Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Instead of an explanation, I would've preferred they just straight up said (for people who wanted to know) who was romance-able or not. No explanation would really make me feel better at this point, because I feel like they knew that people wanted certain people to be options and led people on.  I don't mind the fact that Eder (in my case) isn't romance-able. I mind that it was something that I was led to believe could be possible. I know I set myself up for disappointment, but it doesn't change how I feel right now. And some of this could've been avoided if they just flat out said who the options were.

Yep. They were very careful to say it was about character relationships and not romances. And I think they did the character relationships pretty well. (Though why Aloth hates everyone is anyone's guess. He wasn't that surly in POE).
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of an explanation, I would've preferred they just straight up said (for people who wanted to know) who was romance-able or not. No explanation would really make me feel better at this point, because I feel like they knew that people wanted certain people to be options and led people on.  I don't mind the fact that Eder (in my case) isn't romance-able. I mind that it was something that I was led to believe could be possible. I know I set myself up for disappointment, but it doesn't change how I feel right now. And some of this could've been avoided if they just flat out said who the options were.

So this. Bioware is also stupidly resistant to doing this. They will announce *some* but they never give a full list of LIs with gender/racegating.

 

I think they think it's like revealing too much story information (mixed with Bioware having a shtick about not wanting to put explicit orientation labels on people). What they don't get is that for a lot of fans of romance content, this isn't story info so much as class/race/alignment info because some people *literally* use this as a component of how they build their character.

 

Like I put off replaying POE1 when I found out POE2 had romances until I knew who was romanceable because that changes what kind of character I will play in POE1. I just restarted POE1 last night.

 

That's kind of the issue at stake, at least for me. Not revealing who romances are is equivalent of like not revealing what the gods you can follow are or not revealing what the races for PCs are or whatever. It is core stuff.

Edited by Ontarah
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Obsidian never promised a romance with Edér.

But that is not the problem. The problem apparently is that they never specifically excluded a romance with him. They knew he was a popular choice for a romance, they left the possibility open and by that they mislead people into spending money on something that they would not deliver.

 

Wow. Alright. I'm trying to understand this kind of process of thoughts.

 

In that case I would say, if you think that way, you should probably not join a crowd funding campaign. Then you really should wait until the game is out and buy it based on hard facts. So you know what you pay for before buying it. You wouldn't feel betrayed then.

Edited by Fluffle
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, personally, I like it when they do NOT announce in advance who the romantic interests are and who has which sexuality.

Because then I tend to put too much weight on that one aspect of a character. A character is so much more than just this one part of them. And I don't want to reduce them to their sexuality or romance-ability only. But I admit that I do that to a certain degree if they announce in advance who the romances are.

 

This might actually make me miss/neglect interesting other characters who happen to not be romanceable or happen to be "incompatible with my mainchar's sexuality".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think you are massively misunderstanding the issue: transparency. Considering the number of people who backed this game and were looking forward to romances, myself among them, the manner in which they portrayed the "relationships" in the game during development comes across as a bit underhanded. I mean, considering that it appears that Eder and Pallegina can't be romanced, with Eder probably being the most sought after romance, it seems slightly mean-spirited/spiteful to say "We've added relationships!" only to reveal that it's not with the characters everyone wanted. If they had been transparent about it, there probably wouldn't have been as much of an issue. If they felt that adding a relationship would be detrimental to the character, or simply did not fit the character's personality, or did not feel confident in their ability to write a decent romance, I'd have no problem, so long as they explained that. However, the fact that they didn't seems like they intentionally mislead people. 

 

Honestly, I'm tempted to say that they didn't mention this specifically to appease the backers who wanted the romances. "Hey, we gave you what you wanted, just not how you wanted it, which essentially means we didn't give you what you want, but thought we were clever about it... Wait, you're mad?"

 

A little honesty goes a long way, and this does not feel honest. Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, and they intend to do something in one of the DLCs, but if they don't, I feel like there's been a bit of a breach in trust. 

