BruceVC

One that deliberately mocks the entire concept of video game romances... and does it via dry wit. Interestingly enough, Obsidian has the perfect writer on their staff for such an undertaking. Chris Avellone. Sorry that's not an answer that makes sense to me, maybe you can give me an example of a game where this has been implemented before? I prefer to dwell in the world of practical examples...not Never Neverland case studies

LOL There is no Dionarra romance arc in planescape torment. The game presents her to you as irreversibly DEAD. And last I checked, not even the committed promancers are into Necrophilia. Can you answer the question, what would be an acceptable Romance arc in a RPG?

I'm afraid I don't quite understand you. Could you define what you mean by "gimmick" in this context? I'll try. Ok, first off, The game does not let you romance Deionarra. She's dead before you begin it. But the game does let you talk to her ghost, and her dad, and read her journals, and find her ring, and experience her sensory stone. But none of that is for the purpose of "romancing her". It's for the purpose of rubbing your nose in the pure douchebaggery of one of your past incarnations. But it's not really necessary, because the game already does a good job reminding you, over and over and over and over, that you used to be a Douchebag. Deionarra is just there to add that extra 'I treated her like crap and I regret it now' element/dimension that many people think a personal story must have to be all edgy and emotionally deep. Wow that's very cynical considering how popular the Deionarra Romance arc is amongst people who aren't even committed Promancers, it seems like you would only be happy if there was no implementation or interpretation of any Romance in a RPG? So lets approach this a different way, what would be your definition of an acceptable Romance arc in a RPG?

It has raised "only" $48 million, and offers alien languages as stretch goal in $50 million. But still quite impressive. Yeah I know but no need to nitpick The point is more around the incredible amount of money that has been raised

I'm interested, if that lady is a ho how do you refer to the boss?

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/07/16/star-citizen-raises-48-million-future-stretch-goal-promises-alien-languages/ This is impressive, Star Citizen has raised $50 million and offers alien languages. Wowzers

Both. Conceptually, there's not a whole lot of difference between a friendship in an RPG and a romance in an RPG, except that the latter requires the usual expressions of affection, like "I love you too!", or an ESRB-policed sex scene, or the uncanny valley of 2 avatars kissing and hugging. And none of these add anything to a video game that a mature adult gamer would equate with "depth". Thus romances in video games are little more than a gimmick... a gimmick that can cause damage to the game's integrity. But the real problem is that they're a rather expensive gimmick and development studios adjust their budgets accordingly when choosing to put them into a game. I'd rather that money and time go elsewhere... into fundamental game features, not gimmicks. This type of view is why we never seem to find any kind of middle ground, if you can't at least try to understand that Romance is not some sort of "gimmick" for promancers then we will never agree on anything Its this dismissive nature that just because in your opinion there haven't been meaningful Romance implementations in the past that must mean there can't be any meaningful Romance in the future I find counterproductive to reasonable debate Also this biased view that somehow optional Romance impacts the integrity of the game....wow you talk about hyperbole. Can you give examples where the general consensus of a gaming community or where gaming journalists have made statements like "this game was ruined because of Romance"? I get you don't approve of Romance but your post is laughable with its relevancy, sorry Stun nothing personal. Just being honest

@ Hiro and Stun Lephys makes a lot of good points, maybe you should read carefully what he says without disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. Just a thought

Interesting post, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly Are you saying in DA2 that the flirtatious comments from party members towards Hawke basically only accentuated the Romance relationship at the expense of other emotions and experiences you may have had towards a particular NPC? No, what I'm saying is that the player's ability to control their PC was challenged by the game having the NPC flirt with the player - sometimes even past being turned down. The NPCs didn't give the player an ability to navigate the relationship before being hit on, thus a negative reception. Okay I see what you are saying, I didn't have this issue or think the flirting was inordinate because I obviously embrace that type of interaction. But I can see how that would be annoying

Interesting post, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly Are you saying in DA2 that the flirtatious comments from party members towards Hawke basically only accentuated the Romance relationship at the expense of other emotions and experiences you may have had towards a particular NPC?

That's unusual but appreciated input, I'll keep that in mind

Well I think romance can add a unique connection to a story or character; I think a well written other relationship can do the same. A lot of it, from a storytelling perspective, is that its going to depend a lot on the player's definition of character and the definition of the NPC. To me the important thing for any relationship is they're well thought out, well implemented and ideally such that they do not sublimate the NPC to work. That's a good post and on most levels I agree with it. But where we differ is I still say that Romance creates a unique connection to your party members that other types of relationships don't. But this is only in the RP sense and how you imagine your characters journey, trials and tribulations. This is not something you can easily define in the literal sense In other words its important that the option exists to Romance even if the dialogue options around friendship and Romance are very similar. This may sound confusing and I can explain it in more detail if necessary

After finishing Legends of Grimrock I am going to take a quick break from fantasy gaming and start on Far Cry 2 tomorrow night. I loved Far Cry 3 and heard number 2 is also very good

What if I bought you the game as a present because I want you to experience the excitement like the rest of us, would you accept it?

