Stun

Posters on this thread who oppose romances in video games have NOT "just decided" that the process is inherently flawed. We've been seeing the evidence that it is forever. Romances have been in video games since the Leisure Suit Larry days. We've had a quarter of a century to study, analyze, compare, contrast and even ponder on ways they could be done better. But even that doesn't matter because we don't need deductive reasoning. Game developers themselves have admitted that Romances come at significant cost to other, more vital game features, which must be curtailed or even eliminated for budgeting reasons if Romances are to be implemented. And therein lies the inherent flaw, even IF the romance ends up being really good.

Terrible argument, citing mods. Show me 1 romance mod for any RPG released in the past 10 years, and I'll show you about 50 nude/tittie mods for the same game that are far more popular. (and better, btw. Writing is not a mastered art on the Nexus. Mesh and texture creation certainly is, though) I don't think anyone is turning a blind eye to romance in video games. No, no. I believe the genre is suffering from the exact opposite phenomenon: an almost industry-wide over-focus on Romances in RPGs, which has probably caused developers to deprioritize the things RPG fans used to consider fundamental to their games.... like well designed dungeons, large deep, explorable worlds, robust leveling and combat mechanics, and decent narrative structure. And what has been the result of this shift in focus? That's right: Behold the Dragon Age and the Mass effect era of e-dating video games masquerading as RPGs. False. It just adds "love" to it. And love does not hold some monopoly on "depth". It's just one of many emotions that exist to be explored in a video game. And I'd argue that since PoE is a party based RPG, a well written party-based comraderie or even a rivalry has the potential to produce a much deeper narrative.

I don't know if I should be proud or pathetically ashamed at the fact that I'm the only one on this thread who has correctly spelled Isabela's name. lol Oh, it's definitely not my intention to single her out from all the other DA2 NPCs, since each and every one of them is a poorly written caricature...even Varric (who for some reason I still haven't figured out, tends to get a pass from DA2 critics, even though he's a classic case study on terrible writing and misuse of plot devices) I'm only focusing on her because she was the specific DA2 romance you cited. Say what? No, that's not it at all. First, I wouldn't call having a totally unsubtle, pound-you-over-the-head-with-it slutty personality as "liberated". lol Second, she's hardly confident. In Act 2 she runs away from her problems instead of facing them. In act 3, and in typical, tiresome Bioware fashion, you must play the role of high school guidance councilor to get her back in your party. She sulks and broods in the corner of a bar and you have to cheer her up. Then she calls herself a failure and you have to convince her she's not. Are you comprehending this, Bruce? Or was DA2 your first RPG? Because this is all sleep-inducing cliché. Isabela is nothing but a mish mash of several previous Bioware NPCs. She does not posess a single unique personality feature. She's got Morrigan's sensuality but lacks her diabolical mind. She's got Alistair's low self esteem but lacks his compassionate side. She's got Lelianna's Rogish nature, but lacks her innocent exterior. She feels sorry for herself just like Aerie does, but she lacks Aerie's intelligence. She Loves sex as much as Viconia, but lacks the anger, bloodlust, and backstory that makes Viconia so cool. Bioware created her for no reason but to add a teen-centric sexual side to a remarkably unsexy game.

I sense quite a bit of ToEE influence in PoE...at least with the animations we've seen. From just watching the trailer I see the same running animations as ToEE. Also Ogres look and attack exactly as they did in TOEE. This is a good thing. ToEE was both beautiful and visceral.

Romances aren't important for RPGs. Nor is anyone at Obsidian unaware of their existence, So if this is some crusade or campaign of yours, it died before it began. If Obsidian does decide to do romances for PoE2, it will not be because of anything being discussed on this thread, because there's nothing here that they haven't already seen 10,000 times.

Oh, is that so? In that case, what's the point of asking for Romances in PoE? Can't you people just imagine they exist and spare us the multi-thread whining?

