If romances are included

[Badmojo]

I actually liked DAO system, I do agree that the love meter was a bit cheasy, but there needs to be some way to gauge if your making progress or not. I actually like the long tolks, not just in romance, but in just friendship, talking stuff, having the characters open up too you, influencing their decision and personality. It was nice and actually was very bonding. I do NOT want the BS that was in DA2, where you had to hit some secret switch/diyusyion to activate the romance/friendship conversations, it was horrible. DAO did it good where you had moments of resting at the camp to talke and get to know everyone.

[Umberlin]

If they're going to be there I'd like to see them be.. not up front, or front loaded, if you catch my meaning. Regardless of type, it shouldn't be obvious up front what was in the cards, what you find beneath the surface of a character as you get closer and closer to them should be less predictable and I never want to see a character and go, "He/She is 'the' love interest" in terms of some obvious character pushed on you unless you utterly beat them with a stick to make them go away.

 

 

You know, there's only one character I recall having enjoyed a romance option with, and that's Viconia from BG. And it's for this exact reason. She was bat****. I remember it being extremely difficult to tell when I was warming up to her, and when I was just pissing her off. And even when I pissed her off she seemed to enjoy it. I had to be careful with every line of text; sometimes my affection would be well received, but if it just wasn't in the cards, she'd fly into a godless rage. Sometimes she was actually pretty compassionate, and she shared a few tragic stories with you about her past life...But I remember a few times she'd be in the mood for some hot campfire thrust-sessions, and then threaten to murder me if I ever touched her again at the end of it all.

 

So gloriously unstable. And the closer to her you got, the more unpredictable she would get. Never really found any other romance options, in that game or in others, to be quite as interesting.

 

I always liked having her along regardless of the romance, she was just fun to have around. I can't disagree with the reasons, regardless of why one has her along, she was entertaining and that's what mattered. A good character. What's the saying, "Keeps you on your toes" right? Keeps life interesting.

[Gurkog]

Romancing companions isn't my bag, but I wouldn't mind some NPCs in various social standings and whatnot to flirt with.

 

I want my companions to be comrades in arms, breaking bones and bread together to the bitter end! it would also be really awesome to have a well developed bond with an animal companion. I want to bawl my eyes out if the critter dies! Oooo, perhaps if players have the ability to summon creatures there can be a few of them and one is chosen at random each cast. The creatures could have unique personalities and quirks that give some flavor to what are usually cardboard meat shields.

[licketysplit]

If there's romance, it needs to be based more on actions rather than words/conversations.

 

I would prefer the DA:O system without the gimmicky approval meter over Mass Effect's talk-n-bang romance arcs etc.

 

Witcher 2 was interesting in that it felt organic but I hated how we are pushed into the whole thing without much choice.

 

Make sure that the companion is still interesting even when I DON"T romance that particular character.

 

TW2 isn't much about romance really. Only the Vess dialog constitutes romantic banter. I rather liked it, brief as it was. Piss her off and she sends you on your way. Had that experience myself a few times.

 

I figure Obsidian should take their own approach, and if anything, look to Bioware on how not to do it. Because in their games it's become a regular feature, contrived - not connected to the story but done for its own sake.

Edited September 17, 2012 by licketysplit

[duskwind]

not even mentioning the "everyone's bi because players need love slaves".

 

Or possibly because it's kind of a waste to go to the trouble of developing a romance and then disabling it for 50% of playthroughs for no good reason.

[The Sharmat]

Choices and consequences, duskwind. Making sure all content is available for everyone regardless of your decisions is exactly what leads to bland, meaningless railroading.

[BruceVC]

I'm a sucker for well done romances, in a well done story driven RPG they only add to the immersion. Doing it the right way is the key though and making them believable and not cheesy or tacked on. Skyrim's marriage was probably the worst case scenario, and Bioware's romances become more and more dull and an endless copy&paste of the same old formula, not even mentioning the "everyone's bi because players need love slaves". I liked DA:O, but probably mainly because I immediately fell in love with characters like Leliana anyway. DA2 again was Bioware's worst case scenario, better leave them out before becoming so dull.

 

I agree. I enjoy romances. For me it adds an extra level of consideration and excitement to the choices you make, I would think "how will this choice effect my courting of character x" . I particularly enjoyed my relationship with Viconia in BG2, of course she was smoking hot !!

[Oerwinde]

If there's romance, it needs to be based more on actions rather than words/conversations.

 

Make sure that the companion is still interesting even when I DON"T romance that particular character.

 

Yes.

[Lady Evenstar]

As long as its optional, then those who don't like them can ignore them while those who like them can follow that path.

 

I don't think it's as simple as that. Including deep romances that would cater to a variety of tastes would require a lot of resources. Sure, romances can be fun, but they would inevitably involve large opportunity costs in a tight-budget game. I think that when citing PS:T it's important to remember that that was a fixed-protagonist game and that while BG II had a variety of romances for straight male characters, it had only Anomen for straight female characters, and nothing at all for gay characters. If romances are a significant feature of the game (i.e. are going to consume significant resources), it's only reasonable for folks to feel that there should be one "appropriate" to their character, with orientation being only the tip of that iceberg.

