Best ORIGINAL lore in an RPG....

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

[QUOTE="dreman999"] Your missed my point completely. It's impossible for anything we do to not have a human element involved. And I'm referring to all the thing we don't do that are not automatic bodily functions. From making thing to using things, it's impossible not to have a human element involved. Everything we do is based on are preference, psychic as well as how a story reflects to us and how it deep the story goes.

Your problem is that your looking too much at the complex content. Also, your looking at it on a purely writers level, too. Look at it at an artist level as well. Writers have to build and detail human element because that's the only they can apply those details. Artist have to make it apparent instantly to the viewer because they normally can't build it due to the nature of how their work is presented, which is why I use installations as examples

dreman999

It's a wrong interpretation, and quite frankly as a writer friend put it - borderline retardation.
It has taken a pseudo-intellectual juvenile to show how low this can go.

Now pay attention: In regard to media as art -Anything canhave a 'human element' in it it can be done with reasons, unintentional or it can be interpreted that way and so on.This can beexpressed in a multitude ofdifferent ways, through writing, audio, visual, mechanical function, use of space and place etc. However that does notmean everythingcontains 'the human element' in regard to media. To think think that is assuming that everythingis made with the same intention, and the same reason; to convey it.which is outright impossible and entirely wrong.

And don't ever say function can't contain a human element; games are first and foremost related to damn function, and games use function as their primary method of expression. If you want a game with a focus on 'the human element' of its subject matter, there's the board game Train; it's message is expressed entirely through its function as a game.

And no I'm not looking at it on a 'writers' level, how rich of you, and don't tell me I don't 'understand art'. I look at the piece for what it is *as you damn well should*, be it artistic merit, visual art design, writing, the damn meaning buried within it, the intention, what it has becomeetc. - what counts is what it does as there is no singular way increating something expressive; and that whole last sentence of yours is more utter nonsense. You've gone off on a tangent about visual art (****ing installation art really now) - we are not taling about games anymore are we?- and honestly are you a grade school art student, who finally sat down to read a text book, and now thinks they can curate the damn Guggenheim, because that's what this has become.

And wow, I'll just outright say your debating abilities are ****ing woeful.
"because that's the only they can apply those details."
What? That does not make sense, do you understand what you're trying to say? No, you're stubbornly acting like a git who's struggling to articulate their own point, which they don't even properly understand.

You're presenting yourself as having the capacity of a potato to take any a shred of what I'm saying, or even learn and understand that your own interpretation has more holes then a slice of swiss cheese.So please, break down Frogger while your at it, at least that will be funny.

Your point is wrong, your interpretation is wrong, you're not arguing a coherent point, you've repeatedly shown how you misunderstand topics and are flat out wrong with dumb notions, you can't even back up your point by addressing an example with your own backwards logic, and you've gone as far as proving yourself flat out incorrect.

The best you can do is actually learn and take in something, maybe gain a bit of perspective from someone who not only might have more experience in this field, as well as stronger understanding, but has gone to the trouble of constantly explaining the flaws in your interpretation with reason; and you don't even want to do that.

I'm done, if you don't even want to digest something on a surface level, thenI've wasted enough time on you.

"Now pay attention: In regard to media as art -Anything canhave a 'human element' in it it can be done with reasons, unintentional or it can be interpreted that way and so on.This can beexpressed in a multitude ofdifferent ways, through writing, audio, visual, mechanical function, use of space and place etc. However that does notmean everythingcontains 'the human element' in regard to media. To think think that is assuming that everythingis made with the same intention, and the same reason; to convey it.which is outright impossible and entirely wrong."

Do you know how contradictory this statement is?

How on earth does this make sense? All medium is ment to have human element. There is no medium with out it. You can't have a medium with out it.

If you don't understand this then you don't understand. You can be as fustrated as you want. But understand this....There ...can't.. be...medium ...without human element.

The mear fact the medium in general is ment for the user to take in means that it has human element. As I said before, your thinking that it has to have meaning to have a human element. That's not true. It can be simple or complex. Heck, an art piece with 2 colored squares on it has human elements.