 

 

My recollection is that Obsidian was very careful to say "relationships" and not "romances," and that they clarified that not everyone would be romanceable.  I remember that because I was excited about relationships that weren't romances.  My Watcher wants to be bash brothers with Eder and shield sisters with Pallegina, not get into their pants.

 

 

There in lies the issue. The wording is very precise and very misleading. It's rhetoric 101. Regardless, this is a kickstarter project. It's fundamentally built on the principle of good faith. People should not have to pay attention to wording as if they were reading a legal contract. If they were aware some people had misread, the onus was on them to clarify.

 

So, Obsidian never promised a romance with Edér.

 

But that is not the problem. The problem apparently is that they never specifically excluded a romance with him. They knew he was a popular choice for a romance, they left the possibility open and by that they mislead people into spending money on something that they would not deliver.

 

Wow. Alright. I'm trying to understand this kind of process of thoughts.

 

In that case I would say, if you think that way, you should probably not join a crowd funding campaign. Then you really should wait until the game is out and buy it based on hard facts. So you know what you pay for before buying it. You wouldn't feel betrayed then.

 

As I just stated, crowd funding is about good faith. You are trusting them to deliver a product with your money. To sit there and say that people have no right to feel slighted because they were mislead is even harder to fathom than my thought process. The issue is not that they failed to deliver. The issue is that there was no explanation given for why. Crowd funding cannot work if there is no trust between the funder and the funded. How can companies expect to get funding without making people feel as if they can be trusted with their money? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I've been lurking around this thread and I made an account to jump in.

 

My personal issue with Eder not being a romance option reflects a lot of what has been already said. There is a kind of expectation from consumers that they're getting what they paid for. I understand 'development integrity' as a principle, however, Obsidian developed this game in the Kickstarter fashion - meaning that unlike big AAA companies like Bethesda and Rockstar they're getting their money for development directly from the base rather than fronting it internally and then earning it back later. Just like you don't have to immerse yourself in this fiction if you don't like it, so you don't have to back this game either. There's more pressure to provide results, at least on Obsidian's end, because people would stop believing in the product they provide, and there would as a result be less cashflow for future Kickstarter projects they want people to invest in. It's a give and take relationship, and for something as minor as a romance (especially one that's been as insanely popular and demanded as Eder), it's expected, not a favor. Whether or not you think Eder should or should not have been a romance, it's difficult to deny the principle it's built on, which is fulfilling consumer expectations. Products are designed for consumers, not for anything else (of course, video games can be considered art, which is a whole different can of worms. But from a business perspective, it's designed for the consumers). 

 

I love Obsidian as a developer, that's why I am here. But I'm also a Ron Swanson-esque free market person, and I'm a bit disappointed at this choice.

 

Hopefully it will be included in a future DLC!

 

I have a somewhat different perspective.  When I participate in crowdfunding a game-- and I've done so over a dozen times-- I'm paying the developers to make the kind of game that couldn't or wouldn't be made using "traditional" funding sources.  I want the developers to stay true to their artistic vision, not (say) add multiplayer because it helps sell DLC.  Because I trust that people with decades of game-making experience can make better games when they don't have to go through design by committee.

 

I certainly hope the developers listen to crowdfunder feedback, and incorporate good ideas where appropriate.  That's one of of the benefits of crowdfunding!  But I reject the notion that developers have to or should add some feature merely because the crowdfunders want it.  That's design by committee, that's how "big studio" games are made, and that's *not* what I'm paying for as a crowdfunder.

 

[Aside: I don't mean to suggest big studio games are awful, and I love my big budget RPGs as much as the next gamer.  Just noting that the whole point of crowdfunding is to free the developers from having to incorporate things that funders demand.]

Edited by Balbanes
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case I would say, if you think that way, you should probably not join a crowd funding campaign. Then you really should wait until the game is out and buy it based on hard facts. So you know what you pay for before buying it. You wouldn't feel betrayed then.

