The Official Romance Thread

[RocketChaser]

I could not date someone that I'm not on some level physically attracted to. I imagine this is the same for most people?

 

 

Well I know I wouldn't. Though, not everyone is as beautiful as I am, so I figure some people get desperate.

 

 

I've got to admit, I got about four or five pages in to the thread and skipped to the end so I apologize if this point has been made but given how formulaic romances have typically been within the genre, I'm almost glad they aren't going to be included. It got to a point, especially in Dragon Age, where I cared less about any emotional investment in the story arc and more about "oh *%$&£, I've got to say the right thing here - or I'll miss content." That in itself completely ruined any immersion.

 

I'm all for character interaction, it's what made BG:SoA so amazing and it's why IWD always felt a little soulless but if you want to really immerse yourself you need to be free to pick dialogue options and take character relationships in a direction that you feel appropriately correlate to your perception of this character you're trying to play. When you're shackled by "you've got to get in her pants if you want this sweet +3 longbow" or "bang the drow cleric if you want her rewarding side-quest" it loses a lot of it's merit.

[BruceVC]

 

I could not date someone that I'm not on some level physically attracted to. I imagine this is the same for most people?

 

 

Well I know I wouldn't. Though, not everyone is as beautiful as I am, so I figure some people get desperate.

 

 

I've got to admit, I got about four or five pages in to the thread and skipped to the end so I apologize if this point has been made but given how formulaic romances have typically been within the genre, I'm almost glad they aren't going to be included. It got to a point, especially in Dragon Age, where I cared less about any emotional investment in the story arc and more about "oh *%$&£, I've got to say the right thing here - or I'll miss content." That in itself completely ruined any immersion.

 

I'm all for character interaction, it's what made BG:SoA so amazing and it's why IWD always felt a little soulless but if you want to really immerse yourself you need to be free to pick dialogue options and take character relationships in a direction that you feel appropriately correlate to your perception of this character you're trying to play. When you're shackled by "you've got to get in her pants if you want this sweet +3 longbow" or "bang the drow cleric if you want her rewarding side-quest" it loses a lot of it's merit.

 

 

I have the same view on IWD, it was a fun game but there was definitely something lacking from your party interaction, soulless is a good word to describe it

[RocketChaser]

Which is a shame because, in game play terms, IWD2 was one of my favourites.

[Doppelschwert]

 

 

The concept of Beauty and the Beast is a sweet story but its idealistic and not relevant to modern Romance implementations. So once again I am dwelling in the world of realism with my Romance expectations and I find your ideas fanciful at best?

 

Suppose PoE had Romances, but only with hideous, old characters that don't apply to your sense for aesthetics, but great personalities. Would you be happy and rest your case?

 

More to the point, suppose that there is an RPG that demands storywise that you can only play an old character, so that the same constraint fits from a story point of view. Having kids is also out of the question due to age. Would you be happy?

 

Interesting question, its very hypothetical the suggestion that a development company would create a party of ugly old characters and expect Romance to be as popular?

 

But to answer your question, no I don't think the Romance arc would be as appealing. And the reason is I wouldn't be able to identify with my party members as easily.

 

Also I am not dismissing the relevance of classic love stories like Beauty and the Beast, I am saying they are not normally applicable in RL. In other words I have to be attracted to someone to have a Romantic interest in, I could not date someone that I'm not on some level physically attracted to. I imagine this is the same for most people?

 

 

Ok, suppose I actually make the game 'Senior Citizen Merlin, mature of time' featuring Merlin the Wizard as Main Character with Companions Gandalf, Dumbledore, Ravel and some other olderly Wizard Women, for which I somehow got the licencing rights.

 

You said you don't find the arc to be appealing, but would the game be better for featuring romance between the old characters or could I skip it without loss?

It's an awesome game btw, so there is no denying anyone would want to play it, so thats not an issue.

[PrimeJunta]

I gotta ask... do you guys equate "conventionally attractive" with "someone I'm physically attracted to?"

 

Asking 'cuz it doesn't work that way for me, at least. I've been physically attracted to a quite a lot of women over the years, and only some of them have been conventionally attractive. Conversely, I know a quite a few women who are conventionally attractive but who I'm not physically attracted to. Chemistry is complicated IMO, and appearance is a fairly small component of it.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

The concept of Beauty and the Beast is a sweet story but its idealistic and not relevant to modern Romance implementations. So once again I am dwelling in the world of realism with my Romance expectations and I find your ideas fanciful at best?

