Lurky

Guys, I know that you're angry at each others' existence, but don't plan to use any confirmation one way or another to go "HAHA I WON YOU LOST **** YOU". I mean, I get why you'd want to do that, but I've seen this happen before and it never ends well. I mean, I know you'll ignore me completely and still do it, but I wanted to say it anyways.

What this statement tells me is that they're pretty neutral and noncommital on the topic. Not particularly interested in adding them, but no wholesale rejection of the concept. I am okay with this. What this statement tells me is that we're not going to get confirmation until they're comfortable with the funding. As in, when they're sure of how much exact funding they'll get, so that they can budget properly. Considering this, I'm not sure that we'll get confirmation before the Kickstarter ends, and considering how controversial this is, I don't know how they will break the news to us (if they do break the news to us, and don't simply say "watch for yourselves"). I am okay with this. What this statement tells me is that they'll do what they want. They know some people like (or need) romances. They know some people don't really care. They probably already know that some people don't want them. And since there is no clear consensus on this, they'll choose whatever they want, because no matter what they do they'll piss off some group. I am okay with this. Overall, I don't see any reason to worry about what Obsidian will do. To me, it sounds like what many of us were saying: either do them right, or don't do them at all.

Tim Cain was one of the lead designers in Vampire: Bloodlines, a game which had these same design goals. Perhaps we'll find something similar in Project Eternity. Personally, I liked how it was done in VtMB, so I'm stoked on this. The biggest problem VtMB had was that they kinda lost all that diversity at the end, which screwed all non-combat based builds. Hopefully this time we'll have a better balance, now that there are no stifling deadlines or conflicts with the Source engine. And no sewers level. Please.

But then you're just defining a "core feature" as a thing that you want to be in the game and a non-core feature as a thing that you don't want to be in the game. Certainly it's valid to want certain things but not others, but the pretensions of y'all that your opinions represent Objective Reality on what an RPG Is is ridiculous. I will repeat my stance: I am not against romances. I understand that you feel strongly about this, but please don't jump to conclusions. Since this seems to have devolved into semantics, let's go for definitions. Wikipedia says: Purist definitions of WRPGs refer to the more old-school way of making RPGs. Remember that I've consistently used the word "purist" in order to define what I'm talking about. "Purist" is more in the line of Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, which is the spirit of what Project Eternity tries to accomplish. In any case, hey, the definitions are there, and romances are mentioned nowhere in the definition. They are a non-core feature. I consider core features to be defining of RPGs (and in this case, of WRPGs). I consider non-core features to be extras. More features are always nice, but if they aren't there, I won't say that the game has ceased to be part of the genre. It's a "nice to have" versus a "must have". Anyway, I think that if we have to resort to semantics, then we've clearly been derailed. Please let's drop this argument. Are we good? As I said, I am not against romances. I have enjoyed many of them, in fact. If they are in Project Eternity and they are of good quality, I will enjoy them. If they are in the game and are of bad quality, I will bitch about them. And if they aren't in the game, I won't miss them. Maybe you will, and I understand that you're defending them if they're important to you, but please try to understand me when I defend the distinction that they're non-essential. Call me anal-retentive if it'll make you feel better, but I am not attacking your preferences.

That's not a core feature of RPGs. That's a feature that you like (I like it too, for reference), not a core feature. FFXIII was an RPG, and it didn't have any control of the characterization of the player character. If you disagree you're just redefining words to mean "things I like." FFXIII is a JRPG, a genre that the most purist WRPG fans will say are not "true RPGs". But let's not bring that particular flamewar here I'll clarify: I'm talking about RPGs in that same purist definition. Character customization, combat, dialog choices, deep stories, things like that. Perhaps WRPG would be more appropiate, so sorry for my lack of precision.

Some people want romances with companions. Some people just want love to be an important part of the game. Different people like different things. I think we can agree on that. Some RPGs in the most purist sense of the term have romances. Some don't. Some even have the "no romances" thing make sense in the story. This means that romances are a possible feature of RPGs, but not a core feature, such as, say, having control of the characterization of the player character. And the reason why antiromancers insist on making this distinction is because, for some people who like romances, romances are fundamental to roleplaying. And they can be very adamant in stating this. Look, I'm not opposed to romances in any way, shape or form, as long as what is in the game is fun, immersive and well done. I was just trying to do the same thing as Monte Carlo said here. A balance point to some of the most absolutist statements the most passionate proromancers can say.

