Yet so many people forget that certain spell.

Bills to pay, mouths to feed, nothing in this mundus for free.

You don't know what a slippery slope fallacy is, do you?



Exaggeration.

No, but such "occupations" do exist in other games, and they work out quite well. I have no problem with them at all.

How does that work out for ya? :hubbahubba:


Don't need to, as it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.


Hmm, nope.

If I had to guess, I would expect something loosely related to Fable, but with a lot less of the foolishness (whislting, dancing a jig, showing your left ass cheek, posing like Arnold in the old Conan movies) to get attention, and with better dialogue options once a person becomes your spouse, friend or lover.

These things will likely be SOMEWHAT generic, but varied enough by locale, race, gender and character type that you would have to become seriously involved with a GREAT many NPCs, or else keep dealing with the same type of people, before you began to really realize the flaws of repitition.

Some quest relationships will likely have the option of developing into more lastic friendships and/or romances, but O dpubt that quest relationships will be the only available options. In all likelihood, you will have some chance with a good number of the unmarried villagers etc., though some of these may have more generic behaviours than their quest related counterparts.

For me it's not that I think marriage in-game is stupid, it's more that I'm taking the inclusion of marriage as a sign. A sign that maybe the devs aren't just adding new things but also changing the game to appeal to a larger fan base. Particularly a fan base who want something of a grand theft auto with swords. It isn't just AI, but also other things that could have been changed for the worse to appeal to other people. Of course I'm not stating this to be a fact and it might not even be happening at all, but it does make me think about it.

It's great you can do things like ..getting a job and getting married imo. If you don't want to then don't?
The more options we have the better,adds to the imersion. I will get married and get a job ...sounds bloody funny to me and i'll want to check it out!

I bet you do too OP

are you seriously

i mean

that is

just

what. seriously what.



except, you know, maybe they did? and marriage arose as a logical addition to that system? you have no [censored] clue how it works, you can't KNOCK IT if you have no information whatsoever as to how it functions other than WELL ANOTHER GAME DID IT THIS WAY SO OBVIOUSLY THEY DID IT EXACTLY THE SAME.



they're not going to go OH WELL GUYS LOOKS LIKE WE JUST GOT [censored] TOLD, LET'S JUST CUT OUT MARRIAGE AND HOPE GREED STILL BUYS OUR GAME. WE'RE SORRY BRO.

i really don't get your argument at all. you're saying THEY SHOULDN'T'VE ADDED IT BECAUSE MODDERS WOULD'VE DONE IT ANYWAY so if modders would've done it anyway what [censored] difference does it make if Bethesda added it or not? that's like complaining that Obsidian added hardcoe mode to New Vegas when modders would've done it anyway.

who gives a [censored] if it's in the game at launch or not? do you really think marriage is going to BREAK THE GAME? or that in the two weeks they spent implementing it they could've somehow magically fit three more factions AND spears into the game?

Alright, the whole "romantic companion" thing could work out. What about divorce? Or affairs? Or children? Children are in Skyrim, but I don't think they age. I also don't think they vary in age much, and a 6-year-old would be pretty painful coming out.

Oh, and what about same-six marriage? If you're going to offer hetero, you might as well offer homo.

I don't think marriage will break the game, couch. I think it's taking the game is the wrong direction. That's all.

-sighs- It works out very well for my point. Not yours. You are so missing the point here, its beginning to be ridiculous. What if I was to say that all the games I'VE played with those "occupations" DIDN"T work out so well? Who cares that YOU liked them. What if I didn't like them? And what if, on that basis, I felt that they were "useless" features to be added in Skyrim, and so I argued against them, despite the fact that they were OPTIONAL features that OTHER PEOPLE WANTED?

This is exactly what you are doing here.

Actually, if you knew what it meant, you'd realize that its directly related to this topic, and you'd realize how ridiculous your arguments are.

You could say that, but you'd be wrong. The marriage feature of Fable is universally perceived as a joke.

Well then, explain it for me. Create some sort of graph or presentation, please.

And this is a response to.....?

:D

Seriously, how could anyone be mad about more stuff to do, just because you can do something similar IRL?

You marry some widow and inherit a lordship and gain some clout for negotiating an important alliance. Maybe you marry to seal a political alliance with an influential family. Maybe you just want your own castle and marriage is the ticket to getting one. I can't say how marriage will work in Skyrim, but it doesn't have to be romantic. Then again, it might not be political at all. From what Bruce Nesmith says of it in the Skyrim Fan Interview ("You can even get married. If you own a house, your spouse will move in with you"), marriage looks to be simply domestic and romantic rather than political. Right now, I'm too curious about marriage to not want it.