 

Suppose PoE had Romances, but only with hideous, old characters that don't apply to your sense for aesthetics, but great personalities. Would you be happy and rest your case?

 

More to the point, suppose that there is an RPG that demands storywise that you can only play an old character, so that the same constraint fits from a story point of view. Having kids is also out of the question due to age. Would you be happy?

 

Interesting question, its very hypothetical the suggestion that a development company would create a party of ugly old characters and expect Romance to be as popular?

 

But to answer your question, no I don't think the Romance arc would be as appealing. And the reason is I wouldn't be able to identify with my party members as easily.

 

Also I am not dismissing the relevance of classic love stories like Beauty and the Beast, I am saying they are not normally applicable in RL. In other words I have to be attracted to someone to have a Romantic interest in, I could not date someone that I'm not on some level physically attracted to. I imagine this is the same for most people?

 

 

Ok, suppose I actually make the game 'Senior Citizen Merlin, mature of time' featuring Merlin the Wizard as Main Character with Companions Gandalf, Dumbledore, Ravel and some other olderly Wizard Women, for which I somehow got the licencing rights.

 

You said you don't find the arc to be appealing, but would the game be better for featuring romance between the old characters or could I skip it without loss?

It's an awesome game btw, so there is no denying anyone would want to play it, so thats not an issue.

 

 

Another interesting question, before I answer  do you think any company would make an RPG where the protagonists are all old people? I doubt it, it may sound like ageism but considering the market for games is people who are less than 50 years old most companies wouldn't make a game where they feel there potential market wouldn't identify with the characters

 

So in your example it would be best to not only skip the Romance but also to skip the whole game idea. Its well meaning but I can't see too many people buying in to the idea, but I may be wrong

[Hiro Protagonist II]

do you think any company would make an RPG where the protagonists are all old people? I doubt it,

 

Planescape Torment.

[W.MacKinnon]

 

 

 

Wait wait waitu might wanna take a step back. U are all for romance in a game but u are discrediting some very old and well done love stories. Beauty and the beast is a very old love story that has withstood time and is still relavent. The princess and the frog, a frog who is considered to be beneath her and totally disgusting (aka multitentacle beast) and without knowing what the frog really is is able to fall in love with it. There are many love stories that are based on unattractive or what we woukd consider gross or disgusting but ended up with a beautiful love story that taught us to look beyound physical looks for happiness. 

 

Hm funny how it's always the man that is "gross." Are there any fairy tales with gross ladies, I'd like to know.

 

 

There actually is a decent novel about "gross" or disgusting female that finds romance. It's called the Ship who Sang by Anne McCaffrey. Quite good, the premise is that deformed children are used as quasi Navigator Computers on FTL ships. Really look into this book if your into romance stories, in fact it leads to an entire novel continuity. In that novel, the characters that fall in love can't actually interact physically - due to the fact to reveal the person inside the machine as it were would kill her. I won't spoil anything more in case you might be interested in reading it.

Figure that their might be some more out there but that's one that seemed similar to a toad prince type analog. Regardless good read, as scifi goes.

[Stun]

I have the same view on IWD, it was a fun game but there was definitely something lacking from your party interaction, soulless is a good word to describe it

That something it lacks is NOT Romance, however. It was Party member interaction outright. So you're not making any sort of on-topic point here at all. Although I do take issue with the notion that anything in IWD was soulless. IWD is a dungeon crawler, and every feature it had was designed towards that end. Any deviation from that formula would have felt out of place. Just think about it.

 

Your Party enters Kresselack's tomb:

 

Protagonist: Hmm... Nice dungeon

Cleric: It's a tomb. I bet there's undead here.

Protagonist: You're right. I'll prepare accordingly. Thank you!

Cleric: any time <<blushes>>> And don't worry, I won't let anything bad happen to you.

Protagonist: I.... I didn't know you cared

Cleric: Of course I do! Here look, we're conveniently in front of an ancient but empty coffin... you wanna...

Protagonist: I thought you'd never ask

 

::::fade to black:::: :::vomiting ensues::::

 

No, Romances wouldn't have worked for Icewind Dale, would they. They would have killed the atmosphere and the entire game would have followed suit.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Stun

[gamerdude130]

I just want a new game were i can be a pornstar like Fallout 2.