From what I've seen, it seems like some of the most adamant opposition to romances comes from irrational fear. Fear that announcing "we'll write some romantic interactions, among the rest of ways you can interact with the characters" might attract some of the most obsessive people of the Bioware fanbase, bringing their habits and expectations into the project. Fear that this addition will lead the Obsidian fanbase to become similar to the BioWare fanbase in the short or long term, with people asking for the sun and the moon in terms of romances and lobbying in the forums to get support for their requests, with many of them priorizing that feature (and they treat it as a separate feature, not as a part of character interactions) over anything else. Fear that this will lead Obsidian to adopt a similar approach to romances in PE as BioWare has done lately, whether it's voluntarily, because of convenience or because their hand is forced (such as significant backlash if expectations of a loud group of people are not met, the main reason why if BioWare decided to stop with the romances its fanbase would riot). Essentially, fear that the inclusion of romances will lead Obsidian to become "like BioWare". This is a slippery slope argument. Such addition does not, in theory, necessarily lead to the things they fear. Still, I would like to understand why the BioWare fanbase became that way, just to have it stated somewhere. Maybe this will show if the same could happen to the Obsidian fanbase. Or at least, it might lead to understand why the anti-romancers oppose romances so heavily. Let's view this from a different perspective: instead of what romances can do for a game, let's see what they can do to the players. Let's assume that we have a game where player romances are "done well". What does this mean? Well, there are all sort of ideas and opinions on how they should be handled, so let's boil it down to what romances are, to what people are looking for when they say they want romances. From what I've gathered (if I'm wrong about this, let me know), what the proromancers mean with this is that they want a believable romantic relationship shown between the PC and the companion, they want the emotions and the love to be woven organically into all interactions between the PC and the companion, and they want it all to feel genuinely heartfelt. Let's not discuss if this is actually possible or not, let's just assume it is for the sake of this argument, okay? Let's also assume that the game is very immersive, that there is a strong connection between the player and the PC because the player feels as if they're in the PC's place (this plays a big part in suspending disbelief to enjoy the story, so it's important). If you put these two things together, the end result is that, unless you're distancing yourself from the PC, some of these warm and fuzzy feelings are going to be transferred to the player (thanks to the immersion). Since many people from the proromance crowd defend romances as being a very immersive experience (and they use that exact word), it seems like people honestly want to experience those feelings when playing. In theory, this is fine; different people enjoy different things from their games. In practice, player romances are inherently one-sided. Character interactions are not infinite, they are limited to what is written on the game. This means that the player is going to get warm and fuzzy feelings from the romantic interactions until there are no more. And let's be clear on something here: romantic love is addictive. Science says so. So, when the feelies stop coming, people react in different ways, just like with other addictive behaviours. Most people move on, others... not so much. And here is where the problems come. Some people don't have much self-control on this subject, and when you have a bunch of people like that on the same forum, they're going to enter a feedback loop sooner or later. Thus, the problem can be exacerbated. In fact, if you look at the BioWare forums, you could say that some people do show behaviors that are similar to symptoms of addiction: - Difficulty cutting down or controlling the addictive behavior: Many people there confess that they can't stop themselves from romancing a character. Someone here in the romance threads has also admitted to the same. - Social, occupational or recreational activities becoming more focused around the addiction: I've seen many people there who only play the games for the romances. They came for the story, but many of them keep replaying only for the romantic content. And the romances are what kept these people in the forums, too. - Tolerance: There is an increasing trend in the BioWare forums for more romances, more diverse, more varied, more present in the story, more of all. Many people have also started lobbying more intensely regarding this topic, and more people are asking for "Romance DLC". - Withdrawal: Look at the reaction of some fans who had their imported romances ended by the plot. Look at their reaction when they hear a rumor that their romance is going to be removed, or not going to happen. Additionaly, when the topic comes up, the people there balk at the mere notion of not having romances. Some people here have stated that romances are a must, too. And here, BioWare made a mistake. They listened to these people, to the people who are so interested in romances because they are addicted to them. BioWare delivered what they wanted, and the fans rejoiced... until the feelies ended and they needed more. More people jumped in and wanted the same deal the rest were getting (seriously, some people fighting for homosexual romances were obsessive over which characters they wanted to bang). BioWare delivered again. The fans wanted more. And more. And they're lobbying in the forums and starting petitions because they need more, and they're not going away until they get what they want. And that's the situation at the BioWare forums. Now, this is only the worst case scenario. Not everyone is going to succumb to addictive behaviors regarding romances, just like not everyone who plays videogames is addicted to them. And Obsidian doesn't have to make the same mistake BioWare made. But the worst case scenario has already happened, and RPG romance junkies already exist. Maybe they aren't stating their opinion openly in these forums, but they could very easily come if they learn that Obsidian is going to do romances. Perhaps the fears of the antiromancers are overblown, but they do have some basis. In any case, I don't think the problem that afflicts BioWare should affect PE because really, the situation here is not the same as the situation BioWare is in, and Obsidian can nip in the bud before it becomes an annoyance. But still. Well, there's this post in the very same page your post comes from that clarifies that romance means exactly that - romance with companions. Many people have also praised the virtues of immersion that romances can have for the story, so I'm fairly certain that when most people ask for romances, romances between the player character and a companion is exactly what they mean. Also, if you can play entirely solo from the beginning to the end, I think this means that love is not going to play a part in the main story (though I don't know about sidequests). And since the PC is completely variable, I doubt there will be a Deionarra deal either. Only if it is not a core value of cRPGs. Are you arguing that romance is inherent to what makes an RPG an RPG? It's not. I replied about that a few pages ago. If RPGs in the most purist sense of the word can exist where player romances are not found, then it's not a core feature.

