1315 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

I believe they've confirmed that they will introduce a romance element in Fallout 4 involving followers. 
 

 

And from what I understand, it's regardless of gender. The darkness is spreading! 

[Angry_Elcor]

Then kindly point me to one of your post where you already explained why the statement "BW is famous for inclusion of romances" or conclusion "cutting off an expected feature can harm game reputation" (not sure which one you find illogical) is not a "a logical conclusion".

 

Well, since what you quoted wasn't responding to either of those specific statements, it would be odd for me to provide an explanation for something that I didn't say, wouldn't it?

[Angry_Elcor]

Well going by google's algorithims it clearly appears to be the case.  I used my work phone which I have never used for game related searches in the past, so it won't be affected by preferences, apart from region.

 

*snip*

 

Google's search engine does not measure the reasons for game sales.

[Angry_Elcor]

Since the release of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, players have been hoping to see more romance dialog with Triss and Yennifer with fans creating 933 page forum thread on the very subject. CD Projekt Red is responding to that wish in a future patch, according to a statement made to Kotaku.

 

We've gone from using Google Search as proof of sales numbers to using the length of threads in a CDPR forum as proof of what BioWare fans want.

[KaiserShep]

We've gone from using Google Search as proof of sales numbers to using the length of threads in a CDPR forum as proof of what BioWare fans want.

 

Well, with CDPR and Bethesda getting more into it, there's at least evidence that this feature actually matters to more people than one would have assumed. 

[Amirit]

We've gone from using Google Search as proof of sales numbers to using the length of threads in a CDPR forum as proof of what BioWare fans want.

 

So, first you answer to my previous post waving it away as an illogical without explanation, then you blame post with a clear google search results demonstrating popularity of romance topics on BSN for every BW game (posted to show interest in the topic of BW fans) as something not a proof for sales number, and finally announce that demands for romances in another RPG too (posted for that very reason - to show universal interest in romances in different communities) is not a proof that BW fans want them!

 

Brilliant logic! Discussing anything with you is obviously pointless. I'll stop here.

[Angry_Elcor]

Well, with CDPR and Bethesda getting more into it, there's at least evidence that this feature actually matters to more people than one would have assumed. 

 

I'm not sure that's true. Or, at least, I'm not sure that it represents any difference compared to what I would have assumed. After a few years on the BioWare forums, I don't think I have any illusions about how many pages a thread about romance can reach. I wouldn't consider a 933-page thread on another forum as proof of much, since I'd be willing to bet real money that if we totaled up the number of pages in every thread about romance on TBF alone (not including BSN) it would dwarf 933 pages.

 

As far as CDPR goes, the inclusion of additional content as it relates to the romance plots is a specifically story-driven element of the game based on existing lore about the protagonist's previous love affairs. That's not the case with BioWare. BioWare fans are not asking for lore-based romances with fixed storylines and protagonists. In fact (I would assume that) most would specifically reject that idea, so I don't think it makes a good comparison.

 

And as far as Fallout 4 goes, barring a massive upheaval of the core concept behind the previous games, adding "romance" to the companions is unlikely to amount to much more than recording a few additional optional lines of dialogue. If it turns out to be much more involved than that, then it will represent a genuine and significant shift in their approach. That would be a noteworthy development, definitely. But none of us knows what the details are, so it is of little use to use Fallout 4 as evidence of how important it is for games to include romance.

 

Whether romance storylines make sense or should be included is something that should be approached on a case-by-case basis, rather than applied universally to all games.

[Angry_Elcor]

So, first you answer to my previous post waving it away as an illogical without explanation

 

The first post I made about logic was not in response to you. When I quoted your response, I pointed out that you presented a conclusion without a formal logical argument.

 

then you blame post with a clear google search results demonstrating popularity of romance topics on BSN for every BW game (posted to show interest in the topic of BW fans) as something not a proof for sales number

 

Blame it for what? How does blame have anything to do with what I said? I certainly never disputed the popularity of romance topics on BSN, but I did point out that Google Search auto-fill results don't prove anything with regards to sales - that part is true.

 

and finally announce that demands for romances in another RPG too (posted for that very reason - to show universal interest in romances in different communities) is not a proof that BW fans want them!

 

So a 933 page thread in another forum is proof of universal interest in romances? I had no idea that something someone else said in a different forum represented a universal interest that everyone shares with them.

 

Brilliant logic! Discussing anything with you is obviously pointless. I'll stop here.

 

 

I haven't brought logic into it. In fact, my original post about logic was a specific response to being told that an argument (that I hadn't even made) was an illogical one. You then quoted me and presented a conclusion without a formal logical argument. I didn't dispute the conclusion, only your assertion that it was logical.

 

But yes, it is certainly pointless to discuss something in a forum if you refuse to read what someone actually wrote.