[PrimeJunta]

@Stun now I want to play that game.

[Doppelschwert]

 

 

- snip -

 

Ok, suppose I actually make the game 'Senior Citizen Merlin, mature of time' featuring Merlin the Wizard as Main Character with Companions Gandalf, Dumbledore, Ravel and some other olderly Wizard Women, for which I somehow got the licencing rights.

 

You said you don't find the arc to be appealing, but would the game be better for featuring romance between the old characters or could I skip it without loss?

It's an awesome game btw, so there is no denying anyone would want to play it, so thats not an issue.

 

 

Another interesting question, before I answer  do you think any company would make an RPG where the protagonists are all old people? I doubt it, it may sound like ageism but considering the market for games is people who are less than 50 years old most companies wouldn't make a game where they feel there potential market wouldn't identify with the characters

 

So in your example it would be best to not only skip the Romance but also to skip the whole game idea. Its well meaning but I can't see too many people buying in to the idea, but I may be wrong

 

 

Why would you not be able to identify with old people, just because you are not old? It's probably way easier than to identify with an orc or an elf or some other fantasy race, because its real. Maybe you don't want to identify with someone old, but I don't see why that should be a general thing.

 

Apart from that, I'd play a game like this and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Playing a badass sage with magical powers is probably in my top 10 of means for escapism. I don't claim it isn't a niche, but surely there should be some audience for this. You could even easily construct such a game by extending the gameplay of magicka into a more complex, serious rpg.

 

So I'd still be interested in the answer to my original question - given the game would exist, should there be romance in it?

[BruceVC]

 

I have the same view on IWD, it was a fun game but there was definitely something lacking from your party interaction, soulless is a good word to describe it

That something it lacks is NOT Romance, however. It was Party member interaction outright. So you're not making any sort of on-topic point here at all. Although I do take issue with the notion that anything in IWD was soulless. IWD is a dungeon crawler, and every feature it had was designed towards that end. Any deviation from that formula would have felt out of place. Just think about it.

 

Your Party enters Kresselack's tomb:

 

Protagonist: Hmm... Nice dungeon

Cleric: It's a tomb. I bet there's undead here.

Protagonist: You're right. I'll prepare accordingly. Thank you!

Cleric: any time <<blushes>>> And don't worry, I won't let anything bad happen to you.

Protagonist: I.... I didn't know you cared

Cleric: Of course I do! Here look, we're conveniently in front of an ancient but empty coffin... you wanna...

Protagonist: I thought you'd never ask

 

::::fade to black:::: :::vomiting ensues::::

 

No, Romances wouldn't have worked for Icewind Dale, would they. They would have killed the atmosphere and the entire game would have followed suit.

 

 

You raise a good point about dialogue like Romance maybe negatively impacting the mood but that's not the issue I have with IWD

 

As a mentioned it was a very good dungeon crawl RPG, I am not saying the game was bad. It was very entertaining, I gave it a  much respected 70/100 on the famous "BruceVC gaming rating barometer "

 

But it could have been so much better by enabling proper party interaction which is difficult as you made the whole party from the start, there weren't any pre-set NPC's

 

I missed the fact I didn't  get to know anything about my party, where they came from and what motivated them? What were there views on developments on the journey and  what did they want from life. And yes it have been great to develop Romance

 

All these types of party interaction could be implemented without impacting the mood. They could be done when you visit towns or in certain places in a dungeon? So I don't see this as a negative in a game like IWD, it would only improve it

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

- snip -

 

Ok, suppose I actually make the game 'Senior Citizen Merlin, mature of time' featuring Merlin the Wizard as Main Character with Companions Gandalf, Dumbledore, Ravel and some other olderly Wizard Women, for which I somehow got the licencing rights.

 

You said you don't find the arc to be appealing, but would the game be better for featuring romance between the old characters or could I skip it without loss?

It's an awesome game btw, so there is no denying anyone would want to play it, so thats not an issue.

