Stun

Oh yes it is. One of my definitions totally encompasses everything the promancers are going on about. Why do you think we've been talking about Ravel for the past 7 friggin pages?

There you go again, smugly returning to your spectator spot on the fence, after taking a pot-shot at one of the sides.

So, hang on... if you could boink your Skyrim spouse, it'd be romance? Boinking, or love dialogue between the couple, or love discussion between the couple, or some sort of recognizable relationship progression between the two after you're actually married, Or a combination of any of those, or you know, anything more than what the game actually gave us. Seriously. What's the difference between a Spouse and a Housecarl in Skyrim? Answer: absolutely nothing at all. Oh wait, I take that back. Your Housecarl calls you "my thane", while your spouse calls you "my love". And that's it. But If this is what passes as romance in the minds of Promancers, then I'm not sure what they're fussing against PoE for. Do you? Rest *assured* that any type of relationship between an NPC and the player character in PoE will be going a LOT deeper than that, even if they don't include any of those obnoxiously over-rated 4 letter words from the two characters as they talk to each other OR any of the standard relationship mini-games that the BSN eats up. Are you trying to be ironic? I'm the only person on this thread who has given a definition of romance. And I've given 2. Mine, and the implied collective definition of the masses, based on examples they've cited.

^I'm trying to identify this. How exactly is romance perceived by the gamers? And isn't it true that if we gather all these perceptions and describe them here we'll get something that looks impossibly broad and useless, like this: Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not

we are finally back to where we were before you tried to mislead and distract. congratulations. unfortunately, you aren't contributing new. there is no such thing as unrequited romance or non reciprocal romance. and there is no such thing as unrequited romance or non reciprocal romance in a crpg because, "there can't be." I explained why. re read the quote pyramid, thanks. It is not romance because nothing is going on between the two characters. (you might as well read a book and claim that one of its characters and you are engaging in a romance.) And in a video game, that is basically Larping/head canon. People do it all the time in RPGs. But that's not game design. It is simply the player pretending that something exists in the game when it doesn't. Here, I'll even give you an example: Skyrim. There's about 35 people you can marry in Skyrim. When you do marry them, they will call you "my love" and they'll move in with you when you buy a house. This is both unreciprocated and unrequited, since the game does not allow you to romance them, or return the affection/feeling in any way. Consequently, not many people on planet earth will ever claim that Skyrim has 35 romances.

thats not correct, It's not? Then how do you propose that a game developer even attempt to cater to a crowd that wants Romances when no one is even bothering to determine what this crowd sees as romance in the first place?

In a video game there isn't. There can't be. When you need Larping, or some other form of headcanon to create the illusion that romance between the two characters is occurring, then you've already failed. And the promancers will let you know it

So if we were to come up with a definition, it would necessarily need to be quite broad in order to cover all the different perceptions. Wouldn't you agree?

What? I did no such thing. I did the OPPOSITE. The subject here is, and always has been, video game romances. It was YOU who decided that such a topic was too narrow, and so YOU branched off and began talking about Love; Romance in literature; how T.S. Elliot and F. Scott Fitzgerald define Love etc. etc. Who are you kidding? <gag> I didn't ask anyone to give me their definition of a romantic story. And of course you won't give me (or anyone else here) your definition of a video game romance, because it would box you into a corner and you know it. And then you'd have to contend with the masses of posters here who'd pick apart this definition of yours on sheer principle alone. You mean a heavily guarded secret; an Achilles heel; a sure fire way to show the forum how warped your viewpoint on the subject really is. Boy, for someone who takes such vehement offense at generalizations, you sure do like tossing around the "promancer" label on this thread, don't you. Lets get down to the brass tacks, now, shall we? We are not discussing Love. We are not discussing romantic stories. We are not even discussing romances that occur in old books. We ARE discussing video game romances. Do you have a definition of what constitutes one or NOT? Because if not, then, what to you hope to accomplish with your little drama queen act here, condemning everyone's else's definitions but not actually offering up anything of substance to further the discussion?

Give us your definition of a video game romance.

Lol Choosing to ignore the nonsensical ramblings of this forum's premier white noise producer, should not be interpreted to mean that an argument with gromnir was 'untenable' or 'abandoned'.

Moral of the story: You can take the developer out of Bioware but you can't take the Bioware out of the developer.

True, there's not much new here (although he did explain some details about souls that was new to me). But... Man.... Watching something like this, when you know the game is only 3 weeks away just feels so much more powerful.

The camera is also zoomed in a lot more in the NWN2 pic (which makes a huge difference). And the rest of the game is Hardly as bright as Harvest-Day West harbor anyway. Wait till you go to the swamps.... Or Neverwinter City

This is a very interesting post. Especially in light of our PS:T discussion. For a couple of reasons. First off, I applaud you for finally pointing out what NO ONE ELSE on this thread (except for me) has: That Love does not automatically equate to Romance. That is the Bottom line here. Ravel Loves you. So what. She's not romancing you, nor are you romancing her. Past or present. Second, Does it matter whether you're romancing your cat? What about your cat's feelings? <-----this was the argument I gave when Someone here tried to repeatedly say that Since Ravel loves you, then that means there's a romance between TNO and Ravel. And then there's the racial...excuse me, SPECIES difference. And that raises a ton of new issues. You know, about how exactly can one conclude the existence of Romance, when one of the entities is a Hag from Hades (ie. another plane of existence. A plane of existence where the entire concept of Romance, as we know it, does not necessarily imply romantic love, so much as: " I love you so much that I desire to suck the blood from your body and then chew on your intestines and wear your skull on my head like a helmet and then re-animate the rest of your body to hang around and keep me company forever") But again, there are people who insist that Ravel is One of PS:T's romances, so to accommodate those people, we must broaden the definition of Romance to include what's going on between TNO and Ravel, as well as you and your cat.