Oh, so it could be offered as an alternative to simply killing people and stealing their possessions? And I'd rather not be forced into marrying someone in order to gain a castle or finish a quest.

Not to make us seem like the Doublemint twins, but I think you have said it all and said it well as a response.

The notions that no game has "ever" done the relationships well or that no one has "ever" liked them or that they "never added" anything are two parts opinion and one part just plain wrong.

People have definitely liked them. From the Sims to Fable and a host of other games featuring such things besides, people have liked them, and begged for expansions to be made to them. LOTS of people. Hundreds of thousands, and possibly even millions of people.

As ShadowWarrior said, game forums represent only a strident minortity of a games more fervent players. Usually players who are so into the game that they want to increase its value to them by having it cater ever more specifically to their interests. This is not entirely a bad thing, but when it becomes exclusive, abusive, and or starts pushing for fewer options for other players, it can turn into a real mess. What you can be reasonably certain of is that for every one person on these forums who feel a certain way about a feature, or the absence of a feature etc. etc., there are about ten thousand NON-formum members, people who never visit and might not even know about these forums, who feel the same way. And while, yes, that does mean there are tens of thousands of people who have no desire to see relationships in these games, it also means there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who very much want those features, and for whom those features definitely add value to the gameplay.

As to it being "done right" or "done well". Practice makes perfect, at least some of the time. An imperfect option with shortcomings is still often far better than no options at all.

we haven't seen children at all, so you can't really make this argument.

there are varying body types, with sliders, including potentially sliders for height. this system could very easily be used for children of varying ages. Fallout 3 had a baby. Skyrim could have babies.



maybe they will. nobody knows anything at all about how marriage works in Skyrim. i'm pretty sure if they couldn't reach some sort of in-house decision regarding same-six marriage they wouldn't implement the system at all. there's going to be a [censored]storm whichever way they go, be it from Fox or be it from liberals on Reddit.



i said this in an earlier thread: this is a series renowned for having no direction at all other than "pretty much anywhere you want to go". i honestly don't see how the game letting you marry somebody is any different from the game letting you become archmage.

That's like saying you don't want to kill a certain NPC as apart of a quest because you like them. In that case, don't kill the NPC. In your case, don't marry that person.

Slippery Slope Fallacy is highly simple.

If we let X do X then soon all of Y will Z.

Its inferring that allowing one small step in a given.direction will invariably lead to a huge leap in the same direction or a similar direction.

Its similar to Strawman, which is ignoring your opponents argument and substituing one you can more easily defeat..

Which is in turn similar to Reductio Ad Absurdum....reduce to absurdity....if we have marriage and banks n the game well end up with lawyers and payments and interest and loansharks and deductibles and.....

That last sentence might be an example of all three.

While Aranor had no fallacy in that post he had a classic Reducto Ad Absurdum/Strawman opener....

That's like.....

Which inevitably leads to a statement not all that similar to the statement the poster is.trying to argue against.

I'm tired of the whole, "It's optional, so therefore it's completely perfect for this game" approach.

I can, and did. I very much doubt there are going to be strollers and cribs all over the place.

Fallout 3 had a baby, sure, but only one and it was you, the player. Again, I very much doubt Skyrim will have infants or toddlers. I wouldn't be immersive at all if a group of goblins attacked a village and simply walked past all the infants. At least children can run away.

They might, and they will probably offer cross-species marriage as well, but what purpose would it all serve? What is so beneficial about such a feature that it couldn't just be left to the Creation Kit and modders?

Oh, it has a direction alright. You can't just do whatever you'd like to do. Also, becoming an archmage has a pretty large impact in how you play the game. Getting married and leaving your wife in an old shack you recently purchased, simply to see if there were any six scenes, doesn't seem like it impacts the game at all.


Yeah, I don't think so. The validity of an optional feature being challenged, no matter the feature, wouldn't be similar to what you described.

Why not just leave all features out and have players create them via the creation kit? Also, your last setence is pure speculation. You have no idea how it will truly function.

Oh, probably because many of the features in Morrowind and Oblivion were actually beneficial to the gameplay, unlike marriage. Choosing a class because you're role-playing is nice and all, but it has an impact on how you play the game (and not just from a mental standpoint). Marriage likely wouldn't, since it would only appease those who like to role-play. It's akin to offering the ability to wear women's clothing as a man, but requires much more work behind the scenes (and all that works takes away from other features that actually make the game what it is).