Sex and Romance Poll

[dlux]

I truly hope Obsidian has enough dignity not to cater to a bunch of datesim-loving-smoking-cigarettes.

If romance is included in the game, then just don't pursue it if you hate it. Simple.

 

I just don't understand why people want to be ABLE to interact with their companions and world with every known possible human emotion (anger, pride, rage, frustation, sorrow, disappointment, envy, regret, satisfaction, fear, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)....

 

but have a problem with love, lust and passion. That seriously does not make sense to me.

Edited September 18, 2012 by dlux

[Lostbrain]

Well, that is going to be a longer post than those whom I usually wrote in in English, then I hope you’ll forgive the faults.^^

 

http://forums.obsidi...120#entry725311

 

I like this comment because it join my point of view. The romances were still never well realized in the RPG. About the last ones from BioWare, they are very bad : you don’t play a romance, you watch it.

So I can understand that numbers of people dislike romance.

But it is not because a thing is badly made that we cannot improve it.

And it is besides why I participated in the funding of the project.

Not only to have a RPG old school copied from past glories, but also to have a rpg old school which improves the old concepts.

And the romance is a part of theses concept.

Because for a CRPG, as a tabletop RPG, I invente the roleplay of my characters.

And people can say what they want, but love (and possibly sex ^^) are themes mattering in the life of everybody, and consequently have an implication on the roleplay of a character (unless everybody decides to embody eunuchs, what remains possible^^).

Thus, if Obsidian wants to make their work at best, the roleplay in Project Eternity has to consider a lot of elements, including the possibility of a romantic connection (not systematically, and which for example appear only under the influence of precise factors)

Because roleplay is about create and develop fictitious links between characters. And romance is an important link.

For example, if the player plays in a way that that no character is attracted by him, then no romance have to be forced (contrary to what makes BioWare), but if these conditions are filled, there should be possibility of romance with a specific character (conditions will be different for any character who can have romance.).

If obsidian does not know how to make it well, so they just don’t do it (after all, it is better to have nothing rather than a very bad made/written romance).

But I would be disappointed that they do not try to make well a thing important for the Roleplay: that would mean CRPG are stagnating, and in that case, so much remaining on the old games.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Lostbrain

[Jiraboas]

I truly hope Obsidian has enough dignity not to cater to a bunch of datesim-loving-smoking-cigarettes.

If romance is included in the game, then just don't pursue it if you hate it. Simple.

 

I just don't understand why people want to be ABLE to interact with their companions and world with every known possible human emotion (anger, pride, rage, frustation, sorrow, disappointment, envy, regret, satisfaction, fear, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)....

 

but have a problem with love, lust and passion. That seriously does not make sense to me.

 

You are not the only one

 

I dont make sense to me either...

 

And the anti-romance side dont state out many valuable arguments.

 

kind regards,

 

Jira

[Crosmando]

What if it was tied to gameplay? Like some stat increases, abilities, actions?

That would add even more complications because it would rely on the sex of the PC. So if you had one female companion that was romancable if your character is male, that would mean Obsidian would need to make a male counterpart to that NPC (if your character was female) with dialogue altered to how a male talks, that's because the player gets to choose the sex of their PC. And that's not even taking into account if you wanted to have a gay character, which would mean adding a gay/straight affliation in the character creation screen.

 

Do you realize how stupid that is? Do you realize how much pointless work scripters would need to make a system like that work, just so you can chat up an elf maiden or burly dwarf man? Not to mention how immersion-breaking having modern moral systems in medieval settings is (there were no gay people in the middle-ages, not because they didn't exist but because the concept was so culturally reviled that you'd probably end up burnt at the stake unless you were like the richest noble in the land).

 

You'll also notice that I said PC (Playable Character) a few times when I could have said just "Player", because romances are really crossing the line into simulation, ie it's about the person behind the screen, not your character in the game

Edited September 18, 2012 by Crosmando

[BruceVC]

I truly hope Obsidian has enough dignity not to cater to a bunch of datesim-loving-smoking-cigarettes.

If romance is included in the game, then just don't pursue it if you hate it. Simple.

 

I just don't understand why people want to be ABLE to interact with their companions and world with every known possible human emotion (anger, pride, rage, frustation, sorrow, disappointment, envy, regret, satisfaction, fear, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)....

