No romance!

[Castielle]

Man we need another KoToR game so bad!

 

Cas

[Mannock]

They're in KotOR, yeah. And KotOR 2 I think.

 

They're also in BG2. That's the earliest example I can think of.

 

EDIT: Correction, there's a kind of romance in the original Fallout. Or possibly Fallout 2?

 

None of them are particularly noteworthy, IMO.

And there's romances in Planescape: Torment, Jade Empire, etc.

 

 

But anyways, I think romances and love can play a very interesting and important part in a RPG. But men seem more biased to killing/murdering so that is often more important to focus on. My point is that they don't need to be mutually exclusive.

 

But to be fair, Obsidian's track record isn't that good to begin with when it comes to romances, but I'm sure it could have been good if people like Carrie, Kate, Megan and Paul had gotten a chance at it.

[Chairchucker]

I guess it's theoretically possible that romance can play an interesting and important part in an RPG, but I can't think of any examples where that's been the case. I hear it was done well in The Witcher 3, mostly on account of how integral to the main story the romance options were, so maybe that's the key.

[cheesealmighty]

I guess it's theoretically possible that romance can play an interesting and important part in an RPG, but I can't think of any examples where that's been the case. I hear it was done well in The Witcher 3, mostly on account of how integral to the main story the romance options were, so maybe that's the key.

 

And how Geralt is a character with clear boundaries, as opposed to the spectrum of baby eating bastard to naive goody two shoes paragon the player might occupy in other RPGs. 

[SonicMage117]

I guess it's theoretically possible that romance can play an interesting and important part in an RPG, but I can't think of any examples where that's been the case. I hear it was done well in The Witcher 3, mostly on account of how integral to the main story the romance options were, so maybe that's the key.

Were they really that integral though? Or was the story just moving through them to make us feel like they were. On the "important" romance options, it changed nothing, it just gave us a 10 second dirty scene and maybe a few lines of dialogue. None of the romances truly affected the story, but we have to play twice to realize that. So we can say that story-writers have just become great at tricking gamers into thinking the plot thickened somehow - no pun intended.

 

Skyrim may have had no effort but the end result was the same. The effort to make a romance seem like it matters (even though it doesn't) goes a long way. Josh Sawyer made a great point about this years ago, I wish I could find the exact quote. Maybe Boereor will call me out on it and find it

[Chairchucker]

Haven't finished Witcher 3 yet. What I mean though is apparently Geralt's history with Triss and Yennefer is a fairly significant aspect of his character, and the way he relates to them appears to be tied into the main plot of the game.

[bugarup]

Fallout 2 done it best xD

 

Do you mean shotgun wedding or Francis? ...wait, it's not important. The best either way. 

[Malcador]

Such unfair hate for the codex here

Would you say there are some very fine people there?

 

 

No, but there's a really great boobies thread over there.

[Dartbord]

 

Such unfair hate for the codex here

Would you say there are some very fine people there?

 

 

No, but there's a really great boobies thread over there.

 

 

Oh, linkage please?

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

Im taking this as good news. im pro romance, but efforts at such rarely gel for me in open world rpgs. I feel u cant have a world-shaking 'no one exists but us and the stars' romance *and* have it as an optional extra to the main plot. Ur better off with a little tension and suggestion so the fanfic inclined can go follow the breadcrumbs for hundreds and thousands of words.

 

Feel obs have had a few quiet successes tho.

 

Kotor2 did quite well with atton. If u were fem exile, then his hopeless infatuation was touching and relevant without needing any reciprocation from the player. It could remain as a core-ish plot thing.

 

Did also quite like tekehu. That was played fairly well - no happy ever after, hes a sympathetic warm body who lets u come and go without ill feeling. That was the kind of approach needed for an optional romance in an obs game imo. A romance with an end.

 

I did enjoy the pairing off of maia and xoti. Might be something to be said for keeping things intra-companion. U can actually make the romance inevitable and tie it to bigger plot beats. Guess that would meet resistance elsewhere tho

 

Eh but for the most part tho, i feel there are structural obstacles between the confetti shower bioware thing and what obs do. Ill stick to VNs and writing my own stuff for my fix. Obs' writers can give it a shot and good luck to them - im willing to be surprised - but they neednt put that effort in on my account.

[Icesong]

 

 

There is always someone who tries to paint allocation of finite resources this way. Their justification is well reasoned.

 

Personally I can't believe they won't let me define myself as a poor line-cook trying to impress my chef for a promotion. Can't believe they don't facilitate that important aspect of my character's identity.

 

 

“We really wanted to focus on you role-playing your character,” Boyarsky said, “developing the unique personalities of your companions as fully fleshed out people.”

Romance, he said, has a tendency to funnel gameplay and temper the decisions players make in the game in unusual ways. For that reason, they opted to leave it out.