 

 

Another interesting question, before I answer  do you think any company would make an RPG where the protagonists are all old people? I doubt it, it may sound like ageism but considering the market for games is people who are less than 50 years old most companies wouldn't make a game where they feel there potential market wouldn't identify with the characters

 

So in your example it would be best to not only skip the Romance but also to skip the whole game idea. Its well meaning but I can't see too many people buying in to the idea, but I may be wrong

 

 

Why would you not be able to identify with old people, just because you are not old? It's probably way easier than to identify with an orc or an elf or some other fantasy race, because its real. Maybe you don't want to identify with someone old, but I don't see why that should be a general thing.

 

Apart from that, I'd play a game like this and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Playing a badass sage with magical powers is probably in my top 10 of means for escapism. I don't claim it isn't a niche, but surely there should be some audience for this. You could even easily construct such a game by extending the gameplay of magicka into a more complex, serious rpg.

 

So I'd still be interested in the answer to my original question - given the game would exist, should there be romance in it?

 

 

I did mention that in your example  around a game that only features old people I don't think it will be that popular from a Romance perspective but I am not going to say it should be left out as some people may want to follow that arc. But I wouldn't

[Lephys]

Yes they do. Developers do anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs for romance options.

Ummm... You asked:

 

Why do developers have to anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs?

... to which I responded "they don't."

 

Why do they have to do such a thing? They don't. o_o

 

Oh Lephys I love you please come to my tent.

As much as I'm glad you love me, that doesn't really help me at all with regard to the discussion at hand. Do you think that block of text is ridiculous? Or was it actually splendid? Either way, why so? If I don't know why, how am I to learn anything?

 

Can it be done for free? As in, without any production costs or development time? Because that is one of the frequently cited inherent flaws with Romances in RPGs. They're expensive and time consuming to do well and a large segment of the gamer population simply does not like them, no matter how 'good' they are.

*sigh*... Once again, this "flaw" is common to anything in the entire game. Is there NO other aspect of the game that doesn't need to be in the game? Only Romance?

 

And, also once again, you can't keep saying "no one likes turkey" with the basis of "everyone's eaten burnt turkey over and over again, and they don't like burnt turkey."

 

Your whole "no matter how good they are" bit is useless, since we've already established that the examples we've had in existing games haven't been very good.

 

It's realllllly simple. The question that remains is simply "is this just because they weren't done well, or is there not a way to do them well?" This whole "BUT IT COSTS MONIES!" argument is dumb, because everything costs money. If they had more money, they'd put more stuff in the game. Clearly. Hence stretch goals in a Kickstarter Campaign. I'm sure if they'd raised 50 million, they might have considered voice-acting the entire game, for example. Does the whole game NEED to be voice-acted? No. COULD it be? Sure. With the right amount of money.

 

How can romance be bad for the reason that it costs money, while its costing money is bad because it's bad? You can't support "because it's not free" with "because it's bad" if you're suggesting it's bad because it's not free.

 

Besides. If it were really inherently terrible, then why would it matter if it was free or not? According to many of the arguments, it taints the whole game and burns out the eyes of the people who would rather not partake in anything of the sort, just by its mere existence.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Ummm... You asked:

 

... to which I responded "they don't."

 

Why do they have to do such a thing? They don't. o_o

 

Well they do. And I asked why they have to? The question is rhetorical and the answer is obvious. Because you have people like Bruce needing to have 'sexy' NPCs to have a physical attraction with. Bruce has confirmed this in his posts. If you hadn't read the posts for the last three days, you would know this. I suggest reading those posts.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Namutree]

 

I have the same view on IWD, it was a fun game but there was definitely something lacking from your party interaction, soulless is a good word to describe it

That something it lacks is NOT Romance, however. It was Party member interaction outright. So you're not making any sort of on-topic point here at all. Although I do take issue with the notion that anything in IWD was soulless. IWD is a dungeon crawler, and every feature it had was designed towards that end. Any deviation from that formula would have felt out of place. Just think about it.

 

Your Party enters Kresselack's tomb:

 

Protagonist: Hmm... Nice dungeon

Cleric: It's a tomb. I bet there's undead here.

Protagonist: You're right. I'll prepare accordingly. Thank you!

Cleric: any time <<blushes>>> And don't worry, I won't let anything bad happen to you.

Protagonist: I.... I didn't know you cared

Cleric: Of course I do! Here look, we're conveniently in front of an ancient but empty coffin... you wanna...

Protagonist: I thought you'd never ask

 

::::fade to black:::: :::vomiting ensues::::

 

No, Romances wouldn't have worked for Icewind Dale, would they. They would have killed the atmosphere and the entire game would have followed suit.