 

 

As I just stated, crowd funding is about good faith. You are trusting them to deliver a product with your money. To sit there and say that people have no right to feel slighted because they were mislead is even harder to fathom than my thought process. The issue is not that they failed to deliver. The issue is that there was no explanation given for why. Crowd funding cannot work if there is no trust between the funder and the funded. How can companies expect to get funding without making people feel as if they can be trusted with their money? 

 

 

But people already explained in this thread.

 

The devs were very careful to speak of relationships only NOT of romances.

Also they said characters whose authors would not feel it, would not get a romance.

They also stressed that not everyone would be satisfied/pleased with the choices of the romances.

 

And based on those statements people got their hopes up that Edér must be romanceable. Otherwise Obsidian would intentionally be misleading people.

 

Yes, that is really not easy for me to understand.

 

In any case, I find it very unlikely that we reach a common ground. I think the only thing we could maybe agree on is that in future you should not join a crowd funding by Obsidian anymore if you feel they are misleading people intentionally?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, personally, I like it when they do NOT announce in advance who the romantic interests are and who has which sexuality.

 

Because then I tend to put too much weight on that one aspect of a character. A character is so much more than just this one part of them. And I don't want to reduce them to their sexuality or romance-ability only. But I admit that I do that to a certain degree if they announce in advance who the romances are.

 

This might actually make me miss/neglect interesting other characters who happen to not be romanceable or happen to be "incompatible with my mainchar's sexuality".

Sure, but this is avoidable by just not reading such an announcement. *Spoiler*List of romance contained within*Spoiler*

 

People who don't want to know can just move on with their day.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok, I've been lurking around this thread and I made an account to jump in.

 

My personal issue with Eder not being a romance option reflects a lot of what has been already said. There is a kind of expectation from consumers that they're getting what they paid for. I understand 'development integrity' as a principle, however, Obsidian developed this game in the Kickstarter fashion - meaning that unlike big AAA companies like Bethesda and Rockstar they're getting their money for development directly from the base rather than fronting it internally and then earning it back later. Just like you don't have to immerse yourself in this fiction if you don't like it, so you don't have to back this game either. There's more pressure to provide results, at least on Obsidian's end, because people would stop believing in the product they provide, and there would as a result be less cashflow for future Kickstarter projects they want people to invest in. It's a give and take relationship, and for something as minor as a romance (especially one that's been as insanely popular and demanded as Eder), it's expected, not a favor. Whether or not you think Eder should or should not have been a romance, it's difficult to deny the principle it's built on, which is fulfilling consumer expectations. Products are designed for consumers, not for anything else (of course, video games can be considered art, which is a whole different can of worms. But from a business perspective, it's designed for the consumers). 

 

I love Obsidian as a developer, that's why I am here. But I'm also a Ron Swanson-esque free market person, and I'm a bit disappointed at this choice.

 

Hopefully it will be included in a future DLC!

 

I have a somewhat different perspective.  When I participate in crowdfunding a game-- and I've done so over a dozen times-- I'm paying the developers to make the kind of game that couldn't or wouldn't be made using "traditional" funding sources.  I want the developers to stay true to their artistic vision, not (say) add multiplayer because it helps sell DLC.  Because I trust that people with decades of game-making experience can make better games when they don't have to go through design by committee.

 

I certainly hope the developers listen to crowdfunder feedback, and incorporate good ideas where appropriate.  That's one of of the benefits of crowdfunding!  But I reject the notion that developers have to or should add some feature merely because the crowdfunders want it.  That's design by committee, that's how "big studio" games are made, and that's *not* what I'm paying for as a crowdfunder.

 

[Aside: I don't mean to suggest big studio games are awful, and I love my big budget RPGs as much as the next gamer.  Just noting that the whole point of crowdfunding is to free the developers from having to incorporate things that funders demand.]

