Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hmm, they could it build-up in PoE 2 and then bring it to it's conclusion in part 3, give it time and more breathing space. And it shouldn't be honey and flowers all the time. The most interesting aspect about the Aerie romance is, that she IS annoying and why shouldn't she? She is traumatised and did only baby steps to deal with it. Sure, sje is nice but her niceness isn't all that is to her. 

 

It's work, but it is also rewarding at the end and that's why this romance stuck to me, compared to Morrigan (where it was more about sex, but that was okay, until she declared her love to me ... luv, I am your first lay, you will find better, trust me).

 

In Pillars 1 I never found it plausible, but now we do it for the second time and have actually friends that I can believe can be more, because we trust them and may find some aspects of them attractive. Pallegina for example is more than her sexy accent or her feathers or her temper, or her sense of justice. Mhm, sexy sense of justice ... where was I?

Edited by Harry Easter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKfupO4ZzPs

 

I have a feeling this thread will top the cenobites in torture soon enough.

  • Like 3

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlsnot

"You need to be careful, lest I write another ten page essay on mythology and how it relates to Sailor Moon." - majestic

"I won't say what just in case KaineParker is reading" - Bartimaeus

"Oh no! Is there super secret ending as well? I don’t care." - Wormerine

"Get some poor minorities, that keeps WASPs away easy." - Malcador

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently tracking high compatibility with Josh, he should strike up a conversation with me.

 

Q5znIw9.gif

 

I think it's great that Obsidian is stepping up to the plate with relationships. It seems they are really taking the feedback to heart and are prepared to do something very enriching.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... did I get it right, companions will get romance, but my protagonist will not?  ;(

 

Actually, that'd be really kind of cool.

 

The annoucement made me quite cheerful, since the main thing I took away was not romances, but better relationships in general with (and between, from the implications) companions. Which is the most important point for me.

 

 

Edit:

 

THAT VIDEO WITH JOSH. Could not stop laughing. Great stuff!

 

After reading that, I thought I probably ought to watch it properly.

 

I got 22 seconds into that video and had to stop, because there's is absolutely no way I can possibly watch that video while simultaneously trying to paint my tanks and I really need to do that today.

Edited by Aotrs Commander
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What BioWare did was even worst. Female has way more options on romance than male in Inquisition. BioWare pruposely to be on the bias side and it's genuine why they have gone SJW. so screw them

 

I just love the implication that giving female characters more romance options is somehow bad and wrong (because SJWs)  :lol:

  • Like 13

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if they'll take into account combat stats in relationships.  If Eder and Aloth have a high friendship, will Eder favor helping Aloth in combat either in the AI or through a minor bonus of some kind?

 

If you keep getting a companion injured in combat, will that companion start thinking less of you?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if they'll take into account combat stats in relationships.  If Eder and Aloth have a high friendship, will Eder favor helping Aloth in combat either in the AI through a minor bonus of some kind?

 

If you keep getting a companion injured in combat, will that companion start thinking less of you?

 

A cool idea, to offer negative or positive rewards in % during combat based on your relationship status. You have a strong bromance with Eder and you receive the Got Your Back while fighting next to Eder for a small defense bonus because he is mindful to shift his shield now and then toward you for protection between attacks. In the event Eder has negative thoughts to you, perhaps a shield bash goes wrong during battle and stuns you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I wonder if they'll take into account combat stats in relationships.  If Eder and Aloth have a high friendship, will Eder favor helping Aloth in combat either in the AI through a minor bonus of some kind?

 

If you keep getting a companion injured in combat, will that companion start thinking less of you?

 

A cool idea, to offer negative or positive rewards in % during combat based on your relationship status. You have a strong bromance with Eder and you receive the Got Your Back while fighting next to Eder for a small defense bonus because he is mindful to shift his shield now and then toward you for protection between attacks. In the event Eder has negative thoughts to you, perhaps a shield bash goes wrong during battle and stuns you.

 

 

The problem with past examples of these mechanics is that it encourages players to game the system and just pick the +Approval option in all dialogue, while it punishes players who roleplay a coherent character - turning it even more into a mindless game of up the numbers. Tyranny tried to get around this by providing different combat bonuses based on high respect or high fear, but the issue remains that you're encouraged to look at the bar and say "I just have to insult/praise him one more time and I get the combat ability!". It would be like rewarding players with a unique item after they have sex with Aloth, or whatnot. 

 

The best dialogue moments in RPG history - Ravel, Myrkul, etc. - often involve no unnecessary gameplay bonuses or token rewards, so that both the writer and the player can focus fully on the situation, the words, the themes. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope they keep the romance stuff to a bare minimum (if applying it at all in the end). I can't recall a game where it would've worked and I'd hate to need to monitor the CNPC's in order to avoid some weird honeydrenched moments popping up. The companion relationship stuff otherwise is well and good.

Edited by Undecaf

Perkele, tiädäksää tuanoini!

"It's easier to tolerate idiots if you do not consider them as stupid people, but exceptionally gifted monkeys."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I wonder if they'll take into account combat stats in relationships.  If Eder and Aloth have a high friendship, will Eder favor helping Aloth in combat either in the AI through a minor bonus of some kind?

 

If you keep getting a companion injured in combat, will that companion start thinking less of you?

 

A cool idea, to offer negative or positive rewards in % during combat based on your relationship status. You have a strong bromance with Eder and you receive the Got Your Back while fighting next to Eder for a small defense bonus because he is mindful to shift his shield now and then toward you for protection between attacks. In the event Eder has negative thoughts to you, perhaps a shield bash goes wrong during battle and stuns you.

 

 

The problem with past examples of these mechanics is that it encourages players to game the system and just pick the +Approval option in all dialogue, while it punishes players who roleplay a coherent character - turning it even more into a mindless game of up the numbers. Tyranny tried to get around this by providing different combat bonuses based on high respect or high fear, but the issue remains that you're encouraged to look at the bar and say "I just have to insult/praise him one more time and I get the combat ability!". It would be like rewarding players with a unique item after they have sex with Aloth, or whatnot. 

 

The best dialogue moments in RPG history - Ravel, Myrkul, etc. - often involve no unnecessary gameplay bonuses or token rewards, so that both the writer and the player can focus fully on the situation, the words, the themes. 

 

 

If bonuses are used, there should always be a trade-off to the bonus.  Aloth, if friends with Eder, feels confidence that Eder 'has his back' as Sylvus suggests.  He casts faster if Eder is within X ft of him as he's concentrating more on the spell and not on the flow of combat as he's sure Eder has him covered.  This makes him easier to hit if an opponent gets past Eder to attack Aloth as long as Eder is within X ft of him.  The player then has to decide if the benefit of having them 'teamed' in formation outweighs the penalty.

 

(note this is just an example, I'm not sure the bonus appropriately scales to the penalty)

 

As far as the injury angle is concerned, I've often thought it'd be interesting to have the NPCs lose confidence in the PC if the PC kept using poor strategy.  If the wizard keeps getting whacked, why wouldn't the wizard start to complain over the lack of protection.  It could be an interesting conversation to play through.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...