Angry Joe LOVED Pillars Of Eternity

[CaptainMace]

They although react to other characters and events in general.
I think we all agree that a rpg with recruitable companions can only benefit from their reactions to your actions.
That doesn't mean it's about ego-stroking as you present it. it's about giving 'em a bit of believability through the only natural (or it seems natural) way, aka the player's actions.

I fail to see why romances would add anything particular to that aspect. Again, I don't have anything about romances, but they're really dispensable, and as I've said I have yet to see a romance that brings anything to the character concerned, the PC or the world they evolve in.
As Stun said, this seems to be exclusively about ego-stroking indeed. Unlike characters reacting to the player actions, decisions and such, which is about depth and believability. Although non companions react to the player actions and decisions, is that ego-stroking as well ? Is every good rpg out there ego-stroking, and only ego-stroking ?

 

Although they see pc as someone they can travel with, it's nothing particularly cool to know when it concerns a red-dressed wizard that basically use you as a tool. I've seen better ego-stroking.

Edited February 26, 2015 by CaptainMace

[Stun]

Companion romance is only only ego-stroking,  because it is meant to make player feel that their character is loved/lusted/admired/etc. by npc companion.

I'll repeat myself. The mere inclusion of ego stroking does NOT mean that a romance must be occurring. This is especially true in Planescape Torment, where it is made clear to the player that your companions are drawn to you, not because they admire you, But because they pity you.... Because your horrible, horrible affliction intrigues them. (you're eternally suffering, you're doomed, you're a bigger freak than they are, etc.).

 

On the other hand, Bioware specifically employs its ego stroking because that's the easiest way for a writer to begin a romantic narrative.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Stun

[Qbert]

 

 

No wait. Allow me.

 

Stun: You stink. And I've never seen anyone so ugly.

TRC: :::Kisses Stun::::

Stun: Are you daft?

TRC: Admit it, you liked it!

Stun: Get away from me! You're making my demonic blood boil! (literally. Permanent +5% romance resistance)

 

And then.... Nothing. Nothing at all. No courting for the rest of the game. Maybe some thief training though...which she vocally resents.

 

------

 

 

 

 

 

Actually i'm almost starting to think that there is some budding love/hate romance blooming between the romance crew (TRC) and stun on this forum.  I mean pouring so much time and effort across multiple threads, whether that was the original topic or not,  to passionately debate this issue...that must speak of a certain depth of feeling and mutual attraction.

 

Ironic.

 

[Valmy]

They react towards pc, they comment about pc, they comment what pc is doing, they see pc as someone they can travel with, etc. So they are ego stroking player, they may not be best or most direct ego strokers that there are, but they still all ego stroke player. Ego stroking is quite interesting things as it usually better if player don't realize that it is happening.

 

 

Given this is it possible to have a non-ego stroking companion?

[Valmy]

 

On the other hand, Bioware specifically employs its ego stroking because that's the easiest way for a writer to begin a romantic narrative.

 

 

Personally I have to feel pretty before I can get in the mood.

[Karkarov]

 

They react towards pc, they comment about pc, they comment what pc is doing, they see pc as someone they can travel with, etc. So they are ego stroking player, they may not be best or most direct ego strokers that there are, but they still all ego stroke player. Ego stroking is quite interesting things as it usually better if player don't realize that it is happening.

 

Given this is it possible to have a non-ego stroking companion?

Elerond is forgetting those characters talked about you, but not in the nicest of ways.  BG1 Jaheira for example talks about your character ALL THE TIME!  Of course by "talk about" I mean bitching about how you are an incompetent leader, how she is better qualified to be in charge, and how you should listen to her instruction.  I wouldn't call that an ego stroking.  Half the BG characters can also just up and try to kill you if you do too many things they don't like. 

 

Dakon on the other hand dedicates his life and soul to you because you threw some highschool introduction to psychology crap at him over a pint at the tavern.  So yeah, I would say the Torment characters are just lame ego strokers.  The BG characters? Not so much.

[Tamerlane]

 

Geeze, that wasn't even the link I was gonna give.

There's dozens of Chris Avellone quotes there. And not a single one of them mentions an Annah Romance, a Fall-From-Grace Romance, or a "love triangle with the Nameless One." Good Job!

 

Ctrl+f "romantic triangle", guy.