 

I'd be open to relationships blossoming into romance in a subsequent game, but think it makes most sense in terms of both pacing and budget for this to be a "get acquainted" game with hints that certain NPCs could become closer. I seem to recall reading that surviving NPCs may appear in sequels, so why rush things?

[Bos_hybrid]

No romances. So many more important things, so little resources.

 

Or alternatively Obs, make it a stretch goal of 5-7 million. That way if you don't reach that number everyone understands they aren't going to be in it, and if you do get it, well that is 2-3 times what you really wanted, so it shouldn't impact on the other more important things in Eternity. I would also run down the street naked if you reached that number*.

 

 

* Is not a promise

 

[Thraxen]

If there's romance, it needs to be based more on actions rather than words/conversations.

 

I would prefer the DA:O system without the gimmicky approval meter over Mass Effect's talk-n-bang romance arcs etc.

 

Witcher 2 was interesting in that it felt organic but I hated how we are pushed into the whole thing without much choice.

 

Make sure that the companion is still interesting even when I DON"T romance that particular character.

 

I think romance should differ from party member to party member. Someone might like you more for what you do in a fight (or avoiding one), whereas another character would like it if you get to know them more. That said, you're right. I'd like to care about the characters even if I don't care to get inside their underoos.

[evdk]

Either no romances or something more subtle than the industry standard. Also, if you really have to have romances, it would be nice if for once sex (and ensuing influence bonus to skills, ho ho) wasn't the end of the romance but just a part of it.

[Kate_wise]

I think romance can be good if it's done right. I'm not particular fond of choosing certain dialogue trees and bam instantly that character is in love with me. It's like playing Sims and you just chat chat, flirt flirt, hug, massage, then woohoo. It's not a very realistic take on romance and why most players are turned off by it. I think if there is a romance it should be surrounded by an event, and an opportunity arises which lead to feelings. Perhaps the character and the love interest is stuck by themselves somewhere and gone through some sort of hardship that may lead to mutual feelings. Maybe a character's sidequest and a particular decision lead to it. Perhaps like a hard mode to a side quest. Of course it should be absolutely optional.

 

Yes! I like the idea that different romances only open up through your responses to certain quests, or perhaps your alliance to a certain faction (if for example you ally yourself with the city guard then that leads you to have a one-to-one chat /encounter with an NPC that leads to greater intimacy than if you only encounter them 'outside the faction'.

 

As long as it's well written, makes sense, does not take away from the story or characters I'm all for it.

 

Also options like harlots, certain major characters maybe getting feelings for the PC ect would be nice if also done right, but again either do it well or don't do it at all. PS:T, BG2 and DAO(to an extent, the approval system kinda muddled it up a bit) did it very well.

 

Absolutely - I think the fact that major characters could have feelings for the PC, including just being attracted to the NPC which would make them behave more nicely or give information more freely, etc would be great. Ways in which the NPC can use flirting and charisma as part of his/her repertoire... Again this always also connects to friendships and rivalries, etc. I'm sure a lot of us would appreciate the immersion that being able to form alliances, romances, flirtations and social manipulations lends to a game.

[dlux]

Romances are fantastic if done well. Just look at BG2, absolutely amazing.

 

This wasn't a wham-bam-fest like in ME or DA2, this was extremely well written and emotional romance. It was done so well, that I became really attached to the companion that my character was romancing (Aerie for example). Aerie was pretty good in battle, but not the best... but I just could not bear to kick her out of the group.

 

Romance can actually substantially improve a game if it is done right. It improves the story - and in my opinion a good story is just as important as good gameplay.

Edited September 17, 2012 by dlux

[Continuity]

"Just look at BG2"

 

Ugh, Aerie. Maybe Jaheira was kind of ok but still, the romances in BG2 just reeks of pathetic wish fulfillment.

[dlux]

"Just look at BG2"

 

Ugh, Aerie. Maybe Jaheira was kind of ok but still, the romances in BG2 just reeks of pathetic wish fulfillment.

Then all you have to do is tell your companions to **** off if you don't like it - or better yet don't even flirt with them at all. Problem solved.

Edited September 17, 2012 by dlux

[Bos_hybrid]

"Just look at BG2"

 

Ugh, Aerie. Maybe Jaheira was kind of ok but still, the romances in BG2 just reeks of pathetic wish fulfillment.

Then all you have to do is tell your companions to **** off if you don't like it - or better yet don't even flirt with them at all. Problem solved.

 

And how does that change the fact that PE resources were wasted on them?

[Badmojo]

Romances should not be a stretch goal (especially a ridiculous high one that you KNOW will never be reached), it is something that has been in a lot of RPG's and is obvious that many people enjoy it. If you do not like it then you can ignore it.