Bang you head into a wall all you want, but untill you understand this, you won't understand and you are looking at this on a purly writers perspective.

You're assuming that everything is created with the same intention, as well as interpreted in entirely same way to convey a 'human element' which is absurd. While it can be conveyed and expressed and explored in a variety of ways, does not mean it always is; often it isn't. That was the paragraph you failed to understand.

Again, Frogger, go.

You're an idiot, and you can remain it.

I'm done here.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="GeoffZak"]

World of Warcraft without a doubt.

Go check out WoWpedia. The history of the Warcraft universe is so interesting and detailed.

I've read a lot of WoW's history and I don't even know the half of it.

GeoffZak

I don't get it. How? What are you hinting at? I don't know much about Illidan, but I know that Arthas died at the end of Wrath of the Lich King, and I'm ok with that. It's ok to kill off characters.

There ...can't.. be...medium ...without human element." Wrong. There's no rule to what a medium can be and is.You're assuming that everything is created with the same intention, as well as interpreted in entirely same way to convey a 'human element' which is absurd. While it can be conveyed and expressed and explored in a variety of ways, does not mean it always is; often it isn't. That was the paragraph you failed to understand.Again, Frogger, go. You're an idiot, and you can remain it. I'm done here.skrat_01

A story driven RPG HAS to have the human element, if it doesn't..what is the purpose of the story? Point you back to Ultima IV.texasgoldrush

Now traditionally many RPGs feature it, like the central Ultima series and still do; a good reason because there was a major focus on story and heavy involvement in characters, particularly party members when progressing through the central plot. Or in rare instances, it's integral to the plot (like Planescape, or even Kotor).

Depends on what kind of game it is. A game like Cthulu Saves the World, with its comedic drive, or Alpha Protcol's spy pulp isn't going to focus on it as much as Dragon Age's subplots for instance, as intentions are entirely different, despite these games being story driven.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]A story driven RPG HAS to have the human element, if it doesn't..what is the purpose of the story? Point you back to Ultima IV.skrat_01

Now traditionally many RPGs feature it, like the central Ultima series and still do; a good reason because there was a major focus on story and heavy involvement in characters, particularly party members when progressing through the central plot. Or in rare instances, it's integral to the plot (like Planescape, or even Kotor).

Depends on what kind of game it is. A game like Cthulu Saves the World, with its comedic drive, or Alpha Protcol's spy pulp isn't going to focus on it as much as Dragon Age's subplots for instance, as intentions are entirely different, despite these games being story driven.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]A story driven RPG HAS to have the human element, if it doesn't..what is the purpose of the story? Point you back to Ultima IV.texasgoldrush

Now traditionally many RPGs feature it, like the central Ultima series and still do; a good reason because there was a major focus on story and heavy involvement in characters, particularly party members when progressing through the central plot. Or in rare instances, it's integral to the plot (like Planescape, or even Kotor).

Depends on what kind of game it is. A game like Cthulu Saves the World, with its comedic drive, or Alpha Protcol's spy pulp isn't going to focus on it as much as Dragon Age's subplots for instance, as intentions are entirely different, despite these games being story driven.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]A story driven RPG HAS to have the human element, if it doesn't..what is the purpose of the story? Point you back to Ultima IV.texasgoldrush

Now traditionally many RPGs feature it, like the central Ultima series and still do; a good reason because there was a major focus on story and heavy involvement in characters, particularly party members when progressing through the central plot. Or in rare instances, it's integral to the plot (like Planescape, or even Kotor).

Depends on what kind of game it is. A game like Cthulu Saves the World, with its comedic drive, or Alpha Protcol's spy pulp isn't going to focus on it as much as Dragon Age's subplots for instance, as intentions are entirely different, despite these games being story driven.

Despite the writing,Alpha Protocol's gray approach to love-plots themselves is actually far more realistic than Bioware's "Be some nice guy ass-kisser" approach.

[QUOTE="dreman999"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Which makes your stupidly general interpretation of 'the human element relevant how'? My point has always been your idea of it is redundant as it is 'relevant to anything', as a result it loses both its meaning and definition. It's completely incorrect.