“We had to pick what we were going to put our time into,” Boyarsky said. “Other people have explored the romance angle in different ways. We felt like sometimes it kind of waters down your roleplaying for your character because it turns into this mini game of how do I seduce this companion or that companion. So it was just one of the things we felt wasn’t really what we wanted to focus our time on. [...] We’re really trying to be focused on a specific experience so that we can polish that experience and give players the best version of that experience that we can.”

 

That quote says nothing about limited resources, and it's actually just about the worst reasoning I've ever seen. What other options would like they to take away to protect people bad at roleplaying?

 

All the posts on the first page celebrating this weren't about that either, which was my post was mocking. You're the one actually spinning here. The anti-romance sentiment that dominates this forum is not about a concern for resources.

[AwesomeOcelot]

My bad. I meant it would not support other operating systems like Windows 7.

You mean the 2009 OS that mainstream support ended on January 13, 2015? I am shocked that Obsidian isn't supporting Windows 7.

[cheesealmighty]

 

My bad. I meant it would not support other operating systems like Windows 7.

You mean the 2009 OS that mainstream support ended on January 13, 2015? I am shocked that Obsidian isn't supporting Windows 7.

 

 

Well I'm appalled by the fact they're not supporting Windows XP, the best one.

[injurai]

 

 

 

There is always someone who tries to paint allocation of finite resources this way. Their justification is well reasoned.

 

Personally I can't believe they won't let me define myself as a poor line-cook trying to impress my chef for a promotion. Can't believe they don't facilitate that important aspect of my character's identity.

 

 

“We really wanted to focus on you role-playing your character,” Boyarsky said, “developing the unique personalities of your companions as fully fleshed out people.”

Romance, he said, has a tendency to funnel gameplay and temper the decisions players make in the game in unusual ways. For that reason, they opted to leave it out.

“We had to pick what we were going to put our time into,” Boyarsky said. “Other people have explored the romance angle in different ways. We felt like sometimes it kind of waters down your roleplaying for your character because it turns into this mini game of how do I seduce this companion or that companion. So it was just one of the things we felt wasn’t really what we wanted to focus our time on. [...] We’re really trying to be focused on a specific experience so that we can polish that experience and give players the best version of that experience that we can.”

 

That quote says nothing about limited resources, and it's actually just about the worst reasoning I've ever seen. What other options would like they to take away to protect people bad at roleplaying?

 

All the posts on the first page celebrating this weren't about that either, which was my post was mocking. You're the one actually spinning here. The anti-romance sentiment that dominates this forum is not about a concern for resources.

 

 

“We had to pick what we were going to put our time into,”

 

"waters down your roleplaying..."

 

"wasn’t really what we wanted to focus our time on."

 

"trying to be focused on a specific experience so that we can polish that experience and give players the best version of that experience that we can."

 

Huh... nothing about limited resources? When is it ever not implicit that people are working with finite resources? Never, that's when. Bad at role-playing? This is a game with prepared content, this isn't the player going open ended on some companion pnp game. There isn't bad role-playing when you options are a result of planned features and content. Only "bad decisions" which is also designed feature content.

 

Your post quoted nobody, so I'm not sure why you expect anyone to read the exact context as related to other posts. It reads as a detached sentiment. Poe's law applying as always. People certainly do think about resources when it comes to features that they feel aren't that great when done, and further detract from what they consider better features.

[Icesong]

 

Huh... nothing about limited resources? When is it ever not implicit that people are working with finite resources? Never, that's when. Bad at role-playing? This is a game with prepared content, this isn't the player going open ended on some companion pnp game. There isn't bad role-playing when you options are a result of planned features and content. Only "bad decisions" which is also designed feature content.

 

Your post quoted nobody, so I'm not sure why you expect anyone to read the exact context as related to other posts. It reads as a detached sentiment. Poe's law applying as always. People certainly do think about resources when it comes to features that they feel aren't that great when done, and further detract from what they consider better features.

 

 

 

Now try putting them back in context. He's not saying "Gosh, we just don't have the time to do romances"; he's saying not only are romances not a positive for roleplaying, but that they actively harm it. "Waters down your roleplaying...", what do you think that means? He's talking about people who compromise their character in pursuit of a romance — saying or doing whatever it takes to unlock them, even if it's not in keeping with who the character is*. And since they want to focus on enhancing roleplaying, they're not going to bother with romances. It's a design choice from the viewpoint that romances are bad, not a cost saving measure. 

 

*Bad roleplaying. You can keep your convoluted redefining of commonly understood words.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Icesong

[injurai]

The idea is that romances are hard to implement, take a lot of resources to do, and are entangled with all the other writing that you are trying to do for a character. Since romances tend to end up as clumsy side additions to characterizations. Thus the effect is that they water down one's role-playing on other metrics. It's all about the issue of combinatorial explosion with choice and building out the written frame work for those choices. Rpg design is about the illusion of free choice and impactful change, but it's mostly all static content or heavily constrained emergent content with predictable outcomes. It's that doing romance right or better takes a lot of additional time and resources which scale poorly. Since the core of the story that they want to tell isn't centered around romances they don't want to just add those in for those who might want that as tertiary content. Because, the time and resources would pull from what they want to do and result in something they aren't satisfied with tacked on the side.