[Xanderal]

"Just look at BG2"

 

Ugh, Aerie. Maybe Jaheira was kind of ok but still, the romances in BG2 just reeks of pathetic wish fulfillment.

Then all you have to do is tell your companions to **** off if you don't like it - or better yet don't even flirt with them at all. Problem solved.

 

And how does that change the fact that PE resources were wasted on them?

 

Simply because you don't enjoy a part of the game or choose not to experience it does not mean that resources were wasted on it. It's not easy to make content that pleases everyone, but I would imagine that the majority of people enjoyed the BG2 romances.

[Lady Evenstar]

Then all you have to do is tell your companions to **** off if you don't like it - or better yet don't even flirt with them at all. Problem solved.

 

But the problem of not getting to play the content that could have been included if resources weren't instead used for romances isn't solved ... The question isn't whether romances could possibly be fun. It's whether they would add more to the game (for most players) than alternative uses of dev time. If folks want them, I'd like to hear the sorts of things they'd be willing to sacrifice to get them. Fewer, shallower non-romanceable NPCs? How well you get to know non-romanced party members? A shallower, less-varied environment? Fewer non-romance-related story lines? Less developed combat AI? If you'd like a significant portion of a tight budget spent on romances, what would you recommend cutting to cover their cost? Or are you willing to increase your pledge to fund them?

[Kilroy_Was_Here]

Just because some players do not enjoy or experience romances doesn't mean that the resources used to create them were wasted.

 

Personally, what I would like to see is non-companion romances. Given the limited number of companions available (I believe the announced number for the current funding level is 5?) having enough variety would be difficult. Why limit yourself to only the characters adventuring with you? There's a hold world out there; there must be SOMEBODY that likes you...

[Bos_hybrid]

Romances should not be a stretch goal (especially a ridiculous high one that you KNOW will never be reached), it is something that has been in a lot of RPG's and is obvious that many people enjoy it. If you do not like it then you can ignore it.

 

Or you can accept the fact that just because some of you like romances, doesn't mean we all do. And just as you are able to clamor for it being in, others can clamor for it not being implemented.

 

"Just look at BG2"

 

Ugh, Aerie. Maybe Jaheira was kind of ok but still, the romances in BG2 just reeks of pathetic wish fulfillment.

Then all you have to do is tell your companions to **** off if you don't like it - or better yet don't even flirt with them at all. Problem solved.

 

And how does that change the fact that PE resources were wasted on them?

 

Simply because you don't enjoy a part of the game or choose not to experience it does not mean that resources were wasted on it. It's not easy to make content that pleases everyone,

 

To me it's a waste, to you it's not. Opinions opinions.

 

but I would imagine that the majority of people enjoyed the BG2 romances.

 

We aren't on the bio boards.

[dlux]

Well, I like romances and would personally like to have them included. I do not like to imagine that my character is an introverted fap-master or something. I guess a poll would be able to show what the community actually prefers. But if this game does include romances, then they should be very well written imo.

 

We aren't on the bio boards.

And what makes you think that there are not any BG2 fans here?

Edited September 17, 2012 by dlux

[Xanderal]

Romances should not be a stretch goal (especially a ridiculous high one that you KNOW will never be reached), it is something that has been in a lot of RPG's and is obvious that many people enjoy it. If you do not like it then you can ignore it.

 

Or you can accept the fact that just because some of you like romances, doesn't mean we all do. And just as you are able to clamor for it being in, others can clamor for it not being implemented.

 

"Just look at BG2"

 

Ugh, Aerie. Maybe Jaheira was kind of ok but still, the romances in BG2 just reeks of pathetic wish fulfillment.

Then all you have to do is tell your companions to **** off if you don't like it - or better yet don't even flirt with them at all. Problem solved.

 

And how does that change the fact that PE resources were wasted on them?

 

Simply because you don't enjoy a part of the game or choose not to experience it does not mean that resources were wasted on it. It's not easy to make content that pleases everyone,

 

To me it's a waste, to you it's not. Opinions opinions.

 

but I would imagine that the majority of people enjoyed the BG2 romances.

 

We aren't on the bio boards.

 

My point was that "wasted" is a strong word. It's possible that the people hating on the romances are the vocal minority, I don't know. Obviously, I'm new here, but I liked the BG2 romances and I am fine with Bioware has developed over the years. Point me in the direction of the stake you'd like to burn me on.

[Bos_hybrid]

And what makes you think that there are not any BG2 fans here?

 

What make you think everyone that likes BG2, likes romances.

 

My point was that "wasted" is a strong word. It's possible that the people hating on the romances are the vocal minority, I don't know. Obviously, I'm new here, but I liked the BG2 romances and I am fine with Bioware has developed over the years. Point me in the direction of the stake you'd like to burn me on.

 

Nah, we don't do burnings here. Crucifixions on the other hand.......

 

Listen if this was a $20 mil project, I wouldn't be posting about not wanting them in. But it's not, at most the budget will be.... $3-4mil. So that leaves a very small amount of resources for an RPG. I would just like to see the resources spent elsewhere.