 

but have a problem with love, lust and passion. That seriously does not make sense to me.

 

You are not the only one

 

I dont make sense to me either...

 

And the anti-romance side dont state out many valuable arguments.

 

kind regards,

 

Jira

 

I also agree with you two

[kibblesticks]

Sorry, sorry, back up a second. This is a role-playing game right? Based on the idea that your character can interact with a "realistic" and "mature" world however he likes? What if I want to create a dashing rogue who romances babes across the land? Or a valiant knight who believes in true love? Or a normal human being with emotions ranging beyond "let's kill stuff"?

 

Hell the backbone of fantasy is based on beating the monster and winning the girl. What's the point in saving the land if you're a bloody hermit? And if you have close friends then realistically some of those friends are going to start taking an interest because that's the way real life works! Unless you're playing a complete moron or a total arse-face.

[Longknife]

You are not the only one

 

I dont make sense to me either...

 

And the anti-romance side dont state out many valuable arguments.

 

kind regards,

 

Jira

 

Dear Jira,

 

Here is a valuable argument:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpdzdhm9ZUk

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Longknife

[Terror K]

The excuse that some other games do romance poorly is not an excuse to exclude it. If it was, then we may as well exclude good tactical combat and character customisation just because some other games do them poorly.

[Jiraboas]

You are not the only one

 

I dont make sense to me either...

 

And the anti-romance side dont state out many valuable arguments.

 

kind regards,

 

Jira

 

Dear Jira,

 

Here is a valuable argument:

 

 

It is, indeed.

 

Touché :D

 

kind regards,

 

Jiras

Edited September 18, 2012 by Jiraboas

[Crosmando]

The excuse that some other games do romance poorly is not an excuse to exclude it. If it was, then we may as well exclude good tactical combat and character customisation just because some other games do them poorly.

Money doesn't grow on trees. What feature do you think is less important than romances? Because something will have to go completely or be scaled back so Obsidian have the time/money to script romances.

 

For example, in Arcanum Tarant (the main city) has a newspaper which changes based on the actions of the PC, so if you do something in the game world, something good or bad which makes big news, you can actually pick up a copy of the paper and it will say [player name] has done this.

 

I personally think that's a good feature, it shows reactivity of the world, that the world isn't static with the same old NPC's sitting around town telling you the same rumors.

 

It's not a neccessary feature, but it would be nice if a feature like this could be in this game.

[BasaltineBadger]

What if it was tied to gameplay? Like some stat increases, abilities, actions?

That would add even more complications because it would rely on the sex of the PC. So if you had one female companion that was romancable if your character is male, that would mean Obsidian would need to make a male counterpart to that NPC (if your character was female) with dialogue altered to how a male talks, that's because the player gets to choose the sex of their PC. And that's not even taking into account if you wanted to have a gay character, which would mean adding a gay/straight affliation in the character creation screen.

 

Do you realize how stupid that is? Do you realize how much pointless work scripters would need to make a system like that work, just so you can chat up an elf maiden or burly dwarf man? Not to mention how immersion-breaking having modern moral systems in medieval settings is (there were no gay people in the middle-ages, not because they didn't exist but because the concept was so culturally reviled that you'd probably end up burnt at the stake unless you were like the richest noble in the land).

 

You'll also notice that I said PC (Playable Character) a few times when I could have said just "Player", because romances are really crossing the line into simulation, ie it's about the person behind the screen, not your character in the game

 

I don't see how adding stat increases and other bonuses for romancing certain NPCs would lead to that. When elf character gets some bonuses because of his relationships it doesn't mean that a dwarf character needs to get the exact same bonus in by being a dwarf.

 

@ CrosmandoBut the same could be said about everything else in the game. Romances are only extra dialogues but there are also locations you might not like that drains resources from your favorite element, I don't know why should we cut romances instead of every sewer and warehouse location, because I'm sure people enjoy romances more than sewers and warehouses .

Edited September 18, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[Crosmando]

What if it was tied to gameplay? Like some stat increases, abilities, actions?

That would add even more complications because it would rely on the sex of the PC. So if you had one female companion that was romancable if your character is male, that would mean Obsidian would need to make a male counterpart to that NPC (if your character was female) with dialogue altered to how a male talks, that's because the player gets to choose the sex of their PC. And that's not even taking into account if you wanted to have a gay character, which would mean adding a gay/straight affliation in the character creation screen.