 

Now, I know, I know. The rebuttal here is, "No, he was talking about the romantic triangle of Betty and Veronica! He only said that he based the characters on famous examples of romantic triangles, not that that was the case with Annah and Grace themselves." And... well, hey, if that's the line you want to pursue, more power to you. I don't have a particular dog in this fight, I just thought this exchange everyone here is having was weird enough I might as well throw that in.

 

The only thing that I can really take from this bizarre conversation is that some folks must have no idea when someone's interested in them.

[Stun]

Now, I know, I know. The rebuttal here is, "No, he was talking about the romantic triangle of Betty and Veronica! He only said that he based the characters on famous examples of romantic triangles, not that that was the case with Annah and Grace themselves." And... well, hey, if that's the line you want to pursue, more power to you.

I will. Thanks. And You're right. There's nothing here. You know full well that he wasn't talking about any love triangle that occurs with the Nameless One in PS:T. He was flat out talking about the literary influences behind the game's 2 female companions.

 

 

The only thing that I can really take from this bizarre conversation is that some folks must have no idea when someone's interested in them.

And the only thing I can really take out of this silly conversation is that PS:T went over a LOT of people's heads. Edited February 26, 2015 by Stun

[Lord Wafflebum]

 

@Stun

 

I might add the promancer movement isn't saying that the game needs to have romance options in order to have a deep and meaning narrative. What we're arguing is having the option to romance creates an even deeper narrative opportunity. When talking about older games and characters, I'm always able to remember who I romanced before most anything else. 

 

It also tends to affect my gameplay. When a LI has an opinion about something that comes up, it can make me take a direction that I otherwise wouldn't have. Companion interaction is important to me in RPG's.

 

And all I am asking is that you actually play Pillars of Eternity and see how the NPCs go.  Give it a chance.  Until we actually have something in that regard I do not understand the whole debate.  I mean hundreds and hundreds of pages of posts debating the possibility the game may or may not need romance without actually having anything to talk about is strange to me.  Again we do not even know what exactly Obsidian means by 'no romance' until we get our hands on it.

 

Fair, and it may not. But I would hope that in future installments a more fleshed-out romance option is available. There's very much a chance I will be perfectly content with the companion interactions, as you said. The reason this debate continues, to me anyway, comes down to value. We promancers argue that romance options lead to a deeper companion and PC development, while the other camp argues that they're kinda stupid, tend to be juvenile, lend nothing good to the narrative, and are an unnecessary/jarring distraction. BruceVC and I are trying to get those people to appreciate our perspective.

 

I can't speak for Bruce, but I'd agree on the point that no romances are better than badly written romances. My primary argument is that OE, arguably having the best writing talent of any other game developer, could create a romance mechanic that is mature and tasteful. I know they've said they're not comfortable doing it, but it seems silly to me they wouldn't push themselves to become even better writers and branch out.

[Lephys]

I love that we've established there are only two types of people in the world:

 

1) Those who favor any and all romance.

2) Those who the-opposite-of-favor any and all romance.

 

I mean, who could possibly evaluate things on a case-by-case basis? That would just be silly. Best to stick with the binary promancer/antimancer dichotomy.

[500MetricTonnes]

 

 

@Stun

 

I might add the promancer movement isn't saying that the game needs to have romance options in order to have a deep and meaning narrative. What we're arguing is having the option to romance creates an even deeper narrative opportunity. When talking about older games and characters, I'm always able to remember who I romanced before most anything else. 

 

It also tends to affect my gameplay. When a LI has an opinion about something that comes up, it can make me take a direction that I otherwise wouldn't have. Companion interaction is important to me in RPG's.

 

And all I am asking is that you actually play Pillars of Eternity and see how the NPCs go.  Give it a chance.  Until we actually have something in that regard I do not understand the whole debate.  I mean hundreds and hundreds of pages of posts debating the possibility the game may or may not need romance without actually having anything to talk about is strange to me.  Again we do not even know what exactly Obsidian means by 'no romance' until we get our hands on it.

 

Fair, and it may not. But I would hope that in future installments a more fleshed-out romance option is available. There's very much a chance I will be perfectly content with the companion interactions, as you said. The reason this debate continues, to me anyway, comes down to value. We promancers argue that romance options lead to a deeper companion and PC development, while the other camp argues that they're kinda stupid, tend to be juvenile, lend nothing good to the narrative, and are an unnecessary/jarring distraction. BruceVC and I are trying to get those people to appreciate our perspective.