Yes? Have you not been reading the last two pages? In an attempt to reconcile all viewpoints I have produced a clarified definition based on everyone's stance of what can pass as a video game romance. Here I'll re-post it: Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not. So far, no one has really taken issue with it, except for maybe Gromnir, but who the hell ever knows what he's babbling about 99% of the time?

I don't buy that. Clarifying your usage of the word isn't adjusting the definition. Oh, In that case, I've made exactly ZERO adjusting to the actual definition of Video Game Romances. Or anyone else's definition of video game romances.

Lets not forget the other "points" that will pop up in such a debate. People on the First Dude's side will then attempt to redefine "healing" so that it includes "actually worsening the affliction" or "not having any effect on scorbut whatsoever, but who cares, because Apples heal other afflictions... like hunger". While someone else will attempt to argue that according to ancient botanists, and thousands of successful produce vendors throughout history, there's really no relevant difference between Apples and Lemons, so that Second Dude is just resorting to semantics. And then there's the occasional semi-uninvolved posters: Mark: Lets remember that we're not just talking about Apples healing Scorbut, but "medicinal elements in general" Timmy: An apple a day keeps the Doctor away, but that's just a saying. In southeastern Zulu Custom, the Voodoo can break up marriages! Therefore Apples heal Scorbut Bobby: What's wrong with Apple Pie? Joey: You guys are dumb Mike: Your an idiot! Jeff: Ok, lets clear up one thing: Healing exists. And generally, eating and drinking healthy foods and beverages flushes the body of impurities. Second Poster: That's NOT what we're discussing! First Poster: Stop being so Obtuse! and admit you don't know what you're talking about! Ha Good Funny! ^There^^^ that's every romance debate in Obsidian forum's history.

That's exactly everyone who's ever posted here. Including the developers themselves.

What if there's no sharing at all? That's no secret. That's how the goalposts always get moved in these debates. In any discussion about romances in a video game, someone will bring up "romantic elements". And then a couple of pages later, someone else will argue that these romantic elements ARE romances. Next thing you know, the IE games are just glorified Dating Sims, so why can't PoE "carry on the tradition"? But *I'm* the obtuse scoundrel for trying to friggin reel us back with a more *focused* definition of Video game romances.

Yes. Thank you.

It's the truth. Gamers have dozens of different ways they define romances in video games. The only way to accommodate them all is to broaden the definition of romance so that it is exactly as posted.

Not at all. Take everyone's definition of what a video game romance is or can be, put it all together, and ^^^that^^^ is what you get. This has been demonstrated on every single romance thread ever done on this forum. Including the current one. Look what happened to me when I *dared* try to narrow that definition down. And Again, how else do you explain people coming on here and claiming that Skyrim had romances, and BG1 had romances, and Fall From Grace is romanceable? You can't. you can't explain such a thing without acknowledging that Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not. You mean video game romances?

You mean, besides the friggin thread starter, who claimed that BG1 had romanceable NPCs? And besides the various random posters on this thread and other threads who remind us that depending on one's definition of romance most games have romances? And besides you, who claims that all it takes for an NPC to be romanceable is for them to have loved one of your past incarnations? And besides those freaks who claim that Fall from Grace and Annah are both Romanceable? Oh, and Volourn, do we to teach you how to use the quote function?

Excuse me, but is Gromnir the only one who gets to assign a definition of what constitutes a post BG2 Bioware romance? And is Gromnir falsely claiming that the Player Character's "Romancing" of Ravel is something other than completely optional and totally a mini-game.? I'm going to address both points. Nathyrra, Valen, and HoTU's Aribeth are 3 romances, in a Post BG2 Bioware game, that are neither tangential nor are they mini-games. All three are part of the MAIN PLOT. And they're just like BG2's romances. You don't control them. You don't "play" the mechanics in them. And finally, The Ravel thing. Not Optional, eh? Wanna Bet? Try going to her maze with less than 13 Intelligence and picking only the Combative dialogue responses. What happens? Nothing much. You'll learn that she made you immortal, and that Trias is the next person you need to talk to, and that the portal to exit her maze is to the west somewhere and then she'll go hostile and try to kill you. And that's about it. (How about that ROMANCE!!!). And is that "Romance" a total mini-game? Yeah it sure is. Pump your Charisma, and your intelligence, then pick just the right dialogue options and she'll.... love you so much she'll: 1) give you her hair; 2) give you seeds; 3) Show you her secret Garden 4) teach you how to summon those tree monster things; 4) Grant you 3 points of Wisdom. 5) Give you mage training. After my 10th playthrough of PS:T, I most certainly power-gamed the Ravel Encounter. It's a classic mini-game. Completely controllable from beginning to end. ...Because when someone does a romance thread, they're never actually wondering if they'll be able to romance any NPC in a given game. Right? I mean, that's never what the discussion is about. They simply want to know if there's "love themes".... if "love existed in the world, in the past", and if the PC will have voyeuristic admirers that he can't romance. Right?