Angry Joe LOVED Pillars Of Eternity

[Lephys]

Because science.

[Namutree]

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

He likes rpgs. He like real-time games. So his approval of a rpg with real-time combat should be no surprise.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Namutree

[Elerond]

 

 

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.

 

 

It don't matter are they nice towards pc or not, but that pc is the central character and they make that position stronger every time they focus on player character. Ego stroking can mean that everybody worship and love pc, but also characters that hate and betrayal pc are ego stroking because it shows that they think that pc is so important that they use their time to do those things. So in short ego stroking is all the things that make pc and their decisions matter. Companions are excellent way to ego stroke player as they are good and simple way to reflect player decisions and they also give writers options to forward story and also create conflicts that player need to solve (even more ego stroking).

[archangel979]

 

 

Ego stroking is one main purpose of companion characters, as that will make player feel that his character is important, loved, feared etc

 

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Opinion

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

 

Really it's nothing about that. Or Xzar and Montaro, Edwin or Xan make the player feel important and I've failed to see how. I know the first BG didn't put the same depth in its companions background, but they had personality nevertheless.

 

 

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.

 

If we apply your train of thought to food we would say all food is the same because it all just provides carbohydrates, proteins and fat for our body.

[Luckmann]

 

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.

 

 

Auugh, Anomen? Suuuuch white male cis priviliege.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Ego stroking is one main purpose of companion characters, as that will make player feel that his character is important, loved, feared etc

 

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Opinion

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

 

Really it's nothing about that. Or Xzar and Montaro, Edwin or Xan make the player feel important and I've failed to see how. I know the first BG didn't put the same depth in its companions background, but they had personality nevertheless.

 

 

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.

 

If we apply your train of thought to food we would say all food is the same because it all just provides carbohydrates, proteins and fat for our body.

 

 

All the food is food, but they come with different flavors, benefits and negatives just like ego stroking elements in games and too much one thing is usually bad thing. 

[archangel979]

Ah so now you are expanding it all even more are you? Then ego stroking is when you go into store and they tell you good morning. Maybe that person also want to romance you because you know, it is all the SAME! (according to you)

[Elerond]

Ah so now you are expanding it all even more are you? Then ego stroking is when you go into store and they tell you good morning. Maybe that person also want to romance you because you know, it is all the SAME! (according to you)

 

Ego stroking is things that make your character feel important and meaningful, in other words build up their ego.

 

I would point out that I actually argued against that latter statement.

 

But anyway I will drop this subject in this thread as it don't have anything to do with it.

[600lbpanther]

Some people need romance in games more than others. 

[Yellow Rabbit]

Some people need romance in games more than others.

Thank you, cap'n. Don't you by happenstance have an advice of how to preserve sanity talking with those "some people"?

[600lbpanther]

 

Some people need romance in games more than others.

Thank you, cap'n. Don't you by happenstance have an advice of how to preserve sanity talking with those "some people"?

 

 

Oh I always have advice.

 

#1 - Never give advice, nobody takes it anyways.

and to completely ignore my own advice

#2 - Understand that diversity is what makes people interesting (and frustrating).  If you were the same as me then I wouldn't want to talk to you as I would already know everything you know.  However, since we are different I can learn from you.  Now learning can be what *to* do as well as what *not to* do. 

#3 - Probably & most importantly:  It's just a game, so it's funny (not frustrating) to me that people are very serious about romance in games but to some of my friends / family it's funny to them that a 30-something year old man plays video games. 

 

Regardless of our viewpoints on romance and how "weird" they are or how "weird" it is to not have them in-game:  There are a lot of people who think we all are "weird" for being so dedicated to computer games or even that weird anime some of you are into.

 

Bottomline:  Romance weirdos are freaks without reason and need to be watched.  (jk)

[Yellow Rabbit]

^

Problem with diversity is that sometimes people differ so much they wouldn't understand points of each other even if they'd try. This usually happens with for-or-oppose topics, you know, like promancers and anti-promancers. My usual tactics in such case is not get involved or shut up ASAP

 

Anyway, PS:T is a great game regardless of romances or lack thereof in it. It would be interesting to compel Angry Joe into playing it and listen to what he'd have to say.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Yellow Rabbit

[Lord Wafflebum]

The BSN is on fire regardless of what Bioware does. BSN is where you go when you want to be convinced a plague would be a really good thing for the human race.

 

Additionally, Promancers are people too, folks.

[Lephys]

Pro-something vs. anti-something is almost always a preposterous dichotomy.

 

"ARE YOU PRO FOOD OR ANTI-FOOD?!"

 

Well, you probably want some varying degree of food, and have more specific feelings about different kinds of food, amounts of food, etc.

[Lord Wafflebum]

Pro-something vs. anti-something is almost always a preposterous dichotomy.

 

"ARE YOU PRO FOOD OR ANTI-FOOD?!"

 

Well, you probably want some varying degree of food, and have more specific feelings about different kinds of food, amounts of food, etc.

I don't know about you Lephys, but I'm American and only deal with dichotomies. Everything boils down to Republican vs. Democrat. EVERYTHING. Having a third (or more) choice is a joke choice (Green Party).

[Stun]

Pro-something vs. anti-something is almost always a preposterous dichotomy.