[Natureguy85]

As far as CDPR goes, the inclusion of additional content as it relates to the romance plots is a specifically story-driven element of the game based on existing lore about the protagonist's previous love affairs. That's not the case with BioWare. BioWare fans are not asking for lore-based romances with fixed storylines and protagonists. In fact (I would assume that) most would specifically reject that idea, so I don't think it makes a good comparison.

 

 

This is key. In Witcher 2, we got a lot of story about Yennifer, Geralt's former lover. She's key to Geralt reconnecting with his past and possibly regaining the memories he's lost. Triss, on the other hand, has been in all three games. While have some choice in how much romance to have with her in the first two games, the intro to Witcher 2 makes it clear they are lovers.

 

The difference between this and what Mass Effect does is what that Escapist article was about. The difference is if romance happens along the main plot or if it's a side story.

[Angry_Elcor]

Just out of sheer curiosity

 

For the record, I didn't mean to skip past you without answering your question(s.) I blame the fact that you didn't call me "scrub" or suggest that I had sociopathic motivations, which made your post less likely to stick out!

 

what's the argument against romance content?

 

If I were to try and create a formal argument out of the OP, I guess it would be something like this:

 

If the romance content is moving away from being story-driven*; and the inclusion of romances requires writers to expend significant energy defending all decisions made regarding romance independently from their role in the story; then the writers should consider reducing or removing romance content to refocus energy on story.

 

The reason why I didn't make that formal argument in the first place is because the intent of the OP was to make a point using satire. If the satire were to be removed, and the suggestion reduced to a formal argument, it ends up making a different point from what was originally intended, which, while highly related, is also somewhat tangential.

 

*Note that whether they are story-driven or not has no bearing on their value to individual people, nor does it preclude or nullify arguments in favour of their inclusion.

 

I'm not the biggest fan (I'd rather they be scrapped), but considering Bioware has incorporated this feature increasingly in every game, I'd say it's likely they either believe it to be profitable or it simply fits the kind of games they want to make.

 

This gets mentioned a lot, but BioWare hasn't actually included romance in every game. Even so, it would be silly of me not to acknowledge that BioWare games have consistently included a romance formula for quite some time. I don't doubt that their inclusion is more complex than a simple formula. I doubt every developer at BioWare thinks that the company would be doomed or significantly suffer if they were removed. I also doubt that every developer considers them one of BioWare's vital ingredients. More likely, the opinions are varied and nuanced, as they would be in any collection of people (even those who share common interests.)

 

What I'm very certain of is that the writers have to spend a lot of time and energy defending every decision they make with regards to romances, whether or not those decisions are even related to the game's story as a whole. I can't wave a magic wand to fix the problem, but pointing out the existence of a problem in a satirical way seems like a reasonable thing to do.

 

I have actually enjoyed playing the content in the past. I genuinely don't care whether the content represents me, personally, or whether there is an LI character that I would actually date in real life. I only care whether the content is there because it makes sense to include it on its own merit.

[Jaquio]

Google's search engine does not measure the reasons for game sales.

 

Have you responded with any methodology beyond your own anecdotal beliefs?

 

 

Edit:

 

Since I'm tired of hearing this argument, PricewaterhouseCooper has analyzed and found "significant positive correlation" between google search trends and retail sales:

 

http://www.pwc.com/e...etail-sales.pdf

 

 

I'm certain people will still argue, because we live in a world where google's algorithms and the data analysis by economists of a heavy hitter in the world of finance can be summarily dismissed by "gut instinct" backed by zero evidence.

[daveliam]

Have you responded with any methodology beyond your own anecdotal beliefs?

 

 

Edit:

 

Since I'm tired of hearing this argument, PricewaterhouseCooper has analyzed and found "significant positive correlation" between google search trends and retail sales:

 

http://www.pwc.com/e...etail-sales.pdf

 

 

I'm certain people will still argue, because we live in a world where google's algorithms and the data analysis by economists of a heavy hitter in the world of finance can be summarily dismissed by "gut instinct" backed by zero evidence.

 

If you are going to link to a study, you should probably read the whole thing.  It very specifically states, "As such, searches for a particular brand do not as accurately forecast sales."

 

So, given that your entire argument is based around particular brands, I'd say that it's not the strongest argument.

 

Note:  I'm not dismissing the research.  I'm dismissing your interpretation of their research.

[Jaquio]

If you are going to link to a study, you should probably read the whole thing.  It very specifically states, "As such, searches for a particular brand do not as accurately forecast sales."

 

So, given that your entire argument is based around particular brands, I'd say that it's not the strongest argument.

 

Note:  I'm not dismissing the research.  I'm dismissing your interpretation of their research.

 

You literally took the second half of a contextual quote, deprived it of it's original context in order to change its meaning, and then used it as a basis for your rebuttal.  And then questioned my reading skills.

 

The quote in question is:

 

"It's worth noting, however, that the predictive accuracy of Google Trends data varies by retail category... Specialty retailers may show the highest correlation because they are closely associated with the particular brands they carry; as a result, brand search data and sales performance are more closely connected.  Also consider that mass retailers and home improvement stores may offer thousands of brands.  As such, searches for a particular brand do not as accurately forecast sales.  Location, product assortment and customer service may be of more significance to these larger retailers."