 

I can't speak for Bruce, but I'd agree on the point that no romances are better than badly written romances. My primary argument is that OE, arguably having the best writing talent of any other game developer, could create a romance mechanic that is mature and tasteful. I know they've said they're not comfortable doing it, but it seems silly to me they wouldn't push themselves to become even better writers and branch out.

 

If someone doesn't like a particular genre, such as romance, then the chances of them writing something of quality in that genre is close to zero. I utterly loathe the "dark and gritty" genre of fantasy, so if someone tapped me on the shoulder and asked me to handle the writing for the next Witcher game, then how likely is it that I will write something good? Not bloody likely.

[Stun]

I love that we've established there are only two types of people in the world:

 

1) Those who favor any and all romance.

2) Those who the-opposite-of-favor any and all romance.

 

I mean, who could possibly evaluate things on a case-by-case basis? That would just be silly.

I'm totally willing to evaluate things on a case by case basis.

 

But first we'll have to pick a game that actually has romances.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Stun

[Death Machine Miyagi]

If someone doesn't like a particular genre, such as romance, then the chances of them writing something of quality in that genre is close to zero. I utterly loathe the "dark and gritty" genre of fantasy, so if someone tapped me on the shoulder and asked me to handle the writing for the next Witcher game, then how likely is it that I will write something good? Not bloody likely.

 

Right. The sense I've gotten from statements by J.E. Sawyer and MCA, at least, is something ranging between disinterest in CRPG romance to outright hostility to it. As such, if they had to write a romance, I expect it would be done half-hardheartedly, at best.

 

I don't want half-hearted writing. I want good writing, and the best way to get good writing is to let the writers make the game the way they want to make it.

 

Unlike a lot of people, though, I'm not opposed to CRPG romances in principle. I'm just opposed to them the way they're typically done. Bioware has kind of soured the idea for a lot of people, and I can understand why, but I approve of any chance a CRPG gives me to flesh out my character and his/her relationship with others in an interesting way.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Death Machine Miyagi

[barakav]

The witcher games are more like porn simulators and not romance simulators ,most of the women in these games are sluts that can hardly  wait to spread their legs in front of Geralt for every stupid excuse they can find (There is a fan of yours in the first game that will have sex with you for bringing her a a red scarf). On the contrary B.G has a real romance  storyline which IMO is nice and  appealing and helps with  immersion (Arie is so cute! and it made me feel genuinely sorry for the loss of her wings).

 

I think that as long as it is being done well ,romance can help you create a better connection with the characters and if they are well written it can be quite interesting. And when it's not well written it's awfully annoying (even if there are many women in real life that behave like sluts IMO this is not interesting enough as a story arc in an RPG, there are many porn sites for this kind of content)

Edited February 26, 2015 by barakav

[500MetricTonnes]

The witcher games are more like porn simulators and not romance simulators ,most of the women in these games are sluts that can hardly  wait to spread their legs in front of Geralt for every stupid excuse they can find (There is a fan of yours in the first game that will have sex with you for bringing her a a red scarf). On the contrary B.G has a real romance  storyline which IMO is nice and  appealing and helps with  immersion (Arie is so cute! and it made me feel genuinely sorry for the loss of her wings).

 

I think that as long as it is being done well ,romance can help you create a better connection with the characters and if they are well written it can be quite interesting. And when it's not well written it's awfully annoying (even if there are many women in real life that behave like sluts IMO this is not interesting enough as a story arc in an RPG, there are many porn sites for this kind of content)

I suspect that BG romances would be quite unappealing to...certain members...of "modern" BioWare's audience. There were restrictions on what sort of PC the party members would romance (Viconia isn't interested in an elf due to her racism, for instance). You had to pick the correct dialogue, which often wasn't as simple as agreeing with everything the NPC said or just being nice to her. There was no big heart icon to indicate "SELECT THIS RESPONSE TO CONTINUE THE ROMANCE" as in Dragon Age 2. Certain actions could upset your party members enough to end any romances in progress; there was nothing like Tali in Mass Effect 2 deciding that she really loves Shepard in spite of his tendency towards a bit of cold-blooded murder every now and then.

[Stun]

I suspect that BG romances would be quite unappealing to...certain members...of "modern" BioWare's audience.

An understatement. They'd hate them. They'd burn BSN to the ground with their self-righteous entitlement rage.

