Cantousent

But I did think Vasid had a valid point about modding. Aren't there romance mods out there for some of these games? ...And I don't think it's bad for folks to argue for personal preference. They probably should. Just don't pretend that it's completely objective and it's all good. <.<

That's where definitions matter, L jefe. :huge grin: I read what Darkpriest had to say and Vasis also. I basically fall into the 'anti-romance' crowd inasmuch as romance means significant content where the PC woos and romances various NPCs. There will be elements of romance in the game, and there are things that are clearly romantic in a lot of RPGs I've played over the years. Maybe even most. ...But I'm just not into fighting over the turf any longer. Total romance definition war makes me weary. As a quick aside, one of the problems is that romantic story arcs tend to flow differently from the typical adventure arcs. When it becomes a mini-game and side show, it absolutely creates dissonance with the main adventure thrust of the game.

I liked the achievements in the Stanley Parable. "Play for game for an entire Tuesday." ...And the ones for Portal were pretty tough to achieve. I don't tend to go out of my way to get achievements, but I do sometimes go and look over the achievement list in my games.

That's a bummer, Gftd. 11 years isn't all that old for a cat. I had to have one of our cats put down not long ago because of severe kidney failure. She'd gone blind and all sorts of stuff. It was terrible. As for spending, I spent $2.97 today on deli pickles, which I am now eating. :D

There's always hope. Don't give up on us geezers. I literally had someone explain to me that I couldn't do what I planned and to lower my plans and expectations.

I'm not typing this with angry fingers, DP, but if you have something to say about romances, why not post it? In fact, you're right that folks read short posts more often. Post a sharp short point and give us your thoughts. EDIT: sorry, phone typing

I made extra dough from Tuesday so I could make something easy to eat on my hike today. So, last night I rolled it out, put mozzarella cheese and pepperoni on it, and rolled it up and baked it. It's in my backpack for when I decide to stop and eat.

Yeah, Red, I agree. I hope to enjoy 4, but New Vegas is in my top 5 all time.

Tell you what, DP, make a post and folks will read it, and if someone's already said it, we'll simply take it as affirmation of previous arguments. Short enough?

Yeah. I like a world where things aren't tied to the main quest and where things don't scale. I want to be able to wander into some place and think, "oh ****! I took a wrong turn at Albuquerque!"

Hell, I started drinking at 14. About the same time I started smoking. However, there wasn't much peer pressure in it. I just figured it was the thing to do. On the other hand, I've never done any illicit drugs... other than underage drinking and smoking of course. I have major alcohol demons, but they swore they'd help me fight off the other demons for the time being and when only the booze and I are left, we're going into the cage to see who wins. Poor me... poor me... pour me a drink. :Cant's hootch swiggin' grin:

I forgot how short F.E.A.R. Extraction Point is. I still think it sucks how they I've started F.E.A.R. 2. Not as good in my opinion, but fun.

If we could ascertain my cat's feelings towards me, we might find that she does indeed see in me a romantic interest. If she could write a story in which she pines for the reciprocated romantic love of her master, believes she has it because he is so affectionate towards her, only to find that his love for her lacks that one small element that would be real 'romance,' then we would have a romance story. Romance is a complicated term, and there's room for disagreement, to be sure. For the first time, however, I actually believe you aren't just being tricky. Clearly, you really want to keep the term romance on a short leash, which is fine. ...But my point is that there is a boundary line somewhere, and we can argue over where that boundary will be, but it's separate from the discussion of whether this or any game should have one or more full blown romances in which a significant amount of time will be dedicated to 'romantic dialogue' between the PC and one or more NPCs. I'm going to continue to believe that CRPGs for a long long time have had romance and romantic elements (and those in and of themselves are distinct). I'm not playing word games when I say that Dak'kon would be an excellent template for a romance in a game, but nevertheless lacks that certain something that makes a relationship a romance. However, if you follow Dak'kon's path with him to completion, you'll have a bond as strong as any lover, only without the courting or sexual component that creates the definition. Ravel does have those elements. She's jonesin' for TNO's flesh. She cares deeply for him on a personal level. She sees him somewhat as a mystery. She tries to create something with him to bring them together and instead he grows more distant. These are elements of a person pursuing a romantic relationship. The player can't make TNO romance her, but she has clearly tried to romance him. I'm putting away the sparring gloves because, while I've viewed it as friendly, it occurs to me I was mistaken that we were sparring in the first place. My honest feeling is that what entails a romance is extremely difficult to define with 100% accuracy. Some stories are clearly romantic. Some stories are debatable. To me, that's a good thing for an RPG. We want more CRPG stories (and I mean this broadly to encompass something more than romances) that lend themselves to multiple or even conflicting interpretations by the players. After all, the players as individuals should be the ones interpreting the stories. That's why I don't want to include a romance mechanic per se, but to have elements that, to varying degrees, lend themselves to interpretation as romance.

I wasn't able to respond at length when that definition came up, but I don't agree with it. It might take delving into the finer points of the definition, but I speak affectionately to my cat, but I do not have a romance with her. The argument that I must concede romance with the cat because we have to try the muddy the waters is ridiculous. People say they love their children. We wouldn't say that's romance, even if it has many of the trappings of romance: love, sacrifice, commitment. I think you guys are intelligent and clever. An intelligent person can find similarities in... discrete? separate? anything different things. An intelligent person can find differences in similar things. Cool. Makes getting lost in the nomenclature possible, but Lephys is entirely right in that nomenclature is important, but only inasmuchas it facilitates communication of actual ideas.

I didn't completely follow everything, but yeah, I get the point that games have romantic elements which folks were never really saying should be missing, and that turns into weird side arguments like the definition of such and such. ...Or even weirder stuff. Fair enough.

Okay, guys, I get you, but it remains that it's a nomenclature argument. There's a point where the definition is too broad. Fair enough. However, there's a point where the definition is too narrow. I would suggest that you're engaging in behavior actual somewhat akin to what you accuse the other side of doing, namely trying to use the definition to further an argument. Romantic literature, which I believe does encompass crpgs, is more inclusive than you guys want, but I don't know why I should substitute your definition for. For that reason, I don't. Anyhow, I meant 'scoundrel' in only the friendliest of ways. >,>

Judgmental bastards! Tell you what, I'll bring a couple twelve packs one night and we'll sit on the front porch and make fun of *them!*

Well, the Cap'n has a point in that most of the people arguing over the past few pages don't even want romances in the game. It's a case of one side leaving the field and remaining side turning against itself. On the other hand, there *are* romantic elements that can enhanced the game. I'm sure it will actually *have* some of these elements. It's just that the other side wants to take the tacit concession that romantic elements aren't bad and are already part of previous games to make a backdoor argument to include specific features in the game. I disagree with Stun and the Cap'n on the nomenclature, but I understand that they're simply manning the barricades against what is undoubtedly a sneaky attack. ...But, no matter what, Stun is still a crafty ol' scoundrel. :Cant's polishing his halo icon:

Good God, Cal, that sounds like an experience! Was there any particular reason for your sudden illness? :shudders:

Whatever the OP stated, or his motives, doesn't change the convention of what constitutes romantic literature. Frankly, I find the OP's argument weird anyway. The romantic elements in BG1 and the IWDs and PS:T don't naturally extrapolate into the type of romantic content he wants in the first place. It's merely a backward argument meant to clear the way for something that appears inherently different than the types of romantic content he gives as an example. However, when we get away from the over simplified example you give of hookers showing off the wares to entice customers, many of your examples are actually romantic elements. Just not playable ones. ...And sex acts are not inherently romantic. Sex can result from romantic feelings. Sex can also result from one person overpowering or threatening another. I think any rational person should be able to make the distinction without resorting to the argument that one is sex but the other is rape because both partners were not willing. Rape is an evil scourge, but it nevertheless involves the act of sex. Sex acts between a prostitute (and I've known quite a few in real life, most of whom are just trying to make a living) and customers is not typically romantic. One wants sex and the other provides it for payment. Now, if one of the customers falls in love with a hooker (which I've also seen happen at least once), then there's a kind of weird one way romance story happening.

Let's hope not! <.<

Oh, this is just Stun's typical refusal to budge. Of course, if the theory is that a few tiny steps might presage a stampede, then a dogged defense is the only one that has a real chance of winning long term. For my part, I think PS:T *did* have romance. Because it's one way, it's not a romance? Remains of the Day? Great Expectations? How about a love unworthy of the object, who herself returns that love but imperfectly so? The Great Gatsby? Stories of unrequited love are still romantic stories. I can see the point about anti-romances, but if we call them that, which seems reasonable on its face, then apparently even anti-romances have a lot of elements of romance. As an aside, this should be evidence that I can enjoy romance as much as the next guy. It just has to end horribly and maybe with one of the participants getting the chop. :Cant's wry grin icon: PS:T is a double edged sword in favor of romances. It might leave the door open for more of these elements in a game, which moves the ball forward, but a lot of folks who want romances in games are going to blanche when they see some of the harsh depictions of romance a la the PS:T model. It ain't your Saturday morning cartoon romance, after all. The biggest fear I have, and maybe I'm not alone, is that based on the in game romances that have been so popular, maybe the greatest part of the romance fanbase doesn't *want* better written romances. I don't even think it's about sex wish fulfillment. I think it's about striking up a conversation, having someone take interest in you, maybe having some rudimentary back and forth, and then having that person romantically love you. People who are gratified by that scenario might not want it soiled with significant doubt, or marred by the fact that there is no 'ever after' in a relationship, or silly things like pregnancy or health issues or the grind of daily life. I can accept that some characters would be interested in sex with one another. Hey, if you're constantly facing death, you might want to engage in some carnal pleasure the first chance you get. I can also accept infatuations. I can accept a bond between people who have suffered and striven together that transcends story book romance. I even can accept that bond becoming a truly romantic loving relationship. However, I also see some of those relationships heading right down the crapper for any number of reasons. The really important things in a relationship, love and endurance and compromise, take years to prove. Love, ironically, isn't the most important thing in a relationship. People learn to love one another all the time. You can proclaim love of anything, including inanimate objects. I'm a Catholic and I love the Lord, whom people often try to convince me is imaginary. Perseverance and determination are the vital ingredient in the vast majority of successful marriages I've seen. This is why I generally don't like the idea of in-game romances. Taking the time to deal with these issues in a meaningful way just strikes me as tedious. However, all it would take to convert me is for someone to succeed. That's an argument I could accept.

For my part, Azarkon, I probably wouldn't go out of my way to search for CRPGs with romantic elements, but my real problem with them altogether is how they've unfolded in games I've played. Anyhow, I figure this idea will get hammered, but I made a post about Choice and Consequence a while back, August 2012. I'm going to take that basic post and present it here as a way to accommodate players who want to put themselves into the 'romance' side of the spectrum. Since the idea is a spectrum of desired behavior by the player, he increasingly puts himself into romantic content. He can also extract himself out slowly. There will be specific plot points where the design team can shift the spectrum widely for a variety of reasons. For example, you've engaged in romantic behavior and your main squeeze dies. That's an opportunity to move yourself way the hell to the other side of the spectrum. Ah, hell, I'll just post a link to the original post. The main thrust, however, is that players don't just open up content for themselves. They move the dialogue so that the open dialogue choices for the PC reflect the person you've created as the player. It doesn't limit the player. It allows the design team to make a more tailored experience. Romantic/unsentimental. There can be multiple spectrums in a game, but keep in mind that every spectrum will start to eat up resources. For someone who likes the spectrum idea but hates romance, this still isn't a good option because he'd rather see one of those precious spectrum slots taken with something more appealing to his interests and desires. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/59862-choice-and-consequence-long-winded/?hl=spectrum Keep in mind, folks got caught up on alignment, but that was just the example. This could reflect comedy/serious, romantic/unsentimental, sane/insane, etc etc etc.

Hey, when did they put cyborgs in the game?! In terms of races, I think I'll stick to elves, humans, and whatever the runt species is called.

Noooo! I still don't understand the 'p' in 'promancer.' Maybe Player Romancers? Storymancer has a nice ring and I would be willing to call myself a storymancer. Beats the usual: weirdo, dork, geek, perv, etc etc. Now, as for relationships in games, I had this idea a long time ago that I'll dig up around here someone and throw out to be flamed, abused, and otherwise ridiculed. Let's see... it's around here somewhere!