I agree, Chechens have a history of brutality even amongst the ranks of Islamic fundamentalists

I'm going to buy this game, its a good price on GOG

Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really? So...wouldn't that mean you're being cheated of the obviously superior PC-NPC relationship if you can't romance every companion at the same time (as exclusivity would require that you miss superior romance relationships)? In a RPG this shouldn't make a major difference as the dialogue options are more or less similar if you Romance or don't Romance. But if you choose to not Romance someone or you attempt to Romance someone and fail you may be cheated out of certain quests or developments, like the Lolth attack on Viconia in BG2 that I believe was Romance initiated But end of the day the Romance option is more of RP development that shouldn't penalize a person who chooses not to participate O..kay? So a romance is "always...deeper and ... more meaningful" but it "shouldn't make a major difference" and "shouldn't penalize a person who chooses not to participate"? Isn't that contradictory? Its either deeper and more meaningful - and thus superior, or its just a different, equally viable alternative relationship, surely? In other words, you didn't answer the question posed to you. You dodged it. We weren't discussing marriage and kids. And citing marriage as "proof" that romances are always deeper, or even potentially deeper is really silly, since most romances don't result in marriage anyway, and even the ones that do aren't necessarily deeper than a good friendship. The point remains. All Relationships run the entire spectrum of depth. We've all had friends we value more than some of the people we've dated. And vise versa. Therefore, your claim that Romance is always deeper is false. I have been thinking about what you guys are saying and I am going to change what I originally said. Romance doesn't always mean the relationship is deeper or more meaningful. Thanks for helping me understand that, I was wrong But of course in the context of an RPG I still maintain that Romance adds to a more immersive and memorable RP experience with your party members

Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really? So...wouldn't that mean you're being cheated of the obviously superior PC-NPC relationship if you can't romance every companion at the same time (as exclusivity would require that you miss superior romance relationships)? In a RPG this shouldn't make a major difference as the dialogue options are more or less similar if you Romance or don't Romance. But if you choose to not Romance someone or you attempt to Romance someone and fail you may be cheated out of certain quests or developments, like the Lolth attack on Viconia in BG2 that I believe was Romance initiated But end of the day the Romance option is more of RP development that shouldn't penalize a person who chooses not to participate

Yes that is true. My friends are extremely important to me Are you going to actually answer his question? Or does everyone on this thread have to sit here and watch your slimy debating style for 10 more pages? He's got you. The fact of the matter is that it IS a spectrum. We've all had friends we value more than some of the people we've dated. And vise versa. Therefore, your claim that Romance is always deeper is false. "slimy debating style " That made me laugh, I didn't think this debate made such a big deal to you that you feel the need to make a personal attack on people who don't agree with you But no sadly, no one has "got me". But nice try I merely acknowledged that my friends are very important to me but that doesn't change the fact that my ex-fiancée was equally important to me, if not more so. I can't marry my friends and have kids with them now can I?

How very simplistic to only see relationships in such a short range. And while romance may be deep for you, someone else may see a different type of relationship as being deeper than romance. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that friendship isn't important. It is very important. But once again if you become Romantically involved with someone and there is intimacy then you normally become even closer. So you move away from a platonic relationship to the next level You've had friends that were more important than people you've dated in the past right? It's a spectrum. Yes that is true. My friends are extremely important to me

How very simplistic to only see relationships in such a short range. And while romance may be deep for you, someone else may see a different type of relationship as being deeper than romance. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that friendship isn't important. It is very important. But once again if you become Romantically involved with someone and there is intimacy then you normally become even closer. So you move away from a platonic relationship to the next level

I remember we discussed this game, I'm going to purchase it

No. You can have deep and meaningful relationships without having them be romances. The mentor and student is one. The parent and child is another. And there may be instances (eg. vocation) where a person can't have a romance but still experience deep and meaningful relationships. Sure but if you are asking "what type of Relationship is the most deep" then apart from family obviously if you are Romantically involved with someone then that would normally be more significant? So for example a person would normally be closer to there wife or husband than a friend right? ( or they should be)

Woldan what does the company you work for do?

There are many NPC interactions you can have that are deep and meaningful and can be explored without having to resort to romance. Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you actually have a Romance relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really?