 

And it would last forever. When David Gaider, Jennifer Hepler, Mary Kirby, Luke Kristjanson and EA's customer service reps got done calming down the SJWs who were e-lynching them from twitter to youtube for refusing to accommodate Gays, Lesbians, and "Others" by giving Viconia a p*nis, or making Jahiera go both ways, they'd then have to deal with the rest of the fanbase, who would blast them endlessly for what they did write. Content wise, the BG2 romances were very tame and way too fantasy-ish by today's standards. And they were.... hands free. You couldn't initiate them; you couldn't control them with approval points or "Heart" responses. And the biggest in-your-face of them all: Female PCs were stuck with...just Anomen. hahaha.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Stun

[barakav]

 Dragon age 2 romance was awful because the characters were very shallow (and they tried to force you into gay relationships without any escape option). There wasn't any convincing internal conflict that was interesting enough to  investigate in any of the npcs (They tried to do something like that with Isabella but she wasn't deep enough for me to care).

 

In most of the IE romances the main idea was to give you the ability to learn about or change/influence one of your companions, DA2 romance was only for show, because they had to put something like that in the game...

 

It is obvious they didn't have enough time for writing and were rushed by EA to release it too early.

 

I think Mass effect is a very well written series and so are its' characters but its' romance options are a bit lagged behind the main story. Anyway , it was still pretty nice even if it was dumbed down a lot with all of the hand holding (and the glowing hearts).

 

But I agree with you about Tali ,I think they made her a romance option only because some fans asked for it. It didn't always fit with her character.

Edited February 26, 2015 by barakav

[500MetricTonnes]

 Dragon age 2 romance was awful because the characters were very shallow (and they tried to force you into gay relationships without any escape option). There wasn't any convincing internal conflict that was interesting enough to  investigate in any of the npcs (They tried to do something like that with Isabella but she wasn't deep enough for me to care).

 

In most of the IE romances the main idea was to give you the ability to learn about or change/influence one of your companions, DA2 romance was only for show, because they had to put something like that in the game...

 

It is obvious they didn't have enough time for writing and were rushed by EA to release it too early.

 

I think Mass effect is a very well written series and so are its' characters but its' romance options are a bit lagged behind the main story. Anyway , it was still pretty nice even if it was dumbed down a lot with all of the hand holding (and the glowing hearts).

 

But I agree with you about Tali ,I think they made her a romance option only because some fans asked for it. It didn't always fit with her character.

Getting way off-topic here, but...

 

...the Tali romance is something I really came to dislike after several play-throughs of ME2. The main reason is that Shepard feels much too old for her, like a man in his mid-thirties pursuing a teenage girl. I just felt like a complete creep watching it. Were I in charge of writing, I would have had Tali develop a girlish crush on Shepard in the first two, only to have her get over it by the second game when she realises how shallow her feelings really are.

 

The worst, though, is the Ashley/Kaidan romance. A military officer pursuing a relationship with one of his subordinates is just a big no-no, in my books.

 

To be honest, I wonder if even BioWare enjoys their romances. I wouldn't surprised if it turned out that Gaider et. al. are sick to death of writing them, but keep doing it simply because the fanbase expects it. Nor would it surprise me if they spend their coffee breaks mocking the fans who throw hissy fits because Cassandra won't romance a female Inquisitor.

Edited February 26, 2015 by 500MetricTonnes

[Diogenes]

An understatement. They'd hate them. They'd burn BSN to the ground with their self-righteous entitlement rage.

 

And it would last forever. When David Gaider, Jennifer Hepler, Mary Kirby, Luke Kristjanson and EA's customer service reps got done calming down the SJWs who were e-lynching them from twitter to youtube for refusing to accommodate Gays, Lesbians, and "Others" by giving Viconia a p*nis, or making Jahiera go both ways, they'd then have to deal with the rest of the fanbase, who would blast them endlessly for what they did write. Content wise, the BG2 romances were very tame and way too fantasy-ish by today's standards. And they were.... hands free. You couldn't initiate them; you couldn't control them with approval points or "Heart" responses. And the biggest in-your-face of them all: Female PCs were stuck with...just Anomen. hahaha.

 

 

Don't use the term SJW unironically.

[NegativeEdge]

What are you, the language police?

[Diogenes]

Karma Police actually.

[Valmy]

Karma Police actually.

 

Is that a threat?

[Endrosz]

Threats of Eternity

[Leferd]

Iiked this thread more when we were discussing Angry Joe's PC street cred and posting his videos.

[dorkboy]

Ok, so Angry Joe loves PoE. What's unclear to me is why?