Sex and Romance Poll

[Crosmando]

there is no reason to exclude them.

 

Except for limited resources.

 

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

Romances in BG2 didn't work like that, they were branching. Every time you offer a new choice in a dialogue it potentially doubles the content. You don't just copy and paste them from MS Word, they need to be scripted into the game. It's more work than you think.

[Kilroy_Was_Here]

* 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.

 

I'm surprised why we haven't seen this in games already. IRL I've been flirted with by a gay person before, told him I wasn't interested and he moved on. No big deal.

 

Maybe in games your character instinctively knows which characters are amenable to their affections and will avoid showing affection to anyone else. I mean, unless you've played the game before or are using a guide how would you know ahead of time if someone were interested in your character or not?

[Shadenuat]

Terror K said...

 

Seems to me you once again imply some sort of "right" on PC that, if he follows a specific set of rules and actions, then a love story "just happens". Does it completely not matter for you that a possible overarching story of the game may be so important or emotionally enfeeble PC that pursuing any romance is just not an option?

[TwinkieGorilla]

there is no reason to exclude them.

 

There is no reason to include them.

[alphyna]

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"?

Now that would be really awesome! Better than an actual romance, really. Especially if I get to choose how my character reacts do this. Does he cheer them? Is he bitter and jealous? To what extent? I don't want the events to be centered around me, but I want to have a say in them, and I want my character to have emotions.

 

That would be really great.

[Sensuki]

I want tragedy, pain and suffering.

 

Happy relationships aren't the type I enjoy reading about.

 

Edited September 18, 2012 by Sensuki

[BasaltineBadger]

there is no reason to exclude them.

 

Except for limited resources.

 

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

Romances in BG2 didn't work like that, they were branching. Every time you offer a new choice in a dialogue it potentially doubles the content. You don't just copy and paste them from MS Word, they need to be scripted into the game. It's more work than you think.

Just like any other dialogue with companions. Should we just cut off every companion and replace them with custom companions to save money just because some people don't like companions? Seeing how much people like romances in BG2 it's not a bad investment.

 

There is no reason to include them.

 

People generally liked them.

Edited September 18, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[BasaltineBadger]

Double post

Edited September 18, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[alphyna]

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*.

 

There's a huge difference. Games can use different approaches: either the main character is predetermined (complete with his gender, sexual preferences and all), or he is customizable. Actually, I prefer the first option, but it's painfully rare. TNO is predetermined. The main character of PE is customizable. So when I play PS:T, i play TNO; when I play PE, I play me. I've no problem with TNO loving someone I hate, but it just doesn't work that way in PE. Thus if you don't give me a character with given background and stuff, I want options (romantic interests among them) to choose from. Thus I love DA2's approach.

[Shadenuat]

Romances in BG2 didn't work like that, they were branching.

 

Not in a very complex sense, no. Most of them were "say right thing or RomanceAerie = 0". Ask modders if you don't believe me.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Shadenuat

[Jiraboas]

there is no reason to exclude them.

 

Except for limited resources.

 

So, thats it guys.

 

Lets get down to buissness!

 

Who of you worked in the game industry or is at least programmer, game designer or somthing other who could know about the complexity of the game development process, huh?

 

I dont believe some of this total wrong statements here.

 

To compare romances to combat, character system, etc, is totally nonsense!

 

There much much much much more things at developing a game, than to put some text/dialouge together and set it at the right place. To do it better than in other games, you have to do more than just this, but it will be never grow in that scope of a combat system, a isometric rendering engine, the inventory or ingame effect, and so on.

 

So please, before you write such a nonsense ask people who know about this, because they worked as a programmer for example...

 

 

kind regards,

 

Jira

[TwinkieGorilla]

People generally liked them.

 

Name one single revered cRPG which people love because of romances.

[Bos_hybrid]

there is no reason to exclude them.

 

Except for limited resources.

 

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

Romances in BG2 didn't work like that, they were branching. Every time you offer a new choice in a dialogue it potentially doubles the content. You don't just copy and paste them from MS Word, they need to be scripted into the game. It's more work than you think.

Just like any other dialogue with companions. Should we just cut off every companion and replace them with custom companions to save money just because some people don't like companions? Seeing how much people like romances in BG2 it's not a bad investment.

 

Simple romances are a burden on resources. When your bioware with $20mil in resources, you can add six romances. When your Obs with $3-4 millions, you can't. Accept that and move on.

 

Story, branching pathways, factions, lore, class design, system design, encounter design, etc are all more important than romances. Yes it's my opinion and I really don't care if you don't agree with it.

[Longknife]

I want tragedy, pain and suffering.

