Sex and Romance Poll

[Terror K]

 

I am talking about The Romances, as in those long dialogue strings in BG2 with Aerie, Jaheira, Viconia and Anomen, that had absolutely no point being in the game.

 

Have romance or romantic themes in the story, lover's betrayal, whatever, sure. Having standalone Romances initiated by the PC, please no they are self-insert silliness.

 

I have to disagree, I felt they added a good deal to the game. And they aren't just self-inserted silliness, because whether a character I am RP'ing romances somebody or not and who they romance depends entirely on the character, not on me. That's what roleplaying is about after all.

 

But what you've said does make me think of something that I think needs to be important for romances to work well, and that's that any companion character should be a character first and a romance option second. And by that I mean that characters shouldn't be specifically created just to be a romance interest and then have a personality tacked-on later. Every single companion who can be romanced should be able to perform as a realistic and deep, fully-fledged character that can stand on their own and come across as believable and complete without that side of them. They must be able to hold their own even if their romance arc is completely avoided, and (with rare exceptions) their personalities shouldn't revolve around needing to be romantically linked with the PC. Whether they are a romance opportunity and the means that they are should be determined by their existing personality traits and other character-defining factors, not the other way around.

[dlux]

Have romance or romantic themes in the story, lover's betrayal, whatever, sure. Having standalone Romances initiated by the PC, please no they are self-insert silliness.

Then don't pursue romances - It is that easy and simple. It should be your choice if you want to be an extroverted romantic or an introverted fap-master.

 

Some might also think that having a good character is "self-insert silliness", as you like to put it. So what do they do? They do not pursue being a good character.

 

But like I wrote in an earlier post: All known possible human emotions should be included in the game, and this includes love, lust and passion - not just the ones that a few of you seem to prefer.

[alphyna]

Have romance or romantic themes in the story, lover's betrayal, whatever, sure. Having standalone Romances initiated by the PC, please no they are self-insert silliness.

I see your point.

I'm not actually against stand-alone romances. I'd love them if there also were stand-alone religious discussions, philosophical debates, heated arguements and drunken banters. Just for the sake of flavor and character (and lore!) presentation. But yeah, guess I'll have to go back to reading books.

[NerdBoner]

man i can't even believe what i'm reading on that first page (couldn't even make it to the second)...

 

the Jaheira romance and Viconia romance and redemption in the BG series was freaking awesome and only served to flesh out the world and your party members. You people have no soul. I'm all for anything that adds flavor to the game and the characters.

[alphyna]

If they aren't fluff, absolutely. But I've yet to see an RPG have romances which weren't fluff, just flavour text to make the player feel all campy, like they are actually romancing a cute Elf chick or tall dashing Paladin!

 

Ahem... that kiss with Annah in PS:T?

[dlux]

Now that's RPG mechanics, because it serves a point in the actual story. BG romances didn't have any point.

That is like saying that a story does not have a point...

[Terror K]

 

If they aren't fluff, absolutely. But I've yet to see an RPG have romances which weren't fluff, just flavour text to make the player feel all campy, like they are actually romancing a cute Elf chick or tall dashing Paladin!

If it's woven into the story sure, for example if you have high Charisma (or equivalent) points, you can talk suggestively to an NPC of the opposite sex (or whatever) and they will tell you stuff they wouldn't if you were an ugly Orc with Charisma/Intelligence points of 3.

 

Again, Arcanum had Beauty as a stat, and the higher it was the dialogue options you had with NPC's changes, you could talk more specifically, ask more probing questions, and people would tell you more because they found you more attractive.

 

Now that's RPG mechanics, because it serves a point in the actual story. BG romances didn't have any point.

 

They do. They're a part of roleplaying, like anything else that is. Because romance and love, and even lust and passion, are real. They are just as much a part of the story and serve just as much as any sidequest or personal quest for any other character. Not everything has to be tied into the main narrative, and if it is it usually makes a game world feel small and too narrow in its focus, and you end up playing in a world akin to the Pokemon universe where every single person wants to talk about Pokemon and only Pokemon and nobody talks or thinks or even does anything that doesn't revolve around them.

 

Romances flesh out the universe, making it feel real, and flesh out your companions and give you more opportunities to roleplay. If you can only flirt with one-off NPCs for the sake of progressing a quest and/or getting something you want and not express interest in somebody closer to you and flirt with them, it not only makes things feel arbitrarily restrictive and unrealistic, but it cheapens the emotions associated with such acts by limiting them to meaningless and selfish circumstances alone.

 

I also find it ironic that people would find getting to know somebody over time intimately after sharing a long, dangerous adventure together where you bond by constantly facing death itself back-to-back eventually leading to rolling around in a bedroll or tavern bed together distasteful, poorly done and weak, but throwing yourself at strangers to get information through sexual deception merely because it serves the main narrative and RPG convention of charming people with your sexual wiles perfectly okay by comparison.