As a curiosity, not all the high end tiers are being filled by wealthy players. I'm not sure if you know about this, but some gaming sites and forums are using ChipIn to collect enough money for the high tier rewards. The people who do this brainstorm and reach a consensus over what they want to do exactly with the NPC / weapon / tavern / whatever, and thanks to the collective pledge they're guaranteed to get it in-game (unless they ask unreasonable things). I'm not sure how they're organizing it though, or how are they going to prevent scams. So hey, maybe we're going to see a Something Awful tavern or something. Could be interesting to see what a bunch of people could come up with. As long as Obsidian filters the crap...

Ah yes, the Mass Effect series. Because the final game of the trilogy is a great place to start the series, obviously. Fortunately, here we don't have to deal with publishers that dictate that sort of thing, so that's a point in favor for PE Regarding choice acknowledgement, I think one of the biggest problems the Mass Effect series had was that it aimed for Big Choices that would have a large impact in the setting. Choose if a species can return to the galaxy or be extinguished forever. Choose whether you want to mantain the status quo of the government or put in charge your own species. Choose who lives and who dies out of pretty much all the companions you can have. Things like that. These choices felt big and meaningful and empowering at the moment we faced them, sure. But the problem of choices that should have a great impact in every aspect of the world is that accounting for them all is exponentially more difficult the more of them you have. In order to acknowledge them all, either the overall impact is lessened (thus the choice itself loses impact), or the scope of the choice would have to be narrowed (thus the impact of the choice on the player is lessened). Though personally, I would go with the latter approach. No need for big and epic, subtle changes can be good. Also, I believe I read that the problem with the Rachni choice was that they had no budget for two different sidequests for each variation of the choice. Since they didn't want to deprive some players of content, they gave the same quest for both with a few lines changed. Which was a stupid decision if you ask me: better to leave some quests exclusive for some playthroughs than rendering the choice meaningless. I think the conclusion is that, if you want to make sequels where choices carry over, design the sequels and the choices with that in mind, and start doing that from the beginning. Maybe you could place each game in one region of the world and constrain the choices to impact only that region, so that their consequences would be felt indirectly in the sequels, or the choices would be about your character and in what direction you want to take the PC in the game, or... I don't know. But if Obsidian can learn from the mistakes the Mass Effect series commited, it would be very interesting to see this implemented

You know, statements like this at the top of this page baffle me. The notion that letting the player have a romantic relationship with a NPC is crucial to the roleplaying experience, that the game is lesser or incomplete if this option is lacking. It's not. It really isn't. There are RPGs out there in the most purist sense of the term that don't have romances, and they're still fantastic immersive games. What if the game puts you in the shoes of a vampire in a setting where vampires can't experience things like mortal love and have to struggle to keep their humanity and not become mindless predators? What if the game put you in the shoes of an asexual aromantic species who do reproduction in an entirely different way? It's a roleplaying game, after all, so you are playing a role. Even if you have freedom to play the role in whatever way you want (that's the fun), you still have to adhere to the role. Why not use this opportunity to experience a story in an entirely different mindset? No, I am not saying that Project Eternity should incorporate an inability to love into the role of the PC (though it would be interesting if one of the races available for PC customization had this particularity). No, I am not bashing game romances (I have enjoyed many of them, and I've written a long post with my experiences). No, I am not saying that romances are out of place in this project (though I know nothing about the setting, so who knows). But the notion that PC-NPC romantic relationships are fundamental for roleplaying is asinine. What if the story wants to explore what it means to be unable to have romantic relationships? It could be interesting, and it would be a change.