 

 

You just reiterated my point. I'm not saying they should or have to, but I am saying they should be clear and, keyword here, transparent. If you join a crowd funding campaign that features a single-player campaign with multiplayer, and you are supporting it for the campaign, only to discover that they decided to scrap it for full multiplayer campaign at launch day, you are going to be angry. Why? Because they didn't explain that they had scrapped the campaign. Will it matter if they used the words "campaign with multiplayer" instead of "single-player campaign with multiplayer"? Absolutely. It will make you feel mislead. Potentially betrayed. Yet, they were technically truthful in that they provided a "campaign with multiplayer". Does that explain where some of the frustration may be coming from? 

 

If they were to explain why that single-player campaign was scrapped for a multi-player campaign, you might not be as angry.

Edited by Durandal.IV
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it is:

 

This is a product I own. This is not a project or vision that belongs to me.

 

When they stated that there was going to be relationships and went further to say 'rivalries, friendships and maybe even romance' I knew that was an indicator that there would be mixture of those, and not a promise. If the authors of each character feel like the character they created did not desire a romantic relationship, I can respect that because the character is their vision, not mine and I want to see the story they tell. While its upsetting if I can't see that character in romantic light with my character, I don't think that detracts from my experience because there's still the whole narrative out there to explore.

 

Eder's choice in Iselmyr may have already been there in the works to begin with, Pallegina not wanting a romance may be because she's Asexual, who knows? but again, just because we give them money to entrust them to create a great product, doesn't mean we can also commandeer their decisions as well. 

 

It's ok to be upset, but I don't think they mislead anyone because they specifically outlined what would be in it and did not say it would apply to everyone evenly. Also I don't know if its advantageous to tell prior to the release who is romanceable or not because then that creates: A demand for characters to be romanceable that may make their core character deviate from what makes them 'them' also it can create scenarios where other characters are not given attention because they aren't romances. Or somehow they become less intriguing because we cannot that facet of their personality.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fine with Éder not being a romance option - even though my Watcher would have totally hit that if she could! - but I do wish that game companies would stop keeping romance options a secret. I don't think DA2 was ruined when BioWare told us about the four core romances on the Valentine's Day before release. In fact, the forms were filled with delight and speculation, and it stopped too many people getting their hopes up about Varric and Aveline. I wish they'd have done the same thing before Inquisition and told us all at once instead of letting us all stew and argue for months. Let people get any disappointment and bitterness over beforehand instead of being upset while they're actually playing the game!

 

I know they don't want to spoil too much of the story, but given that romances are side content and they're more than willing to tell us who the companions and factions are in advance, I don't see any reason to conceal this stuff.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In that case I would say, if you think that way, you should probably not join a crowd funding campaign. Then you really should wait until the game is out and buy it based on hard facts. So you know what you pay for before buying it. You wouldn't feel betrayed then.

 

 

As I just stated, crowd funding is about good faith. You are trusting them to deliver a product with your money. To sit there and say that people have no right to feel slighted because they were mislead is even harder to fathom than my thought process. The issue is not that they failed to deliver. The issue is that there was no explanation given for why. Crowd funding cannot work if there is no trust between the funder and the funded. How can companies expect to get funding without making people feel as if they can be trusted with their money? 

 

 

But people already explained in this thread.

 

The devs were very careful to speak of relationships only NOT of romances.

Also they said characters whose authors would not feel it, would not get a romance.

They also stressed that not everyone would be satisfied/pleased with the choices of the romances.

 

And based on those statements people got their hopes up that Edér must be romanceable. Otherwise Obsidian would intentionally be misleading people.

 

Yes, that is really not easy for me to understand.

 

In any case, I find it very unlikely that we reach a common ground. I think the only thing we could maybe agree on is that in future you should not join a crowd funding by Obsidian anymore if you feel they are misleading people intentionally?