It's a wrong interpretation, and quite frankly as a writer friend put it - borderline retardation.
It has taken a pseudo-intellectual juvenile to show how low this can go.

Now pay attention: In regard to media as art -Anything canhave a 'human element' in it it can be done with reasons, unintentional or it can be interpreted that way and so on.This can beexpressed in a multitude ofdifferent ways, through writing, audio, visual, mechanical function, use of space and place etc. However that does notmean everythingcontains 'the human element' in regard to media. To think think that is assuming that everythingis made with the same intention, and the same reason; to convey it.which is outright impossible and entirely wrong.

And don't ever say function can't contain a human element; games are first and foremost related to damn function, and games use function as their primary method of expression. If you want a game with a focus on 'the human element' of its subject matter, there's the board game Train; it's message is expressed entirely through its function as a game.

And no I'm not looking at it on a 'writers' level, how rich of you, and don't tell me I don't 'understand art'. I look at the piece for what it is *as you damn well should*, be it artistic merit, visual art design, writing, the damn meaning buried within it, the intention, what it has becomeetc. - what counts is what it does as there is no singular way increating something expressive; and that whole last sentence of yours is more utter nonsense. You've gone off on a tangent about visual art (****ing installation art really now) - we are not taling about games anymore are we?- and honestly are you a grade school art student, who finally sat down to read a text book, and now thinks they can curate the damn Guggenheim, because that's what this has become.

And wow, I'll just outright say your debating abilities are ****ing woeful.
"because that's the only they can apply those details."
What? That does not make sense, do you understand what you're trying to say? No, you're stubbornly acting like a git who's struggling to articulate their own point, which they don't even properly understand.

You're presenting yourself as having the capacity of a potato to take any a shred of what I'm saying, or even learn and understand that your own interpretation has more holes then a slice of swiss cheese.So please, break down Frogger while your at it, at least that will be funny.

Your point is wrong, your interpretation is wrong, you're not arguing a coherent point, you've repeatedly shown how you misunderstand topics and are flat out wrong with dumb notions, you can't even back up your point by addressing an example with your own backwards logic, and you've gone as far as proving yourself flat out incorrect.

The best you can do is actually learn and take in something, maybe gain a bit of perspective from someone who not only might have more experience in this field, as well as stronger understanding, but has gone to the trouble of constantly explaining the flaws in your interpretation with reason; and you don't even want to do that.

I'm done, if you don't even want to digest something on a surface level, thenI've wasted enough time on you.

skrat_01

"Now pay attention: In regard to media as art -Anything canhave a 'human element' in it it can be done with reasons, unintentional or it can be interpreted that way and so on.This can beexpressed in a multitude ofdifferent ways, through writing, audio, visual, mechanical function, use of space and place etc. However that does notmean everythingcontains 'the human element' in regard to media. To think think that is assuming that everythingis made with the same intention, and the same reason; to convey it.which is outright impossible and entirely wrong."

Do you know how contradictory this statement is?

How on earth does this make sense? All medium is ment to have human element. There is no medium with out it. You can't have a medium with out it.

If you don't understand this then you don't understand. You can be as fustrated as you want. But understand this....There ...can't.. be...medium ...without human element.

The mear fact the medium in general is ment for the user to take in means that it has human element. As I said before, your thinking that it has to have meaning to have a human element. That's not true. It can be simple or complex. Heck, an art piece with 2 colored squares on it has human elements.

Bang you head into a wall all you want, but untill you understand this, you won't understand and you are looking at this on a purly writers perspective.

You're assuming that everything is created with the same intention, as well as interpreted in entirely same way to convey a 'human element' which is absurd. While it can be conveyed and expressed and explored in a variety of ways, does not mean it always is; often it isn't. That was the paragraph you failed to understand.

Again, Frogger, go.

You're an idiot, and you can remain it.

I'm done here.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="skrat_01"] Story driven doesn't necessarily have to, RPGs in general it don't have to at all; take something basic such as Serious Sam: The Random Encounter, or Diablo (focus on combat), or even Oblivion and Skyrim (story exists to drive and provide context to exploration focus).