 

Your quote is literally discussing the specific case of large brick and mortar retailers.  And in fact that quote highlights that the highest correlation is with specialty retailers that are highly correlated with their brands.  Like, say, purchasing a game online from Origin.

 

 

 

As for general correlation:

 

"Our initial analysis shows search data positively correlates with both store and online performance and suggests it can be used as a bellwether for overall brand performance."

 

"In each instance, a model built on same-quarter Google Trends data significantly outperformed models based on historical sales data."

 

"This type of analysis could help a multibrand company better predict sales of individual brands in its portfolio."

[mickey111]

And from what I understand, it's regardless of gender. The darkness is spreading! 

 

Totally looking foreward to downloading wife rape mods off of loverslab

[Natureguy85]

Have you responded with any methodology beyond your own anecdotal beliefs?

 

 

Edit:

 

Since I'm tired of hearing this argument, PricewaterhouseCooper has analyzed and found "significant positive correlation" between google search trends and retail sales:

 

http://www.pwc.com/e...etail-sales.pdf

 

 

I'm certain people will still argue, because we live in a world where google's algorithms and the data analysis by economists of a heavy hitter in the world of finance can be summarily dismissed by "gut instinct" backed by zero evidence.

 

How relevant is that study to what we're discussing though? That is about predicting sales based on how much people are searching for your product. You're using search data on a product that has been out for years.  It certainly does show an aspect of that product that people are interested in, but we don't know for how many of those people the decision to buy depended on romances. It may be that it's an aspect that requires "Guide, Dang It!" so people search a lot.

 

It's not meaningless, but I don't know how far we can take it either.

[SmilesJA]

And from what I understand, it's regardless of gender. The darkness is spreading! 

 

Who's panicking? 

[Antmarch456]

If you don't like romances, then don't initiate a romance with someone.

 

Problem solved.

[Lady Artifice]

If you don't like romances, then don't initiate a romance with someone.

 

Problem solved.

 

817 replies in this thread, and I'd guess that maybe half of them are some variation of this post.

 

And I'm torn, because I strongly disagree with OP, and yet...I almost feel sorry for him. I'm in a complicated place right now. 

[KaiserShep]

Totally looking foreward to downloading wife rape mods off of loverslab

 

Sad times when I'm convinced that this an actual thing.

[SlottsMachine]

I believe they've confirmed that they will introduce a romance element in Fallout 4 involving followers. 
 

 

Well hopefully they actually craft some interesting followers then.

 

And from what I understand, it's regardless of gender. The darkness is spreading! 

 

Ewww. Playersexual? (if I understood your post properly)

[KaiserShep]

Ewww. Playersexual? (if I understood your post properly)

 

I don't know for certain, but that's what I gather.

[BabyPuncher]

Yeah, let's hope they're careful with that. I have more faith in Bethesda's writing than most here, but not with their companions.

 

But then, perhaps this is the first time they've devoted real resources and effort to them. First time for everything, after all.

[daveliam]

I'm not surprised by Bethesda's approach to romance in FO4.  They had 'romance' in Skyrim and it was also playersexual (and true playersexuality given that the characters expressed no sexuality on their own outside of being attracted to the PC).  I'm curious as to how it will work in FO4, though.  The followers in FO tend to have much more well developed personalities than in Skyrim.  Are they all going to be bisexual (not the same as playersexual) or are all they all going to completely avoid talking of their sexuality until they are available for romance to the PC regardless of gender (playersexual)?   I have a feeling it will be the latter since it's easier and less likely to have a bunch of people clutching their pearls in the presence of multiple bisexuals.  Damned if they do, damned if they don't, I suppose.

[WildOrchid]

I'm not surprised by Bethesda's approach to romance in FO4.  They had 'romance' in Skyrim and it was also playersexual (and true playersexuality given that the characters expressed no sexuality on their own outside of being attracted to the PC).  I'm curious as to how it will work in FO4, though.  The followers in FO tend to have much more well developed personalities than in Skyrim.  Are they all going to be bisexual (not the same as playersexual) or are all they all going to completely avoid talking of their sexuality until they are available for romance to the PC regardless of gender (playersexual)?   I have a feeling it will be the latter since it's easier and less likely to have a bunch of people clutching their pearls in the presence of multiple bisexuals.  Damned if they do, damned if they don't, I suppose.

 

It's most likely the latter.

Also Bethesda never was that good with romances, making them complicated and such but i'm hoping FO4 romances become slightly better than the bad skyrim ones with the "i'm interested in you" - "Me too" = get married.

[Natureguy85]

817 replies in this thread, and I'd guess that maybe half of them are some variation of this post.

 

And I'm torn, because I strongly disagree with OP, and yet...I almost feel sorry for him. I'm in a complicated place right now. 

 

Why, because those posters either didn't read the OP or didn't comprehend it?