 

 

Stressing that characters might not get a romance is not the same as saying they will not. One is a possibility, the other is definitive. What you are essentially saying is that I should not crowd fund unless I have blind faith in the company. If I can't trust them, then I am definitely not going to fund them. THIS IS MY POINT. Crowd funding requires trust. How is this a difficult concept?

 

Anyone is going to tell you that trust is essential in a crowd funding project! What do you think the point of the updates is?! To reassure backers that their trust is well placed. Devs aren't doing this because they have nothing better to do. If anything, it's a waste of resources. They do it because it's essential to not only ensuring that backers don't ask for a refund, but to draw other backers in by demonstrating that they can be trusted.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could somebody help me? How does Xoti's romance work?

 

Maia and Tekehu have both initiated conversations with me some time after reaching +1 in disposition regarding the fact that they have interest in me, but not Xoti. There were a couple of flirting dialogue options with her (which I used), but nothing more serious, unlike with Maia and Tekehu. Does any one have any advice? Should I advance Xoti's personal quest a bit more, or it won't help and I'm screwed anyway? Does anyone remember when Xoti initiated the romance dialogue in your case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Stressing that characters might not get a romance is not the same as saying they will not. One is a possibility, the other is definitive. What you are essentially saying is that I should not crowd fund unless I have blind faith in the company. If I can't trust them, then I am definitely not going to fund them. THIS IS MY POINT. Crowd funding requires trust. How is this a difficult concept?

 

Anyone is going to tell you that trust is essential in a crowd funding project! What do you think the point of the updates is?! To reassure backers that their trust is well placed. Devs aren't doing this because they have nothing better to do. If anything, it's a waste of resources. They do it because it's essential to not only ensuring that backers don't ask for a refund, but to draw other backers in by demonstrating that they can be trusted.

 

 

Yes, because unless you have money to waste it is far too valuable to spend on a product about which you do NOT know the definitive facts.

 

A crowd funding campaign is NOT about definitive facts. You only get the hard facts after the game comes out. Only then can you know for sure what is in the game and what is not in the game. Only then can you make the decision of buying a product of which you know for certain what it contains and what it does not contain.

 

You do not know that in a crowdfunding campaign. It requires TRUST, yes. Obviously your trust was disappointed. So you'll have to make the decision if you would support another crowd funding campaign by Obsidian or not.

 

We seem to have a different idea of what trust during a crowdfunding campaign means. For me, it means that I do NOT know all the facts about the product and DESPITE that I spend money on it. I am spending money on a product of which I cannot be certain that I will like it. That's almost crazy if you think of it and can only be justified with A LOT OF TRUST.

 

But that trust is no guarantee that I'm going to like (every aspect of) the product. Not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You admit that a crowd funding campaign needs trust. But why does it need trust?
If you knew all facts you wouldn't need any trust. You need the trust for the very reason that you don't know all the facts.

But that is the very thing you are complaining about: That you didn't know the facts.

 

That is exactly what a crowdfunding campaign is about. Spending money on something you don't know everything about.

And that is a risk.

 

Actually this incident should show you what kind of risk this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowdfunding is like investing in stocks. It is an investment you hope has good returns. It might only end up giving you crappy .5% returns. People treat it like it's a commission for an artist. It's not. It's an investment that may or not pan out.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I've been lurking around this thread and I made an account to jump in.

 

My personal issue with Eder not being a romance option reflects a lot of what has been already said. There is a kind of expectation from consumers that they're getting what they paid for. I understand 'development integrity' as a principle, however, Obsidian developed this game in the Kickstarter fashion - meaning that unlike big AAA companies like Bethesda and Rockstar they're getting their money for development directly from the base rather than fronting it internally and then earning it back later. Just like you don't have to immerse yourself in this fiction if you don't like it, so you don't have to back this game either. There's more pressure to provide results, at least on Obsidian's end, because people would stop believing in the product they provide, and there would as a result be less cashflow for future Kickstarter projects they want people to invest in. It's a give and take relationship, and for something as minor as a romance (especially one that's been as insanely popular and demanded as Eder), it's expected, not a favor. Whether or not you think Eder should or should not have been a romance, it's difficult to deny the principle it's built on, which is fulfilling consumer expectations. Products are designed for consumers, not for anything else (of course, video games can be considered art, which is a whole different can of worms. But from a business perspective, it's designed for the consumers). 