Now traditionally many RPGs feature it, like the central Ultima series and still do; a good reason because there was a major focus on story and heavy involvement in characters, particularly party members when progressing through the central plot. Or in rare instances, it's integral to the plot (like Planescape, or even Kotor).

Depends on what kind of game it is. A game like Cthulu Saves the World, with its comedic drive, or Alpha Protcol's spy pulp isn't going to focus on it as much as Dragon Age's subplots for instance, as intentions are entirely different, despite these games being story driven.

skrat_01

Where you getting this Idea that I think that every thing is created with the same intention or interpretation? I never one referred to that.... Everything has it own interpretation based on it's viewer or user. Human element is all about multitude of ways something can be interpret because of how far range human behavior and psychology can go. I never said things can be look at one way and the concept of human element isn't looked in one way ether. I'm just say the very nature of human element mean it's a strong tie to any medium we do. We really can't have any medium with out it. The fact that frogger is using personification and even design as a game where the player is moving a frog across the road means it has a human element and is not a function

dreman999

And now I know you don't know what your talking about. Without good human element in the story, how would the viewer/read even be able to care about the story at all. Human element is the driving force in building the characters in the story, if it's not built well we don't care for the characters thus don't caring for the story.

dreman999

Yeah, absolutely. And the cool runes that you must use to read information in the Ultima series was just awesome.

Hope there will be a good remake in the near future (can't wait to use the words of power (Ultima V)). :cool:

[QUOTE="dreman999"]

Where you getting this Idea that I think that every thing is created with the same intention or interpretation? I never one referred to that.... Everything has it own interpretation based on it's viewer or user. Human element is all about multitude of ways something can be interpret because of how far range human behavior and psychology can go. I never said things can be look at one way and the concept of human element isn't looked in one way ether. I'm just say the very nature of human element mean it's a strong tie to any medium we do. We really can't have any medium with out it. The fact that frogger is using personification and even design as a game where the player is moving a frog across the road means it has a human element and is not a function

skrat_01

And now I know you don't know what your talking about. Without good human element in the story, how would the viewer/read even be able to care about the story at all. Human element is the driving force in building the characters in the story, if it's not built well we don't care for the characters thus don't caring for the story.

dreman999

Oh, my God. I can't believe this sh!t is still going.

Give it up, skrat. Arguing with the drones never goes anywhere.

Would the Metroid Prime trilogy count? (i know the topic is about RPG but i feel it still need a mention)

I LOVED reading the entries as i scanned them.

< 3 omega pirate entry.

Oh, my God. I can't believe this sh!t is still going.

Give it up, skrat. Arguing with the drones never goes anywhere.

DarkLink77

^this man knows the truth. So many religiously worship crappy plot, which I found out is just a codeword for ass.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Oh, my God. I can't believe this sh!t is still going.

Give it up, skrat. Arguing with the drones never goes anywhere.

ChubbyGuy40

^this man knows the truth. So many religiously worship crappy plot, which I found out is just a codeword for ass.

[QUOTE="Jag85"] While FF VI had the better overall storyline, FF X was much more unique as a storyline. While FF VI was also unique for the most part, in the end it falls back on the "save the world" plot by having Kefka being intent on destroying the world at the end. On the other hand, FF X has nothing to do with "saving" the world or stopping some villain from destroying the world, but was about bringing an end to the current state of affairs in the land of Spira (and along with it, Tidus's dream), which remains the focus through to the end. In that sense, FF X had a more unique storyline than FF VI.texasgoldrush

Oh, my God. I can't believe this sh!t is still going.

Give it up, skrat. Arguing with the drones never goes anywhere.

DarkLink77

[QUOTE="dreman999"] No, that in its entirely, was utterly stupid. You're a pseudo intellectual moron, with understanding of a highschooler and the capacity of a potato to take in information; and I've wasted enough time on you. [QUOTE="dreman999"] Also, in your second point, who said anything about emotional investment. I just said the viewer has to care about the characters to care about the plot. Deep emotion is not needed to keep the viewer engage,the writer can easily use human curiosity and mystery to have a lure in the plot. This still draws interest in the characters in the plot whether shown or looked into by the other characters in a story. Face it, you can have a good plot with out good use of human element.skrat_01

Oh, my God. I can't believe this sh!t is still going.