So you're... against taking sides

 

Anti-side-taker. That's what you are.

[Karkarov]

Anti-side-taker. That's what you are.

But by refusing to take a side he has in fact taken the side of the non side takers, therefore he has failed in his own agenda!  Lephys therefore must be a russian spy, he should be dealt with immediately so we can get back to our dichotomy. 

[Lephys]

So you're... against taking sides

 

Anti-side-taker. That's what you are.

. I appreciate the humor.

 

But, really, I'm just against limiting the sides to 2.

 

A 2-sided shape is just a line. Toss in a 3rd shape, and you have a triangle. That covers a LOT more area than a line does. Annnd that's kind of how restricting everything to pro/anti works. It's just silly.

 

I'm a "promancer," but I'd agree with plenty of "antimancers" who pointed out plenty of bad romances that other "promancers" would adore, purely BECAUSE ROMANCE!

 

But by refusing to take a side he has in fact taken the side of the non side takers, therefore he has failed in his own agenda!  Lephys therefore must be a russian spy, he should be dealt with immediately so we can get back to our dichotomy.

Nonsense... if I was Russian, wouldn't I have finished my mission by now? 6_u

Edited February 28, 2015 by Lephys

[Namutree]

 

But by refusing to take a side he has in fact taken the side of the non side takers, therefore he has failed in his own agenda!  Lephys therefore must be a russian spy, he should be dealt with immediately so we can get back to our dichotomy.

Nonsense... if I was Russian, wouldn't I have finished my mission by now? 6_u

 

That was cheesy even for you. Good work.

[Stun]

But, really, I'm just against limiting the sides to 2.

 

A 2-sided shape is just a line. Toss in a 3rd shape, and you have a triangle. That covers a LOT more area than a line does.

That's a terrible analogy (not to mention a geometric falsehood). A line can stretch infinitely. A triangle can't.

 

In the context of these debates that spring up on this forum, there's never 3 sides. There's only 2 sides. People like you just publically sit on the fence in between and sometimes take thinly veiled pot shots at one of the sides. Oh how I take great pleasure in pushing fence sitters off the fence.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Stun

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Is this a romance thread now? I thought we had a containment thread?

[Namutree]

The containment unit failed as they usually do.

[BruceVC]

 

But, really, I'm just against limiting the sides to 2.

 

A 2-sided shape is just a line. Toss in a 3rd shape, and you have a triangle. That covers a LOT more area than a line does.

That's a terrible analogy (not to mention a geometric falsehood). A line can stretch infinitely. A triangle can't.

 

In the context of these debates that spring up on this forum, there's never 3 sides. There's only 2 sides. People like you just publically sit on the fence in between and sometimes take thinly veiled pot shots at one of the sides. Oh how I take great pleasure in pushing fence sitters off the fence.

 

 

Thats  a big harsh. I have found Lephys to be more concerned with the principle of  reasonable debate and logic. People who don't understand this won't get his posting etiquette

 

Stun, and any others, I want to ask you a relevant question. You have answered this before but this is probably a good time to refresh your response...think about the question before you answer

 

What is your issue anyway with optional Romance arcs in RPG? I know you are passionate and vociferous in what you don't like about Romance but what is your primary reason for not wanting them ?

[BruceVC]

Is this a romance thread now? I thought we had a containment thread?

 

No its not about Romance but we are discussing Romance as its relevant to the topic for some reason I have forgotten 

[500MetricTonnes]

 

 

But, really, I'm just against limiting the sides to 2.

 

A 2-sided shape is just a line. Toss in a 3rd shape, and you have a triangle. That covers a LOT more area than a line does.

That's a terrible analogy (not to mention a geometric falsehood). A line can stretch infinitely. A triangle can't.

 

In the context of these debates that spring up on this forum, there's never 3 sides. There's only 2 sides. People like you just publically sit on the fence in between and sometimes take thinly veiled pot shots at one of the sides. Oh how I take great pleasure in pushing fence sitters off the fence.

 

 

Thats  a big harsh. I have found Lephys to be more concerned with the principle of  reasonable debate and logic. People who don't understand this won't get his posting etiquette

 

Stun, and any others, I want to ask you a relevant question. You have answered this before but this is probably a good time to refresh your response...think about the question before you answer

 

What is your issue anyway with optional Romance arcs in RPG? I know you are passionate and vociferous in what you don't like about Romance but what is your primary reason for not wanting them ?

 

Because the developers only have so much time available, and writing romances that don't feel shallow or tacked-on takes isn't really something you can put together in a day. And as others have pointed out, many people at Obsidian are indifferent or outright contemptuous of the notion of romances in RPGs, so why should they waste time putting in something they don't really want to?

 

Secondly, romance arcs tends hide a great deal of a character's backstory and personality from people who don't want their character to pursue a relationship with that person. In Baldur's Gate, for instance, a player who doesn't pursue a romance with Viconia will learn next to nothing about her.

 

Third, romances tend to attract a certain type of individual...we all know the type...the people who got mad because so-and-so character wasn't romantically available to their character...the people who make posts bringing their knowledge of biochemistry to bear on the question of what Tali's sweat tastes like...the people who post pictures in the "Alistair Gush Thread" of their purple-haired Mary Sue Cousland with Alistair...you get the idea.

 

You know, THESE people: