No romance!

[the truthseeker]

Just, pass for me. Better we have a well-developed companion sub-quest development for all of them than that time going to "romance to win completionist." 

 

But your opinions may vary on this. 

[daver]

This is something of a neutral announcement for me. On the one hand I think a romance that is properly developed and involves more than just shagging your NPC can add a *lot* to one's emotional attachment to them, such as Safiya in Mask of the Betrayer or Viconia in Baldur's Gate 2 or Annah in Torment... Yet on the other they can lead to a lot of soap operatics (see Aerie) or seem tacked on (see Deadfire) or there for the sake of gratiutous pixel-sex (Witcher and Dragon Age sagas in many occasions), and can be both intrusive to one's relationship with said companion and a time-and-resource sink for no real benefit to the overall game - made worse when the whole "there should be more than one romance option, per sex/orientation/whatever" argument begins to demand several options if any one romance is to be included at all. If the devs didn't feel a romance would fit this game or they just didn't find an interesting hook for it, it's probably for the better that they decided to not go for them altogether.

 

This was very well stated and it sums up pretty much how I feel.

 

Romantic options in an rpg can add to that suspension of belief of being a part of a real world, it seems part of the natural flow of emotions when a bunch of random individuals are thrown or forced into working towards a common goal.  But it's not a necessary option for a successful rpg.  It also takes time & resources from the development of a complex rpg, and you will always have those who are disappointed because they couldn't romance a certain companion.  And it shouldn't be added as an after-thought and have a tacked on feel, much like it did in Deadfire and even ME:Andromeda.  ME1-3 got it right, because you could pursue those branching romantic options or not.

 

But rpgs don't have to have it, and I'm glad Obsidian stated from the start that they won't be included.  They can just concentrate on making an intricate quest & choice driven rpg in 1st person perspective that so many of us have been longing for.  I'm so excited for Outer Worlds.

 

Please note that I'm not specifically knocking Deadfire, or even Andromeda.  I've played over 500 hrs of Deadfire (and plan a new playthrough with the recent Inner Sanctum dlc), but the romantic options basically consisted of a couple of conversations and a few lines of dialog, while in Andromeda the whole thing just felt forced.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

 

Will there be aliens? I get the feeling it's all human. Can't have sci-fi romance without at least one non-fleshy colored humanoid race.

if player are lucky there will be sex bot like fnv

 

 

so... you are a big fan of fisto?

 

of what?

 

 

Fisto, the FNV sexbot?

 

 

Alternatively, it may have been a reference to Kit Fisto, Jedi Master, but that seems less likely. Though you never know; romance thread and that wonderful, wonderful smile...

[Epaminondas]

Well, at least he knows how to handle his... lightsaber.

[Fredward]

Boo! Hiss!

 

I actually don't have strong feelings on this. Romances in PoE2 felt weird (lacklustre in some cases, fanservicy and OTT in others) and if that's the result of the devs not really wanting to do it it's better to leave it out.

[SonicMage117]

Romances in PoE2 felt weird (lacklustre in some cases, fanservicy and OTT in others) and if that's the result of the devs not really wanting to do it it's better to leave it out.

They were poorly developed and wholly. The best companions in video games are the mysterious ones with not much to learn about. Poor Obsidian tried to please the thirst though, unfortunately it lacked. More is less.

[Mikeymoonshine]

I feel like being able to have a relationship in an RPG is not necessarily a bad thing in fact i think it can add to the aspect of roleplaying. I don't think I've ever seen it done well though, at best I find it mildly entertaining. I guess I liked the Yennefer romance arc in the Witcher 3 but that is a defined character and built on a whole history between those two characters in the books and it still wasn't as well written as their relationship in the books is.

 

Relationships are just too complicated to do well in a video game and it's impossible to do it without upsetting a bunch of people.

[VaultBoi2077]

Just because the devs said no mods doesn't mean we can't have romance. By no mods that means no offical mod support. Unreal 4 engine CAN be coded even thought it's not as well known to the PC modding community as Bethesda's ancient Gamebryo/Creation kit engine. So I'm confident we'll be able to have romantic and/or platonic relations by adding NPCs as followers etc. the way we did in New Vegas. It's just a waiting game to see how the game engine works once TOW is released. 

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

Solaufein romance mod, ToW edition.

[Big-Ben]

Solaufein romance mod, ToW edition.

 

Lolth romance mod when?!?

[Katarack21]

I like romances in video games. It allows a deeper exploration of the characters and the relationship between them and the protagonist. Yeah, it's not always perfect, but no aspect of a video game ever is.

[uuuhhii]

rpg are all about choice

choose to be evil greedy or simple mass murderor

it is only natural to be able to choose fall in love or pursue someone

but poe2 does show a lack of experience in this department

[Epaminondas]

I agree that rpgs are all about choice, but the boundaries of choice are always in the hands of the creators. It's natural that people might want to leave the village, go to a peaceful land, and become a barmaid. The number of conceivable choice are immense, and even the best rpg, and especially Crpg, offers a tiny fraction. I just want the designers to follow a creative vision. Generally, I prefer that their vision not include romances, but I respect the decision either way.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It's going to sold through DLC for $19.99 where you can seduce every npc in the outer worlds and it plays El Topo in entirety when you would be at a sex scene.

[Bachands]

Most people in this thread seems to ignore the fact that Obsidian don't putting any romance is not because "is better that way" but because they don't have the resources to put it in a good way. 

 

People like they romance, 10 pages of this thread already prove that.

[BillyCorgan]

Wrong. Half of the answers are there to say that we do not care about "Romance" and trust Obsidian to make a good game (and no need to flirt a pile of pixels to feel better before turning off your PC).

[Bachands]

A thread in the forum is not a good metric to know if people want or do not want romance.

 

The fact that Obsidian put romance in the sequel to Pillars of Eternity, when they were more prepared than in the first part, that's a good metric. If Outer Worlds is successful (and it is very likely that it will, seeing the amount of attention it has called) it is very likely that Obsidian will dare to put romance in his next game, not only in a sequel, but in his next game in general. 

 

And it's totally logical, the point of a role-playing game is ... role-playing, and part of that is letting your character have romance. 

[Epaminondas]

My take was that they didn't want to put in romances. I don't think they cited lack of resources. Is it so hard to believe that the designers might not want to have romances in their game?

[Katarack21]

Wrong. Half of the answers are there to say that we do not care about "Romance" and trust Obsidian to make a good game (and no need to flirt a pile of pixels to feel better before turning off your PC).

I trust Obsidian to make a good game with or without romances. They make good games, period. And the idea that flirting with an NPC as part of a romance portion of a game has anything to do with "feeling better" is about as accurate as the idea that combat, exploration, inventory management, or quest completion have anything to do with "feeling better".

[Malcador]

I hope they do have romances just to provoke you people.

[Wormerine]

I hope they do have romances just to provoke you people.

*shrug* They would either do something new and creative or we would have another Deadfire romances - it doesn't drag the game down, possibly damages companions a bit, but in the end is pretty forgettable and forgivable. 

[Chairchucker]

I hope they do have romances just to provoke you people.

 

1. No one here seems like they'll be provoked by romances, the overwhelming response from the 'anti-romance' side is 'haven't really seen romance done particularly well in the past, so I'd just as soon see them use resources elsewhere, especially if they're not that enthusiastic about them.'

 

2. You hope in vain, they've already said they're not having romances.

[Malcador]

Never in vain, is always someone to bitch about something.  Is all there is to enjoy in gaming now, gnashing of gamers' teeth.

[b0rnn0t]

According to polygon

It's like Fallout and Mass Effect had a baby but without the romance

https://www.polygon.com/features/2018/12/7/18129759/outer-worlds-obsidian-entertainment-new-rpg-preview

 

 

If these games had a baby! It would be born with super powers, I would definitely adopt it into my family

[Mirandel]

My only wish the group making OW would be honest and do not come up with coward excuses about "content dilution", which is as much corporate bull**** as infamous EA with their "sense of accomplishments". Why not honestly say "romances are trouble not worth the resources spent on them"?

 

There is a game company - Spiders, which makes games... not to everyone's liking, let's put it like that. Some people (well, a lot) will call them "bad", for me - it's sort of acquainted taste and I do like the company for it's honesty. When they were asked why there is no female protagonist in their last game (The Technomancer), they said openly and directly: it cost twice as much to make VO for the game with two protagonists and we could not afford the second voice set. What's stopping Obsidian from admission "romances are too troublesome"?

 

Because, let's face it, they are.

Disclaimer: I love romances in the games. If the game has a romance in it, it means I will most likely at least try that game (if I can physically play it, OW as a FPS is not playable to me). Yet, with all my love to the feature, I am not blind to the problems its implementation brings to the development. Romance means emotions, hence, a lot of passionate public opinions. Romance means taste, hence - you can not possible give everyone what they want. There will be tons of accusations, starting from obvious mandatory copy/paste "all fem options are ugly feminists / males are the most boring kind of humans / gay romances are scarce and after-thought" and ending with detailed unfavorable analysis of every moment of each romance. Writing style of a romance will be the most criticized part of the plot. Romanced characters immediately become very limited in development both background-wise and story-wise: you make the companion "playersexual" - it looses the background (no previous relationship can be mentioned, no tastes can be expressed), you specify sexuality - you will never hear the end of it (why this and not that?!). If character is set for betrayal - for a romanced betrayer you will get all sort very expressionate "why-s" and "how-s" (rightfully so, btw ). Same with death, leaving, or any independent move, so, you better avoid it. And unlike game-mechanics you can not later balance or fix it, what's done is done.

So, with romances you will get some ecstatic grateful group of enthusiasts, but voices of those left unsatisfied can very well be be louder. Including romances is all risk with questionable profit (moral or material). Is there someone who does not understand it? Then why not say it?

 

I would still argue that these days people want more from their stories and romances are as good of a promotion feature as high level graphics, but it is still a risk. Honest admission of that simple facts would look better than a corporate political correctness talk.