Give it up, skrat. Arguing with the drones never goes anywhere.

DarkLink77

Ha....If you can even show me a define definition of "human element' then you then you can have your ground to try and lean your warp narrow views on me. You have yet to full expressed why I'm wrong, you just keep expresssing your narrow view.

dreman999

This is a silly general term being thrown around in the context of games, traditionally it's about the array of human behaviour and psychology. It's such a general term we can waggle a finger at emergent games, complex systems and immersive sims filled with complex reactive npcs, this side of actual non-orchestrated interaction between players through game systems, and building a fictional setting. Silly, silly general stuff. What you're talking about is written NPCs in particular, and how the writing and focus on dialogue characterises them far more then the action, which yeah, has plenty of weight, it's Bioware's major strength. But that term is as flimsy as the word dynamic and linear being thrown around, it's pretty diluted.skrat_01

This is a term relative to its context: In industrial design, is different to literature; trying to interpret it with a general blanket dilutes it.
"I repeat, you're an idiot, and the, majority of your paragraph is nigh unreadable, and again, you missed my point to begin with. I'm done."

Definitely Fallout and Deus Ex.

[QUOTE="dreman999"]

Ha....If you can even show me a define definition of "human element' then you then you can have your ground to try and lean your warp narrow views on me. You have yet to full expressed why I'm wrong, you just keep expresssing your narrow view.

skrat_01

This is a silly general term being thrown around in the context of games, traditionally it's about the array of human behaviour and psychology. It's such a general term we can waggle a finger at emergent games, complex systems and immersive sims filled with complex reactive npcs, this side of actual non-orchestrated interaction between players through game systems, and building a fictional setting. Silly, silly general stuff. What you're talking about is written NPCs in particular, and how the writing and focus on dialogue characterises them far more then the action, which yeah, has plenty of weight, it's Bioware's major strength. But that term is as flimsy as the word dynamic and linear being thrown around, it's pretty diluted.skrat_01

This is a term relative to its context: In industrial design, is different to literature; trying to interpret it with a general blanket dilutes it.
"I repeat, you're an idiot, and the, majority of your paragraph is nigh unreadable, and again, you missed my point to begin with. I'm done."

"Your problem is that your looking too much at the complex content. Also, your looking at it on a purely writers level, too. Look at it at an artist level as well. Writers have to build and detail human element because that's the only they can apply those details. Artist have to make it apparent instantly to the viewer because they normally can't build it due to the nature of how their work is presented, which is why I use installations as examples"

Everything you stated in your example is based on a writers level of applying human element. Video games don't just use a writers way of applying human element. They didn't even start with applying a writes level of human element when they were first made. They started with an artistic/craftsman way of applying it that uses impact and simplicity Everything your using for an example of human element is what writers have to use to input human element.

look up an art piece called "garden o earthly delights/garden eden/ world before the flood" by Hieronymus Bosch. It's illustration is extremely complex but it message is simple. Video games use this.

Look up "The Rape of the Sabine Women". Video game use the same appliance of human element in these pieces.

As you said your self it's different in Literature, the problem is in your argument is that video games don't just use the concept of human element form literature.

And even with that video game have a 3rd appliance to it's human element art and literature don't have, Interactivity.