 

Do you realize how stupid that is? Do you realize how much pointless work scripters would need to make a system like that work, just so you can chat up an elf maiden or burly dwarf man? Not to mention how immersion-breaking having modern moral systems in medieval settings is (there were no gay people in the middle-ages, not because they didn't exist but because the concept was so culturally reviled that you'd probably end up burnt at the stake unless you were like the richest noble in the land).

 

You'll also notice that I said PC (Playable Character) a few times when I could have said just "Player", because romances are really crossing the line into simulation, ie it's about the person behind the screen, not your character in the game

 

I don't see how adding stat increases and other bonuses for romancing certain NPCs would lead to that. When elf character gets some bonuses because of his relationships it doesn't mean that a dwarf character needs to get the exact same bonus in by being a dwarf.

It would have to work that way, or the game would be unbalanced to one race, if one race got a bonus others didn't, people would just play as that race. The same as having a spell which is overpowered, so there's no point with bothering with any other part of combat because you can just keep using an unbalanced spell to kill everything.

[Jiraboas]

What feature do you think is less important than romances?

 

Come on. This is not the point.

 

If a feature is more important than an other depends not on individual taste, it is based on the game concept.

 

If i want to make a Dungeon Crawler, no one expect deep dialogues or complex characters. I expect a good dungein design, many monsters, weapons, a good balancing and optionally a little bit story.

 

If i make a racing game, the people expect good looking cars, good physics, many tune options, and so on.But Characters and romance? Nobody cares!

 

But in a RPG wich is about PEOPLE and about a PARTY of PEOPLE, no developer will laugh at you if you expect characters, story and all this. Because it is part of the game.

 

If romance/love is a important part of the concept, then it doesnt matter what I thinkt or what you think. It only matter if its a important part of the game concept. If its dont, then you are right, then it is an unimportant features. But if character ineraction part of the man concept, also romance IS a important part.

 

 

kind regards,

 

Jira

[SanguineAngel]

This thread has started eating its own tail. /exit

[Entropious]

All in all, I guess it depends upon how many copies do the developers desire to sell. Advertising homosexual relationships as one of the important points of a games would not only make more conservative people (the majority) go "Yuck", but also a lot of the more liberal ones mutter "What a cheap trick, selling a game through controversy".

[Terror K]

The excuse that some other games do romance poorly is not an excuse to exclude it. If it was, then we may as well exclude good tactical combat and character customisation just because some other games do them poorly.

Money doesn't grow on trees. What feature do you think is less important than romances? Because something will have to go completely or be scaled back so Obsidian have the time/money to script romances.

 

For example, in Arcanum Tarant (the main city) has a newspaper which changes based on the actions of the PC, so if you do something in the game world, something good or bad which makes big news, you can actually pick up a copy of the paper and it will say [player name] has done this.

 

I personally think that's a good feature, it shows reactivity of the world, that the world isn't static with the same old NPC's sitting around town telling you the same rumors.

 

It's not a neccessary feature, but it would be nice if a feature like this could be in this game.

 

Personally speaking, romances kind of fall in a category that I feel is neither essential nor merely fluff. They are somewhere between major content and "stuff that would be nice" IMO. But to me, the whole setting would feel empty and like it was missing something if they weren't there.

 

As dlux said, in a setting where you're going to have emotions and things like anger, pride, rage, frustration, sorrow, disappointment, envy, regret, satisfaction, fear, etc. it would seem completely off to avoid love, lust and passion. These things have to exist in the setting, and people would seem like robots without them. It would seem like Obsidian were purposefully avoiding these emotions and issues if they weren't there in some form.

 

I think a lot of people are more afraid of the romances dominating the game too much more than actually hating the content themselves, otherwise they would simply avoid the content entirely and leave it at that. There seems to be this fear that Obsidian will have romances take control and almost define the whole game if they have them at all. They didn't in BG2... I see no reason why they should in Project Eternity.

 

I fully understand the argument about missing out on other content... I felt the same about Mass Effect 3 when it came to the announcements of multiplayer and Kinect support for example. But the game would feel empty without romances and without dealing with these factors, IMO. I'd certainly take romances over another few missions or some "nice, but unnecessary" content like the newspaper you mentioned. Content like that can be added in Expansions or DLC later. I'd even take romances over a player home in fact. I generally enjoy them and look forward to them when they're in a game and done well.