[BruceVC]

First of all, such a thing as "homophobia" does not exist. The "ilness" was invented by a gay activist in the 1970s, who also, based on the name, was an idiot (phobia ia an irrational fear of something) so please spare me you self-righteous indigniation. And just because "some people" respect something, it does not mean that I have to. It's called having an opinion.

 

You right. You are a bigot and you have a derogatory view on gay relationships, how did you word it .."yuck".

 

Tell me something, what would people think if you said " I hope this game doesn't have African American people in it, its so controversial" ?

 

Discrimination is discrimination, and you can try to say its your opinion as if it that makes it right but it doesn't.

[BasaltineBadger]

First of all, such a thing as "homophobia" does not exist. The "ilness" was invented by a gay activist in the 1970s, who also, based on the name, was an idiot (phobia ia an irrational fear of something) so please spare me you self-righteous indigniation. And just because "some people" respect something, it does not mean that I have to. It's called having an opinion.

 

You right. You are a bigot and you have a derogatory view on gay relationships, how did you word it .."yuck".

 

Tell me something, what would people think if you said " I hope this game doesn't have African American people in it, its so controversial" ?

 

Discrimination is discrimination, and you can try to say its your opinion as if it that makes it right but it doesn't.

 

It's a fantasy game, African Americans are the last thing I would expect.

Edited September 18, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[Longknife]

First of all, such a thing as "homophobia" does not exist. The "ilness" was invented by a gay activist in the 1970s, who also, based on the name, was an idiot (phobia ia an irrational fear of something) so please spare me you self-righteous indigniation. And just because "some people" respect something, it does not mean that I have to. It's called having an opinion.

 

You right. You are a bigot and you have a derogatory view on gay relationships, how did you word it .."yuck".

 

Tell me something, what would people think if you said " I hope this game doesn't have African American people in it, its so controversial" ?

 

Discrimination is discrimination, and you can try to say its your opinion as if it that makes it right but it doesn't.

 

It's a fantasy game, African Americans are the last thing I would expect.

 

Humans?

 

SPOILER ALERT: Africans are a type of human.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Longknife

[Crosmando]

Now that's RPG mechanics, because it serves a point in the actual story. BG romances didn't have any point.

That is like saying that a story does not have a point...

Pretty sure the story was about being the son of Bhaal and Irenicus's plot, but okay. They were completely optional and you had to actually mine conversations with the companions to get them. You could avoid them completely and it never affects the story one bit.

 

I just thought they were silly little minigames, and what's worse they didn't actually change anything after (apart from the companion staying in your party), which made them even more jarring.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Crosmando

[BasaltineBadger]

First of all, such a thing as "homophobia" does not exist. The "ilness" was invented by a gay activist in the 1970s, who also, based on the name, was an idiot (phobia ia an irrational fear of something) so please spare me you self-righteous indigniation. And just because "some people" respect something, it does not mean that I have to. It's called having an opinion.

 

You right. You are a bigot and you have a derogatory view on gay relationships, how did you word it .."yuck".

 

Tell me something, what would people think if you said " I hope this game doesn't have African American people in it, its so controversial" ?

 

Discrimination is discrimination, and you can try to say its your opinion as if it that makes it right but it doesn't.

 

It's a fantasy game, African Americans are the last thing I would expect.

 

Humans?

 

SPOILER ALERT: Africans are a type of human.

 

Most fantasy worlds don't fave either Africa or America, hence they can't have Afroamericans.

That't the joke.

 

 

Pretty sure the story was about being the son of Bhaal and Irenicus's plot, but okay. They were completely optional and you had to actually mine conversations with the companions to get them. You could avoid them completely and it never affects the story one bit.

 

I just thought they were silly little minigames, and what's worse they didn't actually change anything after (apart from the companion staying in your party), which made them even more jarring.

 

You could say the same about almost every sidequest. RPG usually have many sub-plots besides the main plot, there is nothing weird about that. Also romances are practically no different than every other bit of companion-centered dialogue, if you want to remove them you could remove every dialogue between the MC and companions that's not about the main plot.

Edited September 18, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[Shadenuat]

This Poll is like Bioware Social in miniature.

 

Let me ask something of people who want "romances".

What if there will be a romance between player's companions, but noone would be interested in player himself because, for example, he would be like a pariah because he witnessed that "mystical event"?

So you have a great love story you would be a watcher of, but noone would really be interested in your character, because writers had their own view of what romantic relationship they want in that story?

 

You will have romance in party. Story. Maybe even great drama. Plot. Let's even go as far as say you will have some choices and consequences (for example, unless you somehow break that romance for those characters, they will leave your party forever). But not centered around you. Will that be "a romance"?