Video games don't just use a writers way of applying human element.

dreman999

And don't ever say function can't contain a human element; games are first and foremost related to damn function, and games use function as their primary method of expression. If you want a game with a focus on 'the human element' of its subject matter, there's the board game Train; it's message is expressed entirely through its function as a game.

skrat_01

look at the piece for what it is *as you damn well should*

You're assuming that everything is created with the same intention, as well as interpreted in entirely same way to convey a 'human element' which is absurd.

skrat_01

[QUOTE="dreman999"] You're an idiot.
I stressed this posts ago, repeatedly as you were struggling to associate function as a form of expression. You are incapable of understanding a basic explained point. [QUOTE="skrat_01"]

And don't ever say function can't contain a human element; games are first and foremost related to damn function, and games use function as their primary method of expression. If you want a game with a focus on 'the human element' of its subject matter, there's the board game Train; it's message is expressed entirely through its function as a game.

skrat_01

look at the piece for what it is *as you damn well should*

You're assuming that everything is created with the same intention, as well as interpreted in entirely same way to convey a 'human element' which is absurd.

skrat_01

Also, you have to consider interactivity as a human element in games.

Face it, you can have a good plot with out good use of human element.dreman999

This caught my eye. Seriously, wtf?

Face it

dreman999

[QUOTE="dreman999"]Face it, you can have a good plot with out good use of human element.hakanakumono

This caught my eye. Seriously, wtf?

Arx Fatalis A post-apocalyptic fantasy world where the Sun dies and everyone has to eke out an existence underground.foxhound_fox

I gotta cosign with foxhound on this one, Arx Fatalis (with Ultima series not far behind).

Arx Fatalis has got to be one of the more underrated rpgs ever

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="skrat_01"] Story driven doesn't necessarily have to, RPGs in general it don't have to at all; take something basic such as Serious Sam: The Random Encounter, or Diablo (focus on combat), or even Oblivion and Skyrim (story exists to drive and provide context to exploration focus).

Now traditionally many RPGs feature it, like the central Ultima series and still do; a good reason because there was a major focus on story and heavy involvement in characters, particularly party members when progressing through the central plot. Or in rare instances, it's integral to the plot (like Planescape, or even Kotor).

Depends on what kind of game it is. A game like Cthulu Saves the World, with its comedic drive, or Alpha Protcol's spy pulp isn't going to focus on it as much as Dragon Age's subplots for instance, as intentions are entirely different, despite these games being story driven.

Kandlegoat

Despite the writing,Alpha Protocol's gray approach to love-plots themselves is actually far more realistic than Bioware's "Be some nice guy ass-kisser" approach.

[QUOTE="dreman999"]Face it, you can have a good plot with out good use of human element.hakanakumono

This caught my eye. Seriously, wtf?

skrat_01

I think this will end the dicussion of importance of human element in a story.

http://www.5min.com/Video/The-Human-Element-in-Literature-and-Life-290917134

ITT: people bickering about what is essentially the tallest midget.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="skrat_01"] Story driven doesn't necessarily have to, RPGs in general it don't have to at all; take something basic such as Serious Sam: The Random Encounter, or Diablo (focus on combat), or even Oblivion and Skyrim (story exists to drive and provide context to exploration focus). Now traditionally many RPGs feature it, like the central Ultima series and still do; a good reason because there was a major focus on story and heavy involvement in characters, particularly party members when progressing through the central plot. Or in rare instances, it's integral to the plot (like Planescape, or even Kotor). Depends on what kind of game it is. A game like Cthulu Saves the World, with its comedic drive, or Alpha Protcol's spy pulp isn't going to focus on it as much as Dragon Age's subplots for instance, as intentions are entirely different, despite these games being story driven. skrat_01

Lore-wise easily Mass Effect.

But I don't think it's completely "original" it's based on old cultural myths about "advanced civilizations existed before modern humans, were killed off by aliens, who come back every 10,000 years to complete another extinction."

Long before ME even came out, I heard the same story from my grandmother.

It's like old fables of Atlantis or dragons "hidden" in the world, vampires living among us, magic secretly existing, and so forth.

[QUOTE="Kandlegoat"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] No, Alpha Protocol attempts to capture th ehuman element, for instance the Mina and Madison love plots, and Sis's character, however, they do it very very poorly. .texasgoldrush

Despite the writing,Alpha Protocol's gray approach to love-plots themselves is actually far more realistic than Bioware's "Be some nice guy ass-kisser" approach.

You're speaking about the writing,I never said the game had better writing,I only stated the game handled relationships in a more realistic manner...learn to read dumbf*ck.

