VERY Disappointed No Romance Option in Avowed per IGN Interview

[erik malkavian]

Just read in IGN that AGAIN you are not having Romance Options just like in The Outer Worlds and I have to say THAT SUCKS!

I own POE 1 and 2, The Outer Worlds & The Outer Worlds (Spacer's Choice Edition), Neverwinter Nights 2, Alpha Protocol on GOG  and I "Had" wish-listed Avowed but after this, its the final straw and I removed it.

The Outer Worlds without Romance (Outside of hooking Pavarti up with the Captain which was just bad as well) was just incredibly bland and the reasons and justifications given by Ms. Patel in this article were just ridiculous.

I am writing to show you Obsidian (Whoever reads this) that you have lost a LONG Time Supporter and Content Creator on Youtube and Twitter.

https://www.ign.com/articles/obsidian-explains-why-avowed-wont-let-you-romance-your-companions

 

[Sven_]

Ah, romance. Romance never changes.

I think this is one of the worst legacies Bioware is going to leave behind. Not the romances per se. Rather, that there's an expectation for them to be in every game.

 

Bioware type of companions have become very stale and predictable throughout the years in general. Like:

- Meet companion
- Sign them up for your party
- Gather and venture forth
- level them up
- unlock their Backstory™, their Companion Quest™ and a Romance™
- level them up some more
- shag them!

Sure, you can write altogether new and different Backstories™. A decent quest designer is also always gonna come up with an inventive Companion Quest™. And occasionally somebody can actually do a decent Romance™ for once in a video game -- one that doesn't  boil down to leveling characters up and getting sex as a reward. But it's still all gonna boil down to the same old beaten formula.

What amazing and different characters you could have if their very concept didn't boil down to managing their personal problems, all the while being given the option to get very personal with them. Back then, even Wizardry suggested different kind of character interaction. You could give party members a personality. This they expressed during the course of the campaign via dialogue accordingly. Solasta more recent picked that up again, albeit naturally on a small scale and budget -- Solasta is primarily a D&D combat experience in general, rather than a particularly character driven game. And now with AI entering the fold, this could be taken far further in general.

But man, even the original Baldur's Gate suggested something more interesting. There was betrayal. There was personal agenda. Guys and gals who didn't go along with each other even fought and killed themselves! Nowaday's it's all cheap player wish fulfilment: Pick your favourite puppets to go along for the ride. They will do as you please.


----------

tldr; Sorry for the huge rant. But after reading the linked interview above, and considering how cheap romances mostly are, I don't agree with this being a cheap excuse. Building DECENT romances isn't something to tick off a list of features -- the way most games do it. It takes commitment. Unless of course, somebody actually still LIKES this kind of stuff. My condolences. The Outer Worlds also 1 had real problems. A lack of companions to shag wasn't one of them.

Edited June 9 by Sven_

[omgFIREBALLS]

14 hours ago, Sven_ said:

But man, even the original Baldur's Gate suggested something more interesting. There was betrayal. There was personal agenda. Guys and gals who didn't go along with each other even fought and killed themselves! Nowaday's it's all cheap player wish fulfilment: Pick your favourite puppets to go along for the ride. They will do as you please.

Never really thought about this until you said it. Adventurers do risk death rather blithely in modern RPGs, putting their lives on the line fighting alongside comrades they should, or even do, outright despise.

I don't really agree with Obsidian's stance though. It feels to me as though they are saying, if there are romances they must be Absolutely Awesome, and then the dozen other relationships you could form with party members must also be Absolutely Awesome to match, and ain't nobody got the development resources for that. It's good that they recognize a spectrum with more values than "love interest" and "therapy patient" (or Aerie who could be both at the same time), but I'd rather see all these possible interactions given moderate attention than have romances completely ruled out. If you and a party member really do want to fight for the same cause, that's a great case for compatibility. You spend most of your time together, which is an even greater case for convenience. Chemistry, on the other hand, that is not a given, but perhaps something that will or won't happen depending on your character's choices.

[Wormerine]

Just go play Baldur’s Gate3 or a BioWare game. 
 

so many RPG companions became just dating sims, I really, really welcome RPGs with different relationships. PoE1 has my favourite cast to date, and a lot of those characters should wouldn’t be made if they were all datable. 

[UrbaNebula]

You removed a game from your wishlist because you can't bone the computer people...

That's certainly a choice.

Baldur's Gate 3 exists, FYI.

Edited June 9 by UrbaNebula

[NikolaNesic]

So forget romance for a moment how is that our character is godlike but don't know what godlike he is ???? what is that ??????

[omgFIREBALLS]

9 hours ago, NikolaNesic said:

So forget romance for a moment how is that our character is godlike but don't know what godlike he is ???? what is that ??????

An excellent question for another thread.

[uuuhhii]

if romance are priority then galgame or choice of game would be recommended instead of crpg

Edited June 11 by uuuhhii

[kanisatha]

I too am in the camp of very much liking that this game leaves out romances. They don't add anything useful or interesting to the roleplaying experience while sucking up a lot of valuable development resources. I also much prefer that the game gives us very strong roleplay options and paths for building non-sexual relationships with our companions. That's exactly the way to go.

[Wormerine]

23 hours ago, NikolaNesic said:

So forget romance for a moment how is that our character is godlike but don't know what godlike he is ???? what is that ??????

It's intriguing, considering PoE2 revelations. Combined with "Godless" I want to learn more. I could speculate, but at the moment I would be just guessing.

As to the godlike bit, I was initially disappointed with how light the "blessings" were (it looked very Pallegina-like, and as PoE2 revealed, her lighter godlike feature were artificially reigned in) but it was said we can opt for something more extensive

[Suedyin]

I heartily endorse a focus on developing deep, meaningful relationships, and profound character development.
Moreover, I have a strong distaste for shallow physical romps.

But if I can offer a different, very personal perspective:
In real life I have no access even to hugs, let alone physical intimacy or emotional affection.
I am 47; it is probable that I will die a virgin.
It touches me deeply when I can experience these things some others seem to take for granted, through *quality* storytelling in a game.

[Morrydwen]

I advocate you need some therapeutic counseling instead of playing games.

Glad that there are no romances.

[Wormerine]

On 6/20/2024 at 11:36 PM, Suedyin said:

But if I can offer a different, very personal perspective:
In real life I have no access even to hugs, let alone physical intimacy or emotional affection.
I am 47; it is probable that I will die a virgin.
It touches me deeply when I can experience these things some others seem to take for granted, through *quality* storytelling in a game.

Sure, but I don't know why one would look for that in a game about adventuring and swinging a sword. There are PLENTY games on steam that trade in romance in a variety of flavours.

[V_Manolo_T]

I didn't mind the lack of romance in The Outer Worlds, I appreciated the time that was spent to make the real-life banter and how each character felt different much more. I'm not trying to poo-poo your thread.