There is no development of the romance. There's just a single 'sex' scene that is completely independent of everything, save for a single dialogue that triggers it. And having sex with her has exactly ZERO effect on anything that happens afterwards. In your head? You get the exact same "Apology accepted!" dialogue and continuance of the friendship whether you're romancing her or not. What "courting" are you talking about, exactly? That's kinda my point, bruce. And the point of several other posters' arguments that you have dismissed away as 'unconvincing'. A well written NPC friendship is indistinguishable from a Romance, save for the absence of all the pretentious juvenile crap that a video game romance must have, like cartoon kissing and pixel sex so the horny teen fanbase can get their hard-ons, which the marketing department pie charts suggest is an effective way to boost game sales.

I'll repeat myself. The only difference between an Isabela Friendship and an Isabela Romance is the 15-second dry humping scene at the Hawke estate. So is it fair to say that the only reason you liked the Isabela Romance was because the game lets you f*ck her?

You act as if this is a matter of opinion. It isn't. Isabela's story is NOT part of the romance. Period. It happens exactly the same way (same dialogue choices and everything) regardless of whether your Hawke is romancing her. So unless you see those fade-to-black, underwear-humping scenes as a major reason why you like Romances, you cannot logically claim that you wouldn't have enjoyed an Isabela friendship just as much as an Isabela romance, Since those silly scenes are the ONLY difference between the two. And this is PROOF of what people have been telling you in all these romance threads and what you've always brushed off as "unconvincing": Romances rarely ever add the character depth to NPCs that you think they do. Therefore, whether they're worth the added development costs and game integrity risks becomes the most important question.

2 things. First, It'd be more accurate to say that the only people who liked the way Romances were implemented in DA2 were the promancers, and they tend to not be very picky when it comes to romances. Their motto is "any inclusion of a romance in a video game is a good thing", yes? Tell me I'm wrong. Second, Isabela's story and motives are irrespective of her romance. They're part of the game's main plot, and ALL of it will occur regardless of whether you romance her. So no. You can't cite it as proof of anything.

Lets not give DA2 that much credit. Its "Everyone goes both ways!" thing was not for silliness sake, It wasn't for fantasy's sake either, and the devs weren't trying to be 'socially progressive', or whatever. It was for cost-cutting sake and nothing more. They couldn't afford to write up distinct Gay backgrounds, personalities, flirts and cutscenes, Straight backgrounds, personalities, flirts and cutscenes, and Bisexual Backgrounds, personalities, flirts and cutscenes for any of the 4 romanceable NPCs. Nor could they just do a game without any romances. So they just made everyone Bi without any explanation or any deviation (except for maybe Isabela. They managed to scrounge up a vague and generic explanation for her sexuality). <gag> It was lazy and cheap, like everything else in DA2. But that's just one of the million problems with romances in Video games. They're a huge, expensive undertaking. And unless you're very thorough (which is practically impossible), you risk alienating/offending whole swaths of the fanbase via sheer provocation alone.

Terrible analogy, since unlike cRPG Romances, there are several ways to cook a turkey so that it ends up tasting good.

No. It only shows how relevant romance is for Bioware fans.

I've got one. It may be one you've heard already or maybe it's not, but it's especially relevant, currently. And it is an example of why my "objection" to romances goes beyond just my specific personal taste. A couple of days ago, Bioware held a DA:I Q&A session and followed it up with the release of 15 minutes of its E3 gameplay footage. It was a major info-dump. It covered almost every aspect of the game, and the gameplay footage focused almost exclusively on Exploration and combat. And what was the result? Romance discussion from the fans. And nothing else. Here we have a highly anticipated RPG and its developers are comprehensively attempting to present its features. In vain. The fan base, apparently, is not interested in the RPG's robust Combat system. Or its exploration. Or even its plot. They only care about the 8 romances that were announced. Something isn't right, here. Dating simulators and RPGs are NOT interchangeable terms. Thankfully, it's just Bioware and its hopeless BSN fanbase. But if this becomes industry norm... where nothing matters in an RPG but its romances, that will be the day there's no longer such a thing as RPGs. Do you want this? I don't. And that is why I rejoice whenever a major RPG developer like Obsidian releases an RPG with no romances.

The Icwwind Dales can actually be pretty darn fun when played in co-op. The BG games not so much, since the plot is centered around a single specific protagonist.

Is attachment not something one may freely choose to do? A free person may certainly choose to give up his freedom. Sure.

