A suggestion for the romances you're considering (if any)

[Sensuki]

There doesn't need to be romances, but I did like some of The Witcher's quest rewards!

[Longknife]

Oh great just what a game needs.

 

Strong "womyn" who no need no man

 

What's the matter?

[Darji]

There doesn't need to be romances, but I did like some of The Witcher's quest rewards!

Actually the romance in the Witcher 2 was almost perfect since it was developed through the story and your decisions and not because you always talk to the same person on a fireplace. If they go that route it would be perfect. Edited September 15, 2012 by Darji

[Volourn]

Romances are good as they can add to a game's depth and give actual choices with actual consequences. And, since they don't usually evolve around combat it gives another non combat activity for the player to take part in. Like any aspect of games, the quality is based on the work done by the devs not the whole concept of 'romance'.

[PsychoBlonde]

I'd like to be able to play my character as being an outrageous flirt/tease among other options, and it'd be nice to have NPCs that respond romantically. But developing ANY kind of relationship dynamic with various NPC's would be great, whether they regard you as a friend, comrade-in-arms, rival, protector, source of advice, child who needs advice, obligation, brother-in-law, wingman, idiot who won't go away, trusted confidant . . .

[Darji]

I'd like to be able to play my character as being an outrageous flirt/tease among other options, and it'd be nice to have NPCs that respond romantically. But developing ANY kind of relationship dynamic with various NPC's would be great, whether they regard you as a friend, comrade-in-arms, rival, protector, source of advice, child who needs advice, obligation, brother-in-law, wingman, idiot who won't go away, trusted confidant . . .

 

Oh yeah give us the options for skills like the perk ladykiller or the opposite one I forgot in New Vegas for example.

 

As for romance with NPCs: I do not think that is a good idea. Rather have some romantic options with your party member you can obtain or find. These would far more developed then some random NPC romance.

[Seagloom]

Cherchez la Femme is the other perk.

 

This is an area where I hope Obsidian's writers do whatever they are comfortable with. If that means no romances, then so be it. I rather see other types of bonds explored; such as a few of the examples PsychoBlonde mentioned above. Besides, romance options tend to devolve into being all about the romance after a point. It's very noticeable when you play a character who ineligible for the romance or dump the NPC. Their content typically bottoms out and they become a husk only fit to spout a few one liners forevermore.

 

I liked how Christine was handled in Dead Money to a point. It was on the subtler side. Suggestive without being hamfisted or crude. My only complaint was how the flirting was completely overlooked once you got into the Sierra Madre--as if two different writers wrote each section of that DLC. I chalked it up to her being too obsessed with Elijah by that point to care, but it remained jarring. Still, I liked how it was handled before then.

 

Romance can enhance a story when it's done well, but when it's clunky it really shows and detracts from the experience.

[The Sharmat]

Yeah, I'd prefer no romance at all to a poorly made one. Given that most lines in this game won't be voiced I don't think we have to worry about companions running out of content if you don't pursue a relationship with them, though.

[Volourn]

"Yeah, I'd prefer no romance at all to a poorly made one."

 

I'd prefer no dialogue to poor dialogue. I prefer no combat to poor combat.

 

Your logic is beyond silly.

 

Obviously, whatever Obsidian decides to include (romance, combat, or otherwise), they're very likely to try their best to make it as good as possible. Duh.

[sparklecat]

I'm in favour of romances. But there are a couple things I'd like for them:

 

1. Make them robust. No "you missed this one necessary flirt line, no romance for you." No "you flirted with someone else, romance ends with no chance to fix things." Let me be able to start one after the usual conversation that'd lead into it has passed. Let me screw things up and be able to apologise, or say I didn't mean it that way, or let me use my awesome magical skills to make them forget they saw me coming out of that brothel, provided that you:

 

2. Make some things simply unforgiveable to an NPC. Anders in DA2 ending the romance if you sold that kid to the demon was a good example, because it was really obviously something he would never like or be able to get over. If you used blood magic in front of Fenris, the same should've happened unless you had a couple billion points in persuade or used that magic for a decidedly creepy continuation. And furthermore, romances being available shouldn't just be based on some score you have, but on what actions you take, what sort of character you're playing. Maybe even track a bunch of different personality types in the background (cruel, mercenary, protective, forgiving, blah blah blah) that contribute to whether you're attractive to an NPC or not for a full-fledged romance, or whether they'll even be friends with you.

 

I'd like to see companion interaction in general have a lot more depth than "you have enough like points, you get the exact same conversation at this stage that your polar opposite in personality would." If I go around making fun of everyone who talks to me about their problems, I don't care how much I've helped out a companion on personal quests, they're not going to tell me about their dead wife. Liking, trust, and respect for decision-making abilities aren't the same thing, and any realistic portrayal of long-term companions should recognise that and account for it.

[The Sharmat]

No romance means you cut out some side content. No combat or no dialogue and you start having an entirely different kind of game. Cut both and you don't even have a game, much less an RPG.

[Volourn]

"No romance means you cut out some side content. No combat or no dialogue and you start having an entirely different kind of game. Cut both and you don't even have a game, much less an RPG. "

 

Romance includes dialogue. It leads to C&C. It leads to player interactions. It cna even lead to quests, and combat. Romance can add A LOT to a RPG. A lot more than silly fetch quests or other dumb quests, or random fights. It gives characters a purpose out of main quests. Romance is also a huge aprt of the 'human condition' and plays a huge role in one's motivation for achieving goals.

[The Sharmat]

If you read further in this thread/other threads you'll see that I'm in favor of romance arcs in general. I'm just saying that if it's unworkable it can be ditched. It's not the highest priority in my view.

[Tale]

I don't know if anyone remembers it, but here's an old (nearly 6 years) forum post from Sawyer.