Edited September 18, 2012 by Shadenuat

[Entropious]

First of all, such a thing as "homophobia" does not exist. The "ilness" was invented by a gay activist in the 1970s, who also, based on the name, was an idiot (phobia ia an irrational fear of something) so please spare me you self-righteous indigniation. And just because "some people" respect something, it does not mean that I have to. It's called having an opinion.

 

You right. You are a bigot and you have a derogatory view on gay relationships, how did you word it .."yuck".

 

Tell me something, what would people think if you said " I hope this game doesn't have African American people in it, its so controversial" ?

 

Discrimination is discrimination, and you can try to say its your opinion as if it that makes it right but it doesn't.

 

Are you comparing the results of slavery, mass murder and the prosecution and "husbandry" of an entire people based purely on the colour of their skin with individuals who, according to most cultures, religions and, most importantly, most people, are sexual deviants?

[canakin]

I would only like to see romances if there is also the possibility of catching STDs and slowly dying, losing stats permanently or getting ridiculed by your peers for being a forever alone virgin and taking big penalties to CHR if you decide to not to get involved in romances. Make it a solid game mechanic and add whatever romances you want, men,women, goats w/e.

Edited September 18, 2012 by canakin

[canakin]

Edit: Double post. Sorry.

Edited September 18, 2012 by canakin

[BasaltineBadger]

This Poll is like Bioware Social in miniature.

 

Let me ask something of people who want "romances".

What if there will be a romance between player's companions, but noone would be interested in player himself because, for example, he would be like a pariah because he witnessed that "mystical event"?

So you have a great love story you would be a watcher of, but noone would really be interested in your character, because writers had their own view of what romantic relationship they want in that story?

 

You will have romance in party. Story. Maybe even great drama. Plot. Let's even go as far as say you will have some choices and consequences (for example, unless you somehow break that romance for those characters, they will leave your party forever). But not centered around you. Will that be "a romance"?

 

So anti-romance crowd is satisfied with romance subplot they can't avoid or affect in any way as long if there is no option of player being involved? This makes absolutely no sense.

[Terror K]

This Poll is like Bioware Social in miniature.

 

Let me ask something to people who want "romances".

What if there will be a romance between player's companions, but noone would be interested in player himself because, for example, he would be like a pariah because he witnessed that "mystical event"?

So you have a great love story you would be a watcher of, but noone would really be interested in your character, because writers had their own view of what romantic relationship they want in that story?

 

You will have romance in party. Story. Maybe even great drama. Plot. But not centered around you. Will that be "a romance"?

 

To be honest, I've wanted to see that happen in a game. Not the whole inability to romance anybody yourself, but to have companions involved in romances independent of you. Whether it's inevitable or you need to have certain conditions met (i.e. you have to tool around with two particular companions often to get them to connect and form a romance) or you need to have rejected or ignored them yourself first, etc. However it was done, I think that would add more personality and dynamic to the characters and game as a whole. One of the very, very few things I actually liked about Dragon Age 2* was trying to flirt with Aveline, but her being completely ignorant of your advances and not even interested because she was into a guard she worked with.

 

I don't think it would work cutting the PC out of the equation entirely personally, but if certain characters just weren't interested in the PC no matter what, but were into some other potential companion (or even recurring NPC) then I'd be all for it. In fact, I'd welcome it. Especially if it's done in a matter that happens if there's no way the companion would be interested in the PC based on the way they've been designed (e.g. a straight male character would not be interested in a male PC, so may get involved with another female companion. However, if the player is female, that might throw a spanner in the works).

 

*Let me stress again... VERY few things. Horrid game as a whole!

[Kilroy_Was_Here]

As far as I can tell, those that oppose including romance fall into three basic categories:

 

1) I don't like romance/romance in games doesn't belong

-I have nothing against this opinion, but the idea that nobody should have the option because you yourself wouldn't take it/don't like it is difficult to justify.

 

2) Romances in other games were done poorly

-Here I agree completely. Romances in many (perhaps most) other RPGs that have them were shallow/tacked-on/badly written. That is a reason for them not to be included in THOSE games, not necessarily THIS game. Other games have bad combat/inventory/character creation. Does that mean that those can't be high quality in this game?

 

3) There is a limit to the amount of money/time/manpower available for this game and the inclusion of romances will result in some other feature (usually not specified) that I and everyone else want more

-A romance requires additional work by the writer(s) and the voice actors. Things like coding and QA would be required for a romance or whatever other preferred feature people might want instead so I'll call that a wash. Judging by the high level of activity in this thread and the breakdown of the poll results romances seem to be a popular feature. If you have any specific suggestions for how the writing staff and VA should spend their time that we the fans might like better I'd love to hear it. However, the idea that Obsidian should not have romances but have better animations/UI/graphics/etc instead is misleading, those resources are not easily transferable.

[TwinkieGorilla]

None of the above. If you are looking to videogames for a relationship simulation you might want to reevaluate just what it is you're after.