 

That would have been incredibly amusing.

[redneckdevil]

Real life romance, i have better sex and a much better time with unattractive or semi attractive girls that shared the same interests as i do (aka video games, manga, anime, and table top gaming) than i have with very attractive girls who basically we only had in common in tbat we liked to party and liked to go places. For a gold romance, there hasto be attraction yes but it shouldnt always be based off looks, good romance is based off sharing simar likes amd dislikes and have communication open. A romance based off looks and sex doesnt last very long no matter how good the sex is or how good the person looks, because eventually its gonna get old having very little things to connect with.

 

Thats why most people dont want it in games because while yes done right can add a new level of immersion, we have dealt with a vast majority of games touting romance as nothing more than ego stroking scenarios or very shallow or laughable or even cringe worthy moments. Most of the games it isnt fun at all.

And thats why people dont want it in the game, not for the chance of having another level of immsersion but because chances are stacked to where its gonna be done horrible to the opionion of the vast majority of gamers.

 

Yes romance can add a level of immersion or another level of roleplaying BUT there are many other things tbe devs can add that would add the same level of roleplaying options AND be easier to impliment.

examples-companions that have an agenda or opionion of their own, the oppertunity to make a nemisis or be able to turn a bbeg into an ally, a politics system that we can interact with, culture that we can interact with, factions, a morality system, etc etc etc. There are many tools that the devs can use to enhance roleplaying, and while romance can add roleplay options it is but one of many different tools that the devs can use to offer deep roleplaying options.

 

Do not get fixated that romances are the only route u can have deep roleaying oppertunities with, because its a false idea. Its just one of many tools that can enhance roleplaying but it is not the "ultimate" or the "best" way because u can use any of the ones i listed and still get alot or the same level of roleplaying options.

 

Pain meds filled rant is over. Im not against romance, but i am against the idea that romance can easy be done and that if done poorly or not up to snuff would not give the game a downside. Its the not the end all be all, there are many other options that tje devs are very good at doing to give us the same level of replayimg

[Lephys]

Well they do. And I asked why they have to? The question is rhetorical and the answer is obvious.

A) I have no idea why you're emphasizing the word "they" here.

B) Of course the answer is obvious. It's "They don't." Nothing mandates that they pander.

 

This is where this whole thing falls apart. You're arbitrarily and forcibly associating so many things with one another in a neat little package. For one thing, I'm fairly certain you misunderstand Bruce quite often. For another, as cool as Bruce is, he's just one person, and his perfect idea of romances in games does not mandate that our only two options in the world are "Exactly like that, or not at all." So, I don't know why the debate with you keeps coming back to "this, this and this, are problematic. That's what such-and-such said in his posts, and so that's why romance is bad."

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

A) I have no idea why you're emphasizing the word "they" here.

B) Of course the answer is obvious. It's "They don't." Nothing mandates that they pander.

 

A) And there's your problem. No idea what I'm talking about.

B) The answer is obvious. They do. And I never brought up they have a mandate.

 

 

This is where this whole thing falls apart. You're arbitrarily and forcibly associating so many things with one another in a neat little package. For one thing, I'm fairly certain you misunderstand Bruce quite often. For another, as cool as Bruce is, he's just one person, and his perfect idea of romances in games does not mandate that our only two options in the world are "Exactly like that, or not at all." So, I don't know why the debate with you keeps coming back to "this, this and this, are problematic. That's what such-and-such said in his posts, and so that's why romance is bad."

 

Nothing has fallen apart. Even Bruce has said:

 

"In other words I have to be attracted to someone to have a Romantic interest in, I could not date someone that I'm not on some level physically attracted to."

"an appeal on the aesthetic level"

"in fact the Devs are doing the prudent thing around game design in this respect"

 

So Bruce is okay with anthropomorphising and sexualising non-human NPCs to appeal to gamers to romance them. This has already been discussed over the last few days and we seemed to have moved on from that point. Weird that you would be bringing this up days later to rehash over the same thing.

 

But I will ask you this which Bruce has answered, why do developers anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs for romances?

Edited July 22, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Namutree]

I've been thinking about this for a while now and I want to announce a change in opinion!

 

I used to think that Obsidian made the right call in not including romance, but thought they should include it in the sequels.