I don't hate love in game stories; I just hate reducing love to shallow, masturbatory fantasy indulgence. Maybe that's all love is to some people, but I think that's a pretty narrow view. Ego-stroking is very popular in CRPGs, which is one reason I don't feel comfortable doing CRPG writing anymore.

 

I appreciate that people wanted more romance options in NWN2, but sometimes I think that people want there to be romance "victory" conditions for all companions. I think that can diminish some characters. For instance, if Shandra and Qara had their own romance plots, I think some people would still want Neeshka to be "romance-able", regardless of how Neeshka's author felt about the character's place in the story.

 

That bugs me. I don't like the idea that you can "win" everything or get everyone on your side. I'm also not fond of the idea that romance always has to resolve with a "fade out" to implied coitus, but that's another issue.

 

I'll re-state what I wrote before: I want romance to receive either less or more attention in games. Anything worth doing is worth doing well, especially when it's something with so much emotional potential. But I certainly don't want to go the route of harem anime, which is total fantasy indulgence and gross pandering.

Now, remember that this is 6 years old, things could have changed. And I know a few people took offense to it when it made the rounds last time. I'm posting it because I think that if they do romances, we're liable to see them done differently. We might see tragedy and loss, heartbreak, characters that grow into feeling that the relationship isn't fit for them, or even romances where the player is on the receiving end of a bad relationship.

 

Or maybe his opinion has changed entirely in the intervening time.

[The Sharmat]

I'd love to see a genuine romance arc initiated and carried through most of the story only for it to end horribly on some crucial plot point. Drama is fun. Some aspects of Mass Effect's romances were a step in the right direction (having sex with one character prematurely actually ends the relationship entirely, since she assumes you didn't want anything serious), but they never really tried anything like that.

[Volourn]

"It's not the highest priority in my view. "

 

Yeah, but that could be said about anything in a RPG other than main story (and some RPGs treat their main story as an after thought). Saying something isn't the 'highest priority' doesn't help since any side quest could be aruged the same. Anything but the most basic skills, spells, and whatnot fit in this category. Muliple races could be argued that.

[The Sharmat]

Yeah, but that could be said about anything in a RPG other than main story

Indeed, which is why we have threads like this to discuss the specifics.

[Covnam]

I enjoy a well done romance in games and agree with the Op that sex shouldn't be the final goal, just a part of the romance arc between two characters. It would also be nice, though I understand would be a lot to implement, if an npc that is in a relationship with the pc actually acts different while out in the world during normal gameplay. Usually the only time a romanced companion acts differently to the pc is only when you're having a conversation, and even then usually when it relates to the romance arc. By the end of the game, regardless of what's going on, the two characters that are involved with each other should not be behaving the same as if you had never romanced at all.

 

It would would also be interesting to see your companions form their own relationship/romance. Why should the pc be the only one allowed to fall for someone? Of course as the pc, you should be able to both help or hinder that romance.

[Aram]

I've said this before. Going through the motions of a romance with a character written by Chris Avellone is almost just like romancing Chris Avellone himself which is just a dream come true. More romances please! The more titilating, the better.

[Jaesun]

They should spend exactly 0% of development time on romances and spend every single dollar/hour budgeted to that on making the game/story/areas even better.

 

Period.

[The Sharmat]

I've said this before. Going through the motions of a romance with a character written by Chris Avellone is almost just like romancing Chris Avellone himself which is just a dream come true. More romances please! The more titilating, the better.

I've actually seen people insist that Avellone should not be allowed to write romance because it would end horribly.

 

I welcome a horrible end. Tragedy would be fun to see for once. It's not tackled in that many games. Usually the protagonist gets what they want.

[Darji]

They should spend exactly 0% of development time on romances and spend every single dollar/hour budgeted to that on making the game/story/areas even better.

 

Period.

A good story does not exclude romance in the story...

[Aram]

I guess I really just want to romance JE Sawyer anyway. Make dinner and a movie a reward for 15000 and you'll reach your stretch goals in an hour.

[Longknife]

I'd love to see a genuine romance arc initiated and carried through most of the story only for it to end horribly on some crucial plot point. Drama is fun. Some aspects of Mass Effect's romances were a step in the right direction (having sex with one character prematurely actually ends the relationship entirely, since she assumes you didn't want anything serious), but they never really tried anything like that.

 

Perhaps a potential romance arc between companions? That you can influence through dialog?

 

I dunno how many times I've logged on a forum or watched a youtube video and seen something like "OMG TEAM BATMAN AND CATWOMAN FOREVER THEY WERE MEANT TO BE!!" so apparently some people eat that kinda stuff up.

 

Personal romances though, again, seem kinda difficult and awkward. They'd either have to make EVERY companion a potential romantic interest, which would cut down on the depth and detail of the romance as a whole OR they make one or two companions available for marriage or whatever, and I mean wtf do you do if you hate those options. You'd be molding your character's personality to fit theirs.

 

Again, I just think it's hella awkward and not worth pursuing beyond basic flirting or a sex-buddies relationship. Sex is carnal, everyone can relate to it. Sex and/or flirting for the sake of sex or flirting with no emotional baggage involved, that's something every player can relate to and have fun with. But emotional attachment to an AI program? That's pretty damned difficult to pull off without seeming weird as hell. Even if it COULD be done, I'm not sure it's the wisest time investment if it's a could be rather than an easy-peasy.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Longknife

[The Sharmat]

I mean wtf do you do if you hate those options. You'd be molding your character's personality to fit theirs.

Or you could just not romance anyone. That's why it's an option.

 

But emotional attachment to an AI program? That's pretty damned difficult to pull off without seeming weird as hell.

Do you not become emotionally attached to characters in games you play? What about books or films? I thought that was the whole point of having characters in the first place.