relationships without having them be romances. The mentor and student is one. The parent and child is another. And there may be instances (eg. vocation) where a person can't have a romance but still experience deep and meaningful relationships. Sure but if you are asking "what type of Relationship is the most deep" then apart from family obviously if you are Romantically involved with someone then that would normally be more significant? So for example a person would normally be closer to there wife or husband than a friend right? ( or they should be) "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Stun Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) There are many NPC interactions you can have that are deep and meaningful and can be explored without having to resort to romance. Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really? Uh... no? Edited July 16, 2014 by Stun 1
Hiro Protagonist II Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Sure but if you are asking "what type of Relationship is the most deep" then apart from family obviously if you are Romantically involved with someone then that would normally be more significant? So for example a person would normally be closer to there wife or husband than a friend right? ( or they should be) How very simplistic to only see relationships in such a short range. And while romance may be deep for you, someone else may see a different type of relationship as being deeper than romance. 1
BruceVC Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Sure but if you are asking "what type of Relationship is the most deep" then apart from family obviously if you are Romantically involved with someone then that would normally be more significant? So for example a person would normally be closer to there wife or husband than a friend right? ( or they should be) How very simplistic to only see relationships in such a short range. And while romance may be deep for you, someone else may see a different type of relationship as being deeper than romance. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that friendship isn't important. It is very important. But once again if you become Romantically involved with someone and there is intimacy then you normally become even closer. So you move away from a platonic relationship to the next level "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Hiro Protagonist II Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that friendship isn't important. It is very important. But once again if you become Romantically involved with someone and there is intimacy then you normally become even closer. So you move away from a platonic relationship to the next level Again it may be how you view relationships. Other people may not. And I find it a very simplistic and short range view of it. And just because you haven't experienced other types of relationships doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't deeper or more meaningful. Edited July 16, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II 1
zhirzzh Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Sure but if you are asking "what type of Relationship is the most deep" then apart from family obviously if you are Romantically involved with someone then that would normally be more significant? So for example a person would normally be closer to there wife or husband than a friend right? ( or they should be) How very simplistic to only see relationships in such a short range. And while romance may be deep for you, someone else may see a different type of relationship as being deeper than romance. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that friendship isn't important. It is very important. But once again if you become Romantically involved with someone and there is intimacy then you normally become even closer. So you move away from a platonic relationship to the next level You've had friends that were more important than people you've dated in the past right? It's a spectrum. 4
BruceVC Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Sure but if you are asking "what type of Relationship is the most deep" then apart from family obviously if you are Romantically involved with someone then that would normally be more significant? So for example a person would normally be closer to there wife or husband than a friend right? ( or they should be) How very simplistic to only see relationships in such a short range. And while romance may be deep for you, someone else may see a different type of relationship as being deeper than romance. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that friendship isn't important. It is very important. But once again if you become Romantically involved with someone and there is intimacy then you normally become even closer. So you move away from a platonic relationship to the next level You've had friends that were more important than people you've dated in the past right? It's a spectrum. Yes that is true. My friends are extremely important to me "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Stun Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 You've had friends that were more important than people you've dated in the past right? It's a spectrum.Yes that is true. My friends are extremely important to me Are you going to actually answer his question? Or does everyone on this thread have to sit here and watch your slimy debating style for 10 more pages? He's got you. The fact of the matter is that it IS a spectrum. We've all had friends we value more than some of the people we've dated. And vise versa. Therefore, your claim that Romance is always deeper is false. 2
Amentep Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 There are many NPC interactions you can have that are deep and meaningful and can be explored without having to resort to romance. Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really? So...wouldn't that mean you're being cheated of the obviously superior PC-NPC relationship if you can't romance every companion at the same time (as exclusivity would require that you miss superior romance relationships)? 2 I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
BruceVC Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) You've had friends that were more important than people you've dated in the past right? It's a spectrum.Yes that is true. My friends are extremely important to me Are you going to actually answer his question? Or does everyone on this thread have to sit here and watch your slimy debating style for 10 more pages? He's got you. The fact of the matter is that it IS a spectrum. We've all had friends we value more than some of the people we've dated. And vise versa. Therefore, your claim that Romance is always deeper is false. "slimy debating style " That made me laugh, I didn't think this debate made such a big deal to you that you feel the need to make a personal attack on people who don't agree with you But no sadly, no one has "got me". But nice try I merely acknowledged that my friends are very important to me but that doesn't change the fact that my ex-fiancée was equally important to me, if not more so. I can't marry my friends and have kids with them now can I? Edited July 16, 2014 by BruceVC "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
BruceVC Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 There are many NPC interactions you can have that are deep and meaningful and can be explored without having to resort to romance. Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really? So...wouldn't that mean you're being cheated of the obviously superior PC-NPC relationship if you can't romance every companion at the same time (as exclusivity would require that you miss superior romance relationships)? In a RPG this shouldn't make a major difference as the dialogue options are more or less similar if you Romance or don't Romance. But if you choose to not Romance someone or you attempt to Romance someone and fail you may be cheated out of certain quests or developments, like the Lolth attack on Viconia in BG2 that I believe was Romance initiated But end of the day the Romance option is more of RP development that shouldn't penalize a person who chooses not to participate "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Amentep Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 There are many NPC interactions you can have that are deep and meaningful and can be explored without having to resort to romance. Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really? So...wouldn't that mean you're being cheated of the obviously superior PC-NPC relationship if you can't romance every companion at the same time (as exclusivity would require that you miss superior romance relationships)? In a RPG this shouldn't make a major difference as the dialogue options are more or less similar if you Romance or don't Romance. But if you choose to not Romance someone or you attempt to Romance someone and fail you may be cheated out of certain quests or developments, like the Lolth attack on Viconia in BG2 that I believe was Romance initiated But end of the day the Romance option is more of RP development that shouldn't penalize a person who chooses not to participate O..kay? So a romance is "always...deeper and ... more meaningful" but it "shouldn't make a major difference" and "shouldn't penalize a person who chooses not to participate"? Isn't that contradictory? Its either deeper and more meaningful - and thus superior, or its just a different, equally viable alternative relationship, surely? 3 I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Stun Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) I merely acknowledged that my friends are very important to me but that doesn't change the fact that my ex-fiancée was equally important to me, if not more so. I can't marry my friends and have kids with them now can I?In other words, you didn't answer the question posed to you. You dodged it. We weren't discussing marriage and kids. And citing marriage as "proof" that romances are always deeper, or even potentially deeper is really silly, since most romances don't result in marriage anyway, and even the ones that do aren't necessarily deeper than a good friendship. The point remains. All Relationships run the entire spectrum of depth. We've all had friends we value more than some of the people we've dated. And vise versa. Therefore, your claim that Romance is always deeper is false. Edited July 16, 2014 by Stun 3
Recommended Posts