 

Happy relationships aren't the type I enjoy reading about.

 

No need to be such a downer, brah.

 

Your character needs to smoke a blunt, for real.

[Tale]

there is no reason to exclude them.

If the author doesn't think it's a fit for the character there is. There are entire character archetypes that are somewhat at odds with what people wish to see from romances and there's no reason to exclude those, or similar, ideas. And there's even less reason to subvert the character concept just for the purpose of supporting a romance.

[Lostbrain]

there is no reason to exclude them.

 

There is no reason to include them.

 

There is no reason to make an RPG. We can now speak seriously, or can I troll again ? (Please, let me troll ! )

[Delterius]

there is no reason to exclude them.

 

 

I dont believe some of this total wrong statements here.

 

To compare romances to combat, character system, etc, is totally nonsense!

 

The designers of Arcanum regreted putting their effort on flavor like reactive journals about the player's achievements. Yes, time is money. Especially when you design actual content around the romantic subplots.

 

If the author doesn't think it's a fit for the character there is. There are entire character archetypes that are somewhat at odds with what people wish to see from romances and there's no reason to exclude those, or similar, ideas. And there's even less reason to subvert the character concept just for the purpose of supporting a romance.

 

I cannot stress this enough. I had a discussion with a person who praised DA2's love interests because 'it made totally sense for my lesbian character and <straight woman> to be together'.

[TwinkieGorilla]

There is no reason to make an RPG.

 

Sure there is. To sell to RPG fans.

[Lostbrain]

I have wrote a post page 14 where I explicite why romance (with any links between your character and the NPC) are important for the Roleplay. I'won't pollute this tread, but if I read another time "romance have nothing to do with RPG", I surely will repost this post...

[Wintersong]

there is no reason to exclude them.

 

Except for limited resources.

Considering that the game is not even funded yet, still 28 days, they cannot outright ban romances as a possibility. They still don't know how much money they will be able to use. Considering that romances are extra content... shouldn't we complain about getting Mac version of the game instead of extra content? Just an example, don't read too much into it. Just keep in mind that when someone doesn't want something in the game, one of the arguments is "Limited resources".

 

First, romances should be in if they make sense for the story (and character). And only in that case. Then it'd be a matter of checking the available resources and other stuff like feature creep. I'd not say that romances are one of the most important things in the game but they are not as irrelevant as some people wants to think. Unless we are talking BioRomances lately. But I thought we were talking Obsidian.

[Mutasir]

I would not mind seeing romances in the game but I don't want them to be XP/rewards mines (NWN 2: MotB comes to my mind). I would definitely like to see rich banter system, also with party dialogues initiated by player's discretion.

[TwinkieGorilla]

if I read another time "romance have nothing to do with RPG"

 

Romance (has) nothing to do with RPG(s).

 

I wrote a post on page 17 asking somebody to name one revered cRPG which is revered because of romance.

[BasaltineBadger]

Simple romances are a burden on resources. When your bioware with $20mil in resources, you can add six romances. When your Obs with $3-4 millions, you can't. Accept that and move on.

 

Story, branching pathways, factions, lore, class design, system design, encounter design, etc are all more important than romances. Yes it's my opinion and I really don't care if you don't agree with it.

 

But this is not true. Few pages of branching dialogues are no burden, otherwise the whole system of dialogues with party characters would have been cut off. Romance dialogue is a great minority of party dialogue even in as romance centered and dialogue light game as Mass Effect. Mask of the Betrayal didn't have 20 mil budget but there were romances and there was no indication from developers that they was no indication from developers that the romances strained their budget. It's just another piece of dialogue, I don't know why are you so much against it. You waste more budget on an useless companion nobody wants. You just want them to exclude romances because Bioware did them, not because you are concerned with written dialogue ruining a budget of a game.

 

Name one single revered cRPG which people love because of romances.

 

Nome one revered RPG which people love because of item descriptions, or because it included gnomes. Guess we should cut them off too.

 

If the author doesn't think it's a fit for the character there is. There are entire character archetypes that are somewhat at odds with what people wish to see from romances and there's no reason to exclude those, or similar, ideas. And there's even less reason to subvert the character concept just for the purpose of supporting a romance.

 

Nobody wants to force romance with characters romance doesn't fit or by making every party member romancable.

[Lostbrain]

There is no reason to make an RPG.

 

Sure there is. To sell to RPG fans.

 

Why ? At the end, we all die. Ah, I can continue this all day...

[TwinkieGorilla]

Nome one revered RPG which people love because of item descriptions

 

Fallout.

 

or because it included gnomes.

 

Arcanum.