 

I love Obsidian as a developer, that's why I am here. But I'm also a Ron Swanson-esque free market person, and I'm a bit disappointed at this choice.

 

Hopefully it will be included in a future DLC!

 

I can accept the argument that if you are going to have romance options making your most popular character an option is probably sensible from a business standpoint but one could also argue that letting the writer do what they want with their character and not interfering just for the purposes of fan service is also sensible. 

 

This game was not funded based on any kind of assumption that Eder would be a romance option. The first game didn't have that option and romance was not in the initial pitch for this game. Romance was part of the relationships stretch goal which promised deeper relationships between you and your companions and between the companions themselves. Part of that was that some of those relationships may become romantic but they never indicated who with or how many. You say it is expected from backers that Eder will be an option but I backed this game and I did not expect this, I know for a fact some backers of this game would rather there were no romances at all. 

 

You argue that they should have popular romance options to get people to keep backing their games and that this is some expectation from backers but again this very game disproves this. Deadfire was successfully funded off the back of the last game which had no romance options. Yet it was successful and many backers were compelled to back the sequel and people like me who didn't back the last game backed this one based on enjoyment of the last. 

 

Really what the consumers of this game for the most part expect is the resurrection of an older genre of video games and a nostalgia trip. Romance is a nice bonus for some. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really sorry to interrupt the discussion (first post, yay!) but I've found a few more things concerning Aloth as a LI on Tumblr? They might have been mentioned before, but this thread's expanded so rapidly today that I can't keep track o.O

 

Essentially, as far as I can tell, Aloth gives the exact same response to his first flirt option regardless of your character's gender - i.e., he doesn't say he's not into guys. Also, another user has gone through the data and noticed that there aren't gender checks for any of the romances, although I understand that's probably what the Reddit post is talking about?

 

Not sure this is grounds to edit the first post but it seems more and more likely Aloth is definitely available to all Watchers...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently interested in whether the romances have branching ending cards (particularly for Aloth). I'm probably going to go dig through the files when I get home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowdfunding is like investing in stocks. It is an investment you hope has good returns. It might only end up giving you crappy .5% returns. People treat it like it's a commission for an artist. It's not. It's an investment that may or not pan out.

 

Investments do not have a good faith component. Investments are about risks and gains. You don't need to trust a company to invest in it. It's a game of probabilities. Crowd funding is not. Is there risk? Certainly. They can abscond with your money and run off. Hence why trust is needed. The issue is not that something was not provided, but that there was no clarity. This isn't about having all the facts. I don't want all the facts. I'd have no motivation to play the game if I had all the facts. I do want an indication of what I am funding. You can't have crowd funding without the crowd, and you can't have crowds without individuals who comprise them. And those individuals need to be able to trust that the product they are funding is the product they agreed to fund, which requires a certain level of transparency and explanation.

 

We have really deviated here. I was never arguing that we shouldn't fund the game. I quite enjoy it. I have no regrets. 

 

What I was arguing about was the nature in which they advertised the relationship system!

 

I will repeat my initial argument again, because I feel like I'm going to forget it: The issue is not that there are no romances, or that they weren't implemented in the way I wanted. The issue is that the relationship system was teased in a way that mislead a large number of people. These points may seem similar, but they are not. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently interested in whether the romances have branching ending cards (particularly for Aloth). I'm probably going to go dig through the files when I get home.