 

I'm not seeing anything in there about romance being universally harmful to role-playing. The context is that you have party members who's character arc is more than just being keen, and thus the romance would have to be written to entangle with everything else they have going on. Always getting back to romance being (in practice) awkwardly tacked on the side. Thus the time and resources. The comments about it not being positive to role-playing as to do with the structure of choice paths that get's build when you have to navigate both romance and other story concerns.

[Icesong]

I don't agree that's what he said in the article, but I'm certain that's along the lines of what he'd say if asked to elaborate(and I still don't agree with some particulars, but my disagreement isn't my issue here). I'm not at all certain that's the viewpoint of the residing anti-romance brigade, who seem more to think that not only are romances hard to do right, but that they're nigh impossible to do right, and anything less is masturbatory pandering. 

 

Since I was vague earlier, let me be clear now: I'm not mad at Obsidian for this, and I won't miss them in this particular game—I might not even play it, as I don't like the setting. I'm merely annoyed by the knee-jerk celebration, because I think even badly done romances are worthwhile. Even if you don't bother with them(which I didn't in Deadfire) you can use that to say something about your character.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Icesong

[Foamhead]

 

My bad. I meant it would not support other operating systems like Windows 7.

You mean the 2009 OS that mainstream support ended on January 13, 2015? I am shocked that Obsidian isn't supporting Windows 7.

 

 

Yes, the 2009 one that nearly 40% of the desktop market still uses and has no desire to upgrade. Now that Obsidian is Microsoft they won't support their older OS's. Keep sucking up I'm sure they're just about to make you a mod.

[Epaminondas]

I'm new to the discussion and it's late enough I can't read all the posts. Where I reiterate a previous post, take mine as affirming the point of view.

 

The only romances I've enjoyed is the PS:T 'romances' with Annah, Fall-From-Grace. and Deionarra. I don't want any sappy baby in the inventory romances from the game, but romances like the heat and physical attraction (without the physical act) of Annah, the mystery (and frustration) of Fall-From-Grace, or the actual soul grinding (and navel gazing) of Deionarra appeal to me. Can't make it with a ghost, but there's always Jaethal from Kingmaker if you're into necrophilia.

[Vitalis]

 

I don't agree that's what he said in the article, but I'm certain that's along the lines of what he'd say if asked to elaborate(and I still don't agree with some particulars, but my disagreement isn't my issue here). I'm not at all certain that's the viewpoint of the residing anti-romance brigade, who seem more to think that not only are romances hard to do right, but that they're nigh impossible to do right, and anything less is masturbatory pandering.

 

Since I was vague earlier, let me be clear now: I'm not mad at Obsidian for this, and I won't miss them in this particular game—I might not even play it, as I don't like the setting. I'm merely annoyed by the knee-jerk celebration, because I think even badly done romances are worthwhile. Even if you don't bother with them(which I didn't in Deadfire) you can use that to say something about your character.

Romances water down roleplaying by forcing the player to tailor their dialogue and choices to what the target prefers in order to nail the romance:

 

"My character doesn't support X action but I'll support it because I want to romance R".

 

Strangely, this is something interesting that Dragon Age 2 addressed by allowing "Rivalry" romances. Hawke and the romance could disagree about choices, but still come together by the power of player sexual attraction!

 

Which was universally panned and sabotaged with the colors/names Blue/Friendship and Red/Rivalry to denote the relationship status.

[kirottu]

 

 

My bad. I meant it would not support other operating systems like Windows 7.

You mean the 2009 OS that mainstream support ended on January 13, 2015? I am shocked that Obsidian isn't supporting Windows 7.

 

 

Yes, the 2009 one that nearly 40% of the desktop market still uses and has no desire to upgrade. Now that Obsidian is Microsoft they won't support their older OS's. Keep sucking up I'm sure they're just about to make you a mod.

 

Guys, has there been even a single game made with Unreal 4 engine that didn't work on Windows 7?

Edited December 11, 2018 by kirottu

[Mannock]

I'm merely annoyed by the knee-jerk celebration

That's the Obsidian forum for ya. A distant relative of RPG Codex. Want cheering for romances? I guess the BioWare boards?

 

I think it's a pity we see these reactions but they have been consistant since many years I'm afraid.

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

Strangely, this is something interesting that Dragon Age 2 addressed by allowing "Rivalry" romances. Hawke and the romance could disagree about choices, but still come together by the power of player sexual attraction!

 

Which was universally panned and sabotaged with the colors/names Blue/Friendship and Red/Rivalry to denote the relationship status.

i was actually a fan of this approach. rivalmances are sexy af and offer means for different mc concepts to pursue the same character. im sad nothing more came from this.

[Big-Ben]

Let's be real folks you all want to romance the ship.

[SonicMage117]

The members on this forum be all like...