Correct. And that is because the point of the feature was not Romance. And that's why it works, and why it falls right in line with everything else in the game. You do not have to "woo" a potential spouse in Skyrim, just like you don't have to train and feed your Horses. If Bethesda had turned marriage into some pretentious soap opera/emotional drama, the feature would have stuck out like bad breath, and the majority of players would have condemned it. Also, Skyrim.... is about Freedom. Not attachment.

Right, There's a huge difference in the infinity Games' co-op gameplay (and the NWN series multi-player) vs. actual MMOs. With the IE games and the NWN series, the gameplay is just you and a couple of friends. THAT can be fun. Yes. As it is the perfectly captured essence of a Pen and Paper D&D session, just without the paper. MMOs are a totally different beast. Don't forget what MMO stands for: MASSIVE multiplayer. They feel different. They have a different point. That table-top session vibe is gone, replaced with raw competition against the worst of the world's teen age internet dregs. It's no longer you and a couple of buddies playing through the game. It's you and bunches and bunches of strangers. It's chaotic by its nature, so the system has to have overly gamey rules in place to police the whole thing. The result is 1) over-uniformity of the classes, 2) 'zones' 3) the role playing experience itself is replaced with "OMG, I only play to level my character!" Oh and I almost forgot... the most important difference: 5) the inability to just escape from the rat race and enjoy the game by yourself offline.

I do share your point of view completely in the Skyrim issue. Then the both of you have missed Bethesda's point completely. Skyrim's marriages are not "romances", nor were they supposed to be, nor are they the result of trying to implement romances but failing to "flesh them out" or whatever. They were pure utility value as designed. They gave the player something he/she could call his own, like a house....or a horse. In Skyrim, a spouse is either the player's personal merchant, or his/her unconditional fighting companion. Or both. The fact that they come complete with a wedding ceremony, a wedding ring, and they live in the player character's house, Is Brilliant. It leaves completely open the option for Larpers to Larp, and the imaginers to fill in the story gaps in their heads. Which is what the elder scrolls games are all about. THAT is why they work in Skyrim, and why they're praised. But you guys aren't asking for that. Nope. You want Love-drama spoon-fed to you by Obsidian writers. And you want it even though Obsidian has a track record of sucking when it comes to writing romances.

Hmm. You're talking about re-allotting the budget. Specifically Less level design = More writing. OK. In that case, definitely no. That kind of thinking got us Dragon Age 2. I'd rather not be subjected to an experience like that ever again.

Not to mention the fact that sometimes Romance happens IN dungeons. This is especially true in BG2, where your "LI" will often times decide that the moments before taking on a Dragon are the best time to talk about 'us'.

I agree. We were promised role playing in PoE. But without turn-based sandwich preparation (or even real time with pause sandwich preparation) this is going to be nothing more than another Icewind Dale clone.

Dungeon crawling and role playing are not mutually exclusive gameplay concepts. The latter can occur in spades inside the former, and *has* in a few Obsidian games I've played. So yes. I deny your concerns.

What makes you think PoE's gameplay makeup isn't already more Role playing options and less dungeons? Or a decent 50/50 split? Sheesh, I thought the "OMG Icewind Dale 3!" worries would have ended the moment they showed us those scripted interaction screenshots, which they promised would be very common in the game. And what does Role playing have to do with anything? Romances aren't role playing. They're dating sim minigames. The only "role playing" options that happen in romances are "should I role play the attentive listener/strong shoulder, or should I be the insensitive ****?

You sure you'd want this? You seem pretty confident that if Obsidian were to email/poll us about Romances in PoE, that the result would be a majority of backers voting "Yes, do them", instead of the most likely result(s): a decisive "hell no", or a "meh", or a "please spend our funding dollars elsewhere", which would immensely hurt the pro-mancer argument...forever. By the way, Objectively speaking, Romances are not in the Infinity engine game tradition. Only 2 out of the 5 IE games had them. (1 out of 5 if you exclude PS:T's, which I wouldn't call a romance. It was a 3 line flirt session w/ Annah). Romances are the exception to the rule in the IE games. Their absence wouldn't make PoE seem any less IE-like.