[BruceVC]

You are not the only one

 

I dont make sense to me either...

 

And the anti-romance side dont state out many valuable arguments.

 

kind regards,

 

Jira

 

Dear Jira,

 

Here is a valuable argument:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpdzdhm9ZUk

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Longknife

 

Lol..that did make me laugh

 

But Longknife are you suggesting that the utterances of love, now and forever, in that video weren't sincere and that they didn't emotionally move you?

[alphyna]

I actually find it weird how many people here state that they can't get attached to pixels. So... how do you roleplay, people? How do you watch movies (it's just a bunch of pixels too, you know)? Emotional attachment to imaginary figures is absolutely natural. When I play an RPG, I love characters, hate characters, want to spend time with characters. If I don't, this game sucks.

[Crosmando]

Sure, character interaction, I think romance as part of a greater story or side-story is fine, in fact it's expected. I just don't see why they should waste time making BG2-style romances, which are in fact just long dialogue puzzles of flavour text, where you have to choose the right responses.

[BasaltineBadger]

It would have to work that way, or the game would be unbalanced to one race, if one race got a bonus others didn't, people would just play as that race. The same as having a spell which is overpowered, so there's no point with bothering with any other part of combat because you can just keep using an unbalanced spell to kill everything.

 

First of all, they could get different bonuses. You give 4 romancable characters, 2 male and 2 female and they each give different bonus. Same with races.

Second of all, RPGs aren't hardcore enough for people to min-max their stats so much. Every non-casual player would beat the game without the romance/race bonus even if there was no equivalent just like he can beat the game by not doing every quest or by not playing the most powerful possible build.

[BruceVC]

All in all, I guess it depends upon how many copies do the developers desire to sell. Advertising homosexual relationships as one of the important points of a games would not only make more conservative people (the majority) go "Yuck", but also a lot of the more liberal ones mutter "What a cheap trick, selling a game through controversy".

 

 

Honestly I find your homophobic perspective distasteful.

 

Some of us respect the fact that if straight people can have relationships in a game then so can gay people. And no need to worry, gay relationships in a game don't effect sales as we can see from the DA franchise.

[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 indignation. And just because "some people" respect something, it does not mean that I have to. It's called having an opinion.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Entropious

[BasaltineBadger]

Sure, character interaction, I think romance as part of a greater story or side-story is fine, in fact it's expected. I just don't see why they should waste time making BG2-style romances, which are in fact just long dialogue puzzles of flavour text, where you have to choose the right responses.

 

The same reason why they make every other dialogues, because there are people who like to read them. I personally don't like diplomatic approach in RPGs because it's usually skipping combat by clicking right dialogues, but that doesn't mean that they should remove it. Romances has the same right to be in the game as every other line of dialogue.

 

 

Honestly I find your homophobic perspective distasteful.

 

Some of us respect the fact that if straight people can have relationships in a game then so can gay people. And no need to worry, gay relationships in a game don't effect sales as we can see from the DA franchise.

 

There is nothing homophobic about he's statement, he just said how people will react according to him. He didn't even talk about homosexuals in his post.

[Crosmando]

I actually find it weird how many people here state that they can't get attached to pixels. So... how do you roleplay, people? How do you watch movies (it's just a bunch of pixels too, you know)? Emotional attachment to imaginary figures is absolutely natural. When I play an RPG, I love characters, hate characters, want to spend time with characters. If I don't, this game sucks.

Pretty sure most people have read a book, and they have no pixels at all

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.

[Crosmando]

The excuse that some other games do romance poorly is not an excuse to exclude it. If it was, then we may as well exclude good tactical combat and character customisation just because some other games do them poorly.

Money doesn't grow on trees. What feature do you think is less important than romances? Because something will have to go completely or be scaled back so Obsidian have the time/money to script romances.

 

For example, in Arcanum Tarant (the main city) has a newspaper which changes based on the actions of the PC, so if you do something in the game world, something good or bad which makes big news, you can actually pick up a copy of the paper and it will say [player name] has done this.

 

I personally think that's a good feature, it shows reactivity of the world, that the world isn't static with the same old NPC's sitting around town telling you the same rumors.

 

It's not a neccessary feature, but it would be nice if a feature like this could be in this game.

snip

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.