Well, I'd like to contribute my own experiences with videogame romances. Hopefully they can put in perspective my point of view in this topic. I have played RPGs with no romances for the player at all. Yet, I never missed them when playing. I never felt I was lacking in character interactions, because they were very diverse even without them, with different and clearly visible effects. Some of them had sex and seduction, usually as a mean to an end, but they didn't have player romances (and at least in one of them it made sense, because while you could be very nice, the PC was unable to feel that kind of love). Yet I was thoroughly immersed when playing because they were fantastic RPGs, and they remain some of my most cherished gaming experiences. Turns out, romantic interactions are not a necessary feature for a RPG, because some games worked very well without them. I have played RPGs with player romances. They were implemented in various ways in each game, so I have varying opinions of them. In some cases, a romanceable character was clearly designed without the role of love interest in mind, and the interactions with the character were written from the platonic point of view. The romantic content was woven into each interaction with the player, and its presence was felt without overwhelming the conversation. In these cases, I enjoyed both the platonic and the romantic routes of interaction. Both felt natural, and they allowed me to appreciate the character in two different lights that complimented each other. In some cases, a romanceable character was clearly designed without the role of love interest in mind, and the interactions with the character were written from the platonic point of view. The romantic content wasn't well woven into the conversations, and there was a notable separation between "these are meant to be general interactions" and "these are meant to be romance-only interactions". In these cases, I enjoyed the platonic route, but the romance route felt lacking, as if the character occasionally forgot that we were in a relationship. In some cases, a romanceable character was clearly designed with the role of love interest in mind, and the interactions with the character were written from the romance point of view. The romantic content was woven into each interaction with the player, but there was some platonic content in its place that also added to the character. In these cases, I enjoyed the romance route, and while the platonic route was nice, I also felt like it had some unresolved sexual tension, which was kind of uncomfortable. In some cases, a romanceable character was clearly designed with the role of love interest in mind, and the interactions with the character were written from the romance point of view. The romantic content was woven into each interaction with the player, but the platonic content consisted of cutting out the romantic interactions, putting nothing or very little in its place. In these cases, I did not enjoy the platonic route very much; I felt like I was going against the game, missing out content and insight into the character because of my roleplaying choice. As for the romance route, I found it very hit and miss; when I liked the character because of its personality (shown outside of the romance, before it could be triggered) I enjoyed the romance very much, but when I wasn't interested in the character I didn't enjoy it. Turns out, choosing to romance a character because the game wants you to isn't really very enjoyable. And some characters were designed with this mindset yet the romance route was unavailable to my character because of its customization options, so I didn't enjoy any of my interactions with these characters in those cases. Thus, my plea for handling any potential romances is this: For the love of everything that is good and sacred, don't design characters with romance in mind. Don't write their interactions from the romance point of view. Make sure that the game could work well if it was the first type of RPG I mentioned: design everything with no love interest roles in mind, and flesh out characterization and interactions without the romances in mind. This avoids the third and fourth cases. Only when you have them mostly worked out should you consider if a romance would fit the character. In order to avoid the second case, the key would be to revise all interactions with the character and iterate until both variants work well separately. If there is no time for this revision, well, the first type of RPG I mentioned proves that romances aren't essential for the genre, so it's not a crippling loss. And I say this as someone who has played and enjoyed RPG romances very much. Really, I have tried pretty much all variations, and this is the one that consistently works the best. And it makes sense: if romances are only one possible form of character interaction, why should you narrow your entire view of them through that lens? I'm afraid that is not going to happen. One of the few things confirmed about the game is that we can play it entirely solo. If love was plot critical, that wouldn't be possible. Unless love was the driving motivation of the PC, but we already know that's not the case.

Oh god, not this again. The romance thread with the poll was locked not because there was already another romance thread, but to let people calm down. People were getting argumentative, trying to defend their position without really listening to the others, retreading the same points over and over. Nothing was gained from that discussion, because it was getting nowhere. And the discussion is still getting nowhere. The writers at Obsidian are the people who have to decide on this, not you. And you aren't exactly presenting a good argument for your side if you can't acknowledge even a little validity to the other side's position. Consensus in this topic is clearly impossible, so why don't you try to collect a list of pros and cons for your position without relying on constant confrontations, and let the devs decide? That is going to be far more helpful for them, you know. Hell, I'll even try to contribute something to such lists if you want. Just... spend your energies on something productive, will you? As the tongue-in-cheek saying goes, arguing on the internet is like running at the special olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Holy ****, you guys. You have been 23 entire pages, and over 440 replies, arguing over whether romances are a good thing to have in the game or not. And out of all those posts, practically none are productive. Most of them are a back-and-forth between a few people, always retreading the same points. This is not a discussion, it's attrition warfare. Stop trying to convince each other, because you're clearly not going to ever do it. You're only going to reinforce the opinions of the other side. Tha sad thing is, I have interest in character interactions in general, and thus I have some interest in seeing what could be done with player romances. But nothing productive is going to come out of discussions like this