Human attraction cant be summed up with black and white "simply be a nice nurturing guy and they'll easily fall head over heels for you" like how it is in Bioware games...life isnt that simple

Each female in AP is attracted to a certain type of personality/demeanor and turned off to another....this is exactly how it is in real life.

Being a Aggressive Prick might turn off one female,yet another girl will be drawn to it.

A girl might go all gaga for some flirty arrogant suave guy....but another girl might thinks he's a "cocky self absorbed douchebag"

A nice nurturing guy thats "sensitive to every girl's need" might be considered attractive to certain females...but others might find it "pathetic,fake,or weak"

And anyone who's actually had experience with the opposite sex knows this...but then again,i'm speaking to a person that's apart of a fanbase that has online discussions about "what a female game character's sweat tastes like" ;)

The world is gray and not black and white when it comes to relationships or what others consider attractive and sorry to say,but Alpha Protocol has Bioware beat in this regard.

but Alpha Protocol has Bioware beat in this regardKandlegoat

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Kandlegoat"]

Despite the writing,Alpha Protocol's gray approach to love-plots themselves is actually far more realistic than Bioware's "Be some nice guy ass-kisser" approach.

Kandlegoat

You're speaking about the writing,I never said the game had better writing,I only stated the game handled relationships in a more realistic manner...learn to read dumbf*ck.

Human attraction cant be summed up with black and white "simply be a nice nurturing guy and they'll easily fall head over heels for you" like how it is in Bioware games...life isnt that simple

Each female in AP is attracted to a certain type of personality/demeanor and turned off to another....this is exactly how it is in real life.

Being a Prick might turn off one female,yet another girl will be drawn to it.

A girl might go all gaga for some flirty arrogant suave guy....but another girl might thinks he's a "cocky self absorbed douchebag"

A nice nurturing guy thats "sensitive to every girl's need" might be considered attractive to certain females...but others might find it "pathetic,fake,or weak"

And anyone who's actually had experience with the opposite sex knows this...but then again,i'm speaking to a person that's apart of a fanbase that has online discussions about "what a female game character's sweat tastes like" ;)

The world is gray and not black and white when it comes to relationships or what others consider attractive and sorry to say,but Alpha Protocol has Bioware beat in this regard.

[QUOTE="Kandlegoat"]but Alpha Protocol has Bioware beat in this regardThe_RedLion

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Kandlegoat"]

Despite the writing,Alpha Protocol's gray approach to love-plots themselves is actually far more realistic than Bioware's "Be some nice guy ass-kisser" approach.

Kandlegoat

You're speaking about the writing,I never said the game had better writing,I only stated the game handled relationships in a more realistic manner...learn to read dumbf*ck.

Human attraction cant be summed up with black and white "simply be a nice nurturing guy and they'll easily fall head over heels for you" like how it is in Bioware games...life isnt that simple

Each female in AP is attracted to a certain type of personality/demeanor and turned off to another....this is exactly how it is in real life.

Being a Aggressive Prick might turn off one female,yet another girl will be drawn to it.

A girl might go all gaga for some flirty arrogant suave guy....but another girl might thinks he's a "cocky self absorbed douchebag"

A nice nurturing guy thats "sensitive to every girl's need" might be considered attractive to certain females...but others might find it "pathetic,fake,or weak"

And anyone who's actually had experience with the opposite sex knows this...but then again,i'm speaking to a person that's apart of a fanbase that has online discussions about "what a female game character's sweat tastes like" ;)

The world is gray and not black and white when it comes to relationships or what others consider attractive and sorry to say,but Alpha Protocol has Bioware beat in this regard.

Be an ass to Ashley in ME1...see what happens.

[QUOTE="Kandlegoat"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Ummmm...hell no. The love stories in AP are very very forced. Madison had absolutely no real build up so the choice at the museum is very weak. SIE is just plainly idiotic, as was that character. Mina also lacks real build up, and Scarlet is just a sex toy. Contrast this with say Tali, Jack, or Thane in ME2, which had build up, especially Tali, and its not even close. While not all Bioware romances are great, Fenris in DAII for example, many of them are, like the ME2 characters I mentioned. And Miranda's romance had subtle build up.dreman999

You're speaking about the writing,I never said the game had better writing,I only stated the game handled relationships in a more realistic manner...learn to read dumbf*ck.

