Stun

Excitement lol

Oh, I don't disagree with the notion that maybe 100% of all video game romances over the past 25 years have been (intentionally) bad efforts to implement the concept itself, and that's why they all suck. But I doubt the legions of promancers on BSN and elsewhere will agree with such a notion. And it doesn't change the point anyway. If the devs aren't even trying to do better, then how can we expect the next game's romances to be any different?

I am gobsmacked. Ok, let me see if I can sum up this discussion we're having. 1) I spend the better part of 12 pages condemning the very concept of video game romances. 2) You then ask me to describe a romance that I would like to see in a video game. 3) I repeat my assertions that I dislike the very concept of video game romances. 4) You insist that I do it anyway 5) So I describe a scenario of a "romance" who's sole purpose is to be a deliberate mockery of video game romances 6) In a fit of (admitted) rudeness, you conclude that. . . . .I must be one of those guys who does not like video game romances. Damn, I hate it when I get "gotcha'ed". LOL

Rofl! I don't care, Bruce. That would kinda defeat the purpose, wouldn't it. Part of its appeal would be that it's something fresh and totally unlike anything ever done before in a video game. But if you're in desperate need of a mental image... imagine Sandal meets Broodmother, with Planescape torment-like dialogue choice screens for its delivery system.

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.

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.

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.

But the thing is... it is a gimmick, and it does negatively impact games, like turning the warship Normandy into Love Boat. (Again, excluding Deionarra-style fully integrated into the story romance.) And even Deionarra wasn't so much a romance as it was a plot device designed to instill emotions like guilt and regret, rather than love or affection. It was a gimmick too, but it gets a pass because it was a brilliant plot tool. Regret and guilt are quite difficult to implement correctly in a video game.

I wouldn't ever waste my time trying to understand any promancer. Nor to I care if their gaming tastes are so shallow that they need a gimmick to enjoy an RPG. PS: no offense, of course, Bruce. Here, have a smilie:

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.

Your absurd penicillin example assumes a field of study where progress is constantly being made. Problem: Attempts over the last 25 years to implement *good* romances in video games has not shown a shred of progress. So I'll ask again: what makes you think tomorrow's video game romances will succeed?

I dunno. If no one had yet discovered penicillin, then why should anyone assume there's a good way to fight infection out there, and that they should keep looking? I for one am super glad they didn't go "Oh well, SURELY if there was a fantastic way to fight infections, we'd've found it in the last several hundred years. Better not waste our time and effort on something that's obviously impossible, u_u..." Why has anyone ever tried anything that wasn't already accomplished? You tell me. I'm sure if humanity had just always given up on everything that had been attempted a bunch but wasn't successful, we'd all be livin' great right now. 8D Romance is not some tangible invention, like penicillin. Nor is it some problem to be solved by a multi-generational accumulation of knowledge and technology. It is already a successful form of social expression in real life. The problem is that it's impossible to recreate that success in something as inherently limited as a 50hr video game where the player is only involved vicariously. The last 25 years of video game romances illustrate developer attempts to force that square peg into the round slot... with absolutely zero progress ever (unlike the field of medicine, for example, where progress is constantly being made, thereby explaining why something that was once deemed impossible can eventually become possible)

Why not? If there's a complete absence of any good implementations of romances in past RPGs, then why would anyone conclude that it would be a good idea to put romances in the next RPG?

Aside from the damsel in distress part, BG2's romances were like that.

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.

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.

I doubt that. Sawyer said that difficulty wise, PoE will be easier than IWD2. Well? Icewind Dale 2 was not hellishly difficult to Solo. None of the IE games were. In fact, the BG games were actually easier to solo than they were to full party. And BG1's level cap was cripplingly low (level 8/9) But we don't need to cite the IE games. Josh Sawyer has already told us that Soloing will be doable in PoE and that they didn't even balance the game it to require a full party.

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? Uh... no?

That's true. But since the only XP gain in PoE will be quest XP -and- many quests will be resolvable without combat, my gut is telling me that it may actually be somewhat easier to beat PoE without a full party than the IE games when it's all said and done, since the toughest part of soloing has always been combat. But again, this is pure unadulterated speculation. We've been given virtually zero information about the nature of questing in PoE. It could very well be that many quest objectives become closed off/unsolvable for a soloer if he happens to not have the specific skill-set required for completion of those quests. And thus the soloer gains less XP over the course of a play through because he simply couldn't do as many quests. And I'm OK with that. In fact, I expect it. It makes the game world more believable. An Arch-mage shouldn't be able to successfully complete a thieves guild questline, despite what games like Skyrim would have us believe.

A couple of points here: Josh's statement about soloing is exactly in line with how the IE games handled the issue, which is: 1)At no point does the game require or force any sort of party number requirement (ie. none of that NWN2 nonsense of forced party members for the plot's sake. -And- at no point does the game toss puzzles or problems that require 6 party members for resolution) 2) Soloing is viable without any cheat codes or kiting. Also, I'm pretty sure the devs have said that XP rewards are shared, and again, that is right in line with how the IE games did it. Which means the smaller your party, the faster you'll be leveling. I approve of all of this.

You mean Promancer abuse. Absolutely. Thank God, no.

^ and then, have romances in the sequel. lol

Yep. Although, sadly, they were very polite to the promancers when giving them the 'bad news'. If I was a dev, the announcement would have been far more... colorful. Like this: LOL (edit: saw this one in another romance thread here and just had to steal it)

I can assure you it's not. A game can have easy-to-use modding tools that allow even a N00b to create new stuff in the game, like textures, meshes (nude bodies), clothing, weapons, and even whole area maps. But no toolset I've ever seen can turn someone into a good writer. And without good writing, what's a modded romance going to look like....besides a giant ugly mass of seemingly deliberate e-graffiti that doesn't add to a game as much as ruin what's already there?

*roll credits* Pretty much. We've got repeated confessions from the game makers themselves that 1 + 1 = 2. But feel free to continue pondering "what ifs".