 

Yes, he does. It's pretty short though. Most of them are just a line or two, and relatively vague and open ended. Xoti's are the most detailed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is that the relationship system was teased in a way that mislead a large number of people. These points may seem similar, but they are not.

People get what you are saying. They disagree that Obsidian was misleading.

 

(Also tangential, but "trust" is absolutely needed with stocks inasmuch as you trust that given company 1) is putting out accurate information about their earnings and such and 2) that they are managed well enough to be competent. There's a reason people prefer investing in Google over, say, junk bonds from Venezuela and trust has everything to do with it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went back to look at how companion relationships-- which were introduced as a $3M strech goal-- were described during the Fig campaign.  Here's the money paragraph:


As far as where the relationships can lead, companions may develop strong feelings of camaraderie, loyalty, loathing, fear, contempt, or even love.  The culmination of these relationships may be a conversation, a scripted interaction, a special talent or ability, or even a unique item or recipe.  The important thing to our narrative designers is that we treat each relationship as its own unique story that develops in ways that feel true to the characters and themes of Deadfire.

 

Nowhere does the update say everyone is romanceable.  It just says that the Watcher can have different kinds of relationships with the party members, and one possibility for that relationship, among five others, is love.  I don't see how anyone could read the developer update and conclude that all companions are romanceable.

But I can see how someone who did not read the developer update might conclude that all companions are romanceable.  The update was made on Valentine's Day and references that fact.  There are pictures at the bottom suggesting that Eder, Pallegina, Aloth, and Tekēhu are romanceable.  The video even starts with a cheesy romantic setting, before abruptly noting that companion relationships are broader than romance.  

Perhaps those who feel jilted did not actually read through the post or finish watching the video, and thus missed the joke?

Edited by Balbanes
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really sorry to interrupt the discussion (first post, yay!) but I've found a few more things concerning Aloth as a LI on Tumblr? They might have been mentioned before, but this thread's expanded so rapidly today that I can't keep track o.O

 

Essentially, as far as I can tell, Aloth gives the exact same response to his first flirt option regardless of your character's gender - i.e., he doesn't say he's not into guys. Also, another user has gone through the data and noticed that there aren't gender checks for any of the romances, although I understand that's probably what the Reddit post is talking about?

 

Not sure this is grounds to edit the first post but it seems more and more likely Aloth is definitely available to all Watchers...

 

The idea was to include in the first post what was confirmed for sure, but the thread is growing fast and I haven't updated appropriately...

 

Anyway, I didn't see anyone disagreeing with the information from the Reddit thread, so I'll simplify the post to avoid any misunderstandings.

 

So I assume that at this point, we pretty much have confirmation that only LIs for straight female Watcher is Aloth and Tekehu?

 

Check the image in the first thread. It seems that except for Eder and Pallegina, all companions are romanceable.


sign.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The issue is that the relationship system was teased in a way that mislead a large number of people. These points may seem similar, but they are not.

People get what you are saying. They disagree that Obsidian was misleading.

 

(Also tangential, but "trust" is absolutely needed with stocks inasmuch as you trust that given company 1) is putting out accurate information about their earnings and such and 2) that they are managed well enough to be competent. There's a reason people prefer investing in Google over, say, junk bonds from Venezuela and trust has everything to do with it).

 

 

Honestly, I'm just being contrary right now. 

 

Concerning your first point, there are laws in place to force them to do that. I would argue fear of the law is a bigger motivator than trust of the investor. Nortel comes to mind. 

I actually feel that point two is also motivated by law. They need to be competent so they don't get fined or jail time.

 

Also, Google is a bad example as it is currently a well established international company. If you are referring to early Google however, I will partially agree. Early Google wasn't initially funded by crowds or the public, but by a handful of private investors who were familiar with the field. They were all individuals who were trained in computer science, which means that they would have been knowledgeable of what Google was offering. The only trust required would have been concerning whether or not they could implement the system. They didn't need to worry about how the system was accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...