Human attraction cant be summed up with black and white "simply be a nice nurturing guy and they'll easily fall head over heels for you" like how it is in Bioware games...life isnt that simple

Each female in AP is attracted to a certain type of personality/demeanor and turned off to another....this is exactly how it is in real life.

Being a Aggressive Prick might turn off one female,yet another girl will be drawn to it.

A girl might go all gaga for some flirty arrogant suave guy....but another girl might thinks he's a "cocky self absorbed douchebag"

A nice nurturing guy thats "sensitive to every girl's need" might be considered attractive to certain females...but others might find it "pathetic,fake,or weak"

And anyone who's actually had experience with the opposite sex knows this...but then again,i'm speaking to a person that's apart of a fanbase that has online discussions about "what a female game character's sweat tastes like" ;)

The world is gray and not black and white when it comes to relationships or what others consider attractive and sorry to say,but Alpha Protocol has Bioware beat in this regard.

[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="Kandlegoat"]

You're speaking about the writing,I never said the game had better writing,I only stated the game handled relationships in a more realistic manner...learn to read dumbf*ck.

Human attraction cant be summed up with black and white "simply be a nice nurturing guy and they'll easily fall head over heels for you" like how it is in Bioware games...life isnt that simple

Each female in AP is attracted to a certain type of personality/demeanor and turned off to another....this is exactly how it is in real life.

Being a Aggressive Prick might turn off one female,yet another girl will be drawn to it.

A girl might go all gaga for some flirty arrogant suave guy....but another girl might thinks he's a "cocky self absorbed douchebag"

A nice nurturing guy thats "sensitive to every girl's need" might be considered attractive to certain females...but others might find it "pathetic,fake,or weak"

And anyone who's actually had experience with the opposite sex knows this...but then again,i'm speaking to a person that's apart of a fanbase that has online discussions about "what a female game character's sweat tastes like" ;)

The world is gray and not black and white when it comes to relationships or what others consider attractive and sorry to say,but Alpha Protocol has Bioware beat in this regard.

texasgoldrush

or instead i'll just go talk to a girl in real life.

You two would make such a cute couple BTW ;)

[QUOTE="Kandlegoat"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Ummmm...hell no. The love stories in AP are very very forced. Madison had absolutely no real build up so the choice at the museum is very weak. SIE is just plainly idiotic, as was that character. Mina also lacks real build up, and Scarlet is just a sex toy. Contrast this with say Tali, Jack, or Thane in ME2, which had build up, especially Tali, and its not even close. While not all Bioware romances are great, Fenris in DAII for example, many of them are, like the ME2 characters I mentioned. And Miranda's romance had subtle build up.texasgoldrush

You're speaking about the writing,I never said the game had better writing,I only stated the game handled relationships in a more realistic manner...learn to read dumbf*ck.

Human attraction cant be summed up with black and white "simply be a nice nurturing guy and they'll easily fall head over heels for you" like how it is in Bioware games...life isnt that simple

Each female in AP is attracted to a certain type of personality/demeanor and turned off to another....this is exactly how it is in real life.

Being a Prick might turn off one female,yet another girl will be drawn to it.

A girl might go all gaga for some flirty arrogant suave guy....but another girl might thinks he's a "cocky self absorbed douchebag"

A nice nurturing guy thats "sensitive to every girl's need" might be considered attractive to certain females...but others might find it "pathetic,fake,or weak"

And anyone who's actually had experience with the opposite sex knows this...but then again,i'm speaking to a person that's apart of a fanbase that has online discussions about "what a female game character's sweat tastes like" ;)

The world is gray and not black and white when it comes to relationships or what others consider attractive and sorry to say,but Alpha Protocol has Bioware beat in this regard.

Sexual encounters by nature are "sophomoric" and lack "commitment"

Sexual encounters by nature are "sophomoric" and lack "commitment"

Kandlegoat