 

Now I think Obsidian made the right call in not including romance, and think they shouldn't add them the sequels.

 

Here is why:

 

1- Modders will do this anyway, and Obsidian would best spend their time building new areas and core mechanics. Those features would better suit Obsidian's skills, and are hard to mod in according to Josh.

 

2- Good romances are hard to make, and bad ones really hurt the game. See Primejunta's earlier ME2 example for reference. I would hate to see poe2 tarnished by poorly implemented romances, and by avoiding romances Obsidian avoids this risk.

 

3- Adding in romances at the expense of other content would make poe2/poe3 too much like a bioware game; we have plenty of those and there will be plenty more to come. Obsidian should be Obsidian; not Bioware jr.

 

I still like the romance model I established here and on other threads, but will leave them to modders.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Namutree

[Lephys]

A) And there's your problem. No idea what I'm talking about.

B) The answer is obvious. They do. And I never brought up they have a mandate.

A) It looks like your problem, from here. If you could enlighten me, that would rock. I can't know your brain, so I can't know your reasons for saying what you're saying unless you explain them to me.

B) Hang on, lemme get this straight... You're saying that the answer to your question of "why do they have to pander" is that "they do" (have to do it), but, simultaneously, you're not at all implying that their doing so is mandatory?

 

Gotcha. An ocean of sense, you are.

 

 

So Bruce is okay with anthropomorphising and sexualising non-human NPCs to appeal to gamers to romance them. This has already been discussed over the last few days and we've moved onto other things. Weird that you would be brining this up days later to rehash over the same thing.

Yeah... or maybe he's just okay with a world in which there are actually humanoid creatures who exist that would physiologically at least be attractive to humans. Doesn't mean all of them have to be, or that they all have to be supermodels. Extents, man.

 

Oh, and yeah, it IS pretty strange that I wouldn't be on the forums 24/7, and that I actually don't just ignore direct responses to my posts just because they're not from less than an hour ago. What a weirdo I am.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

A) It looks like your problem, from here. If you could enlighten me, that would rock. I can't know your brain, so I can't know your reasons for saying what you're saying unless you explain them to me.

B) Hang on, lemme get this straight... You're saying that the answer to your question of "why do they have to pander" is that "they do" (have to do it), but, simultaneously, you're not at all implying that their doing so is mandatory?

 

Gotcha. An ocean of sense, you are.

 

A) I know what I'm talking about. You've admitted "you have no idea". For someone who's blames me for getting technical with words, you've been doing this for these last few posts. Seriously, any normal person would know why developers are anthropomorphising and sexualising non-human NPCs for romances. Even Bruce knows. For some reason you don't?

B) No, I said, "why do they have to". And there is nothing mandatory about it. They are two different things.

 

Yep, All makes sense. You seem to be the one that isn't.

 

 

Yeah... or maybe he's just okay with a world in which there are actually humanoid creatures who exist that would physiologically at least be attractive to humans. Doesn't mean all of them have to be, or that they all have to be supermodels. Extents, man.

 

Oh, and yeah, it IS pretty strange that I wouldn't be on the forums 24/7, and that I actually don't just ignore direct responses to my posts just because they're not from less than an hour ago. What a weirdo I am.

 

 

And this has been discussed for the last couple of pages that you don't need 'sexualised' NPCs to romance, especially NPC female characters whose sexuality or victimhood is exploited as a way to infuse edgy, gritty or racy flavouring into game worlds. Sexually objectified female NPCs are valued primarily for their bodies (or body parts) and Bruce seems to be okay with this as he needs to be physically attracted with the NPC before a romance starts. And more so with non-humans being anthropomorphised and sexualised. And I never said they had to be supermodels. Context, man..

 

Well it's good to have you back because I'm sure we're all waiting for those seven paragraph posts for you to try and explain your points.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

Yep, All makes sense. You seem to be the one that isn't.

Seem...

 

And I'm not sure how the frequency with which I post and the length of my posts, nor my inherent value as a person who uses this forum, has anything to do with the topic at hand.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Seem...

 

Well lets see. I ask a rhetorical question. Even Bruce can answer that question. You avoid the reasons why developers do anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs for romance options. You then later confirm you have accented one of those words in my question to try and change it's meaning so you can make an argument against it. You get hung up on ultra-technical specifics of words too much, man.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II