[Shadenuat]

So anti-romance crowd is satisfied with romance subplot they can't avoid or affect in any way as long if there is no option of player being involved? This makes absolutely no sense.

 

What I asked was, rather, a light trolling - people who want romance seem to imply that without romances, it is't realistic, because you have a group of six characters adventuring and it's hard to believe "something" would't happen. That romances add depth to characters, depth to the plot, make it more believeable - as there is "love" happening in the world, just like in real one.

In truth, I feel people who are iron-certain and "pro" romances, are the same who can't play Planescape because you can only play male character there, and just want story to turn around them. They are't just "interested in the story", they are only interested in the story about *them*.

 

I don't think it would work cutting the PC out of the equation entirely personally

Why? It's the story and depth which matter. What if none of writers would feel any of their characters fit into romance with your PC? We can't dictate to writers what they write, you know. Maybe noone of them want their cute Aerie to be ****d by your chaotic-good half-orc barbarian because they feel she has other place in the story.

Is it about choice of actions for your PC? Well, what if everyone says "no"? Is it automatically makes story "bad" and "unrealistic"?

Edited September 18, 2012 by Shadenuat

[BasaltineBadger]

What I asked was, rather, a light trolling - people who want romance seem to imply that without romances, it is't realistic, because you have a group of six characters adventuring and it's hard to believe "something" would't happen. That romances add depth to characters, depth to the plot, make it more believeable - as there is "love" happening in the world, just like in real one.

In truth, I feel people who are iron-certain and "pro" romances, are the same who can't play Planescape because you can only play male character there, and just want story to turn around them. They are't just "interested in the story", they are only interested in the story about *them*.

So this is what you are getting at. I personally think that the romances should be there because people usually like them and there is no reason to exclude them.

[Bos_hybrid]

there is no reason to exclude them.

 

Except for limited resources.

[Terror K]

I don't think it would work cutting the PC out of the equation entirely personally

Why? It's the story and depth which matter. What if none of writers would feel any of their characters fit into romance with your PC? We can't dictate to writers what they write, you know. Maybe noone of them want their cute Aerie to be ****d by your chaotic-good half-orc barbarian because they feel she has other place in the story.

Is it about choice of actions for your PC? Well, what if everyone says "no"? Is it automatically makes story "bad" and "unrealistic"?

 

What I meant is that I don't think cutting the PC out of the equation entirely is a good idea, since the game is supposed to revolve around your character, and it would be unrealistic and silly to have everybody else able to express these emotions and not you. I'd find it highly unrealistic that if your character is the main hero of this universe that nobody would be interested in you, and why would you suddenly lose the ability to show an interest in others? It's not realistic, and puts an unnecessary and pointless restriction on the player.

 

For the second point, I actually agree... to a degree. I don't think every time you create a character they should be able to romance every companion. The problem with too many romances in RPGs is that they tend to either almost be the PC forcing themselves on the romance interest until they reciprocate, or they just ignore the issue entirely (i.e. when a player can only romance characters of the opposite gender). So there's either no chance or even attempt because the game shuts you out of even trying, or the romance possibility is pretty much a given with the right choices and enough persuading. BG2 thankfully was an exception to a degree with alignment and certain actions possibly dooming a romance depending on the character involved, but that was about it. While I agree that the latter should be present under certain circumstances, I believe the former should never exist*, and that romances should depend just as much on the one you are trying to get involved with as it does with your character.

 

Everything should be dynamic and realistic. If you don't pursue somebody directly in any manner, then they shouldn't generally try and return romantic intentions. However, if you do enough things that would garner their favour even ignoring direct romantic advances, then perhaps they could approach you if these factors make you interesting to them. But if you're constantly doing things that they hate, or you're generally not interesting to them because they don't like your race, gender, alignment, factions you've sided with, other friends of yours, the way you treat certain other races or factions they like, etc. then it should become harder and harder to pursue a romance with them, and even be impossible under certain circumstances.

 

So, yes... certain circumstances should cut romances off, and stop the player from being able to pursue them. But this too should be based of circumstances and not every character a player makes should be shut out of every romance. For romances to work, the characters at least need to be able to work as partners, and the ease or difficulty of this should depend on all the factors that make up both the PC's character and the character who is the romance option, varying with everything from bedding them in a few days because things click between the characters perfectly, to no chance in hell if your character was the last person in the known universe.

 

* And by this I don't mean pulling a DA2 and making every romance candidate bisexual, but at least giving the opportunity for the player to try their luck anyway. If a player wants to try and have their male PC flirt with another male PC who is very much straight, they should be still given the choice to do so, even if it results in inevitable failure.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Terror K

[BasaltineBadger]

there is no reason to exclude them.

 

Except for limited resources.

 

Few pages of dialogue won't consume much of the resources.