[Merged] Gods save us another romance thread

[Elerond]

I think term romance gives wrong impression what people want and I can't blame anyone from this. As romance is so over used in books, movies and games to mean something what is not and therefore many people have strong negative feelings toward that term.

 

When I say I would like to see romance in game or that I enjoy romance in book or movie. I use term to mean what it says in dictionary.

 

 

Romance is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotional attraction towards another person associated with love.

In the context of romantic love relationships' date=' romance usually implies an expression of one's strong romantic love, or one's deep and strong emotional desires to connect with another person intimately.

[/quote']

 

 

Now days you can easily get picture that romance means that plot has sex and sex scenes on it, which is previously associated to eroticism and only sex what romantic stories had was only by implied hint.

 

So I want romance in it's orginal meaning as in that it's good way to make NPCs to ego-stroke player (to loosely cite Chris Avellon from Obsidian blog post) and it also in my opinion good way to create narrative immersion to game and make you care about your companion and to give you dilemmas can I sacrifice that NPC to get more power to my own character. Of course romances are not only way to do that and not only way how I want to see it to be done. For example friendships are other nice way to do that. But this is only my opinion what is good for the story.

[Monte Carlo]

It's still as much fun as drinking beer with a raw egg in it.

[TimB99]

As long as the romances have something to them, and they add something, ANYTHING, to the main plot (e.g. they trust you enough to give sensitive info, or charge in to save you when you're about to be sacrificed making your escape easier, or ANYTHING else), instead of it being meaningless fluff, then I'm fine with it.

 

Heck, if there are going to be complex themes in PE, then why not incorporate/intertwine romance in it as well? I like the idea of exploring moral questions with romance or camaraderie as was commented earlier..

 

->> this, pretty much:

Can you have a romance system where, instead of 'playing psychiatrist to get character info and completion rewards', love is used depict complex ranges of human behavior and lead us into making difficult moral questions? I think we can. I think that in this entire industry, if there's anyone who can pull it off, it's the guys at Obsidian.

 

That being said, as long as the romances stay as far away from the bioware/hollywood romances of 'omg, you helped me through some traumatic experience in my personal plotline and chose the flirt option 2 times', it's an improvement...

 

JM2C,

 

-Tim

Edited September 22, 2012 by TimB99

[TwinkieGorilla]

Everyone realizes that there are two very specific points in the Forum Rules that state they do not allow bashing of other developers and publishers, right?

 

Yo Backseat Moderator, I’m really happy for you. Imma Let you finish, but Obsidian's moderators are the best Obsidian moderators of all time. OF ALL TIME!

 

Because it's a slur against the company. Saying "badly written, pandering romances, like BioWare" is the same as saying...

 

Something which is unarguably true? Correct.

 

Only if it is not a core value of cRPGs. Are you arguing that romance is inherent to what makes an RPG an RPG?

 

Seems we've got a contingent of next-gen'ers here who really do believe this.

 

Because to me a CRPG romance is as useful as cracking an egg into a perfectly good pint of beer

 

Hehe. Well, much as I laughed at this and mostly agree...I guarantee you I'd not continue drinking that beer while the game (including useless, embarrassing romantic nonsense) would, at worst, make me groan, roll my eyes or laugh derisively. Still, that IS about the equivalent analogy regarding taste.

[Merin]

Chobot!=Cruise.

 

Saying Tom Cruise can act is a matter of opinion. I think he's nuttier than a fruitcake and hasn't had a decent picture since Risky Business.

 

But that's a digression - it was an analogy. Analogies are not one to one equations, They are used to show similar traits.

 

Like Tom Cruise is cast in a movie to try and get more people to see it (in a sense, pandering to the people who find him sexy or a good actor or worship Scientology), Jessica Chobot was cast in ME3 to try and entice more people to play it (pandering to IGN fans, G4 fans, people who like seeing women lick portable game units, anyone who thinks she's attractive.)

 

The fact that a few dozen angry posters on a forum will decry the inclusion of a Chobot or a Day in a game doesn't weigh enough against the thousands of fans each have.

 

It's why they did it. You can think it didn't work - it's arguable whether it did or not because there is no evidence one way or the other. Casting Day got me to buy Mark of the Assassin even though I really was disappointed with DA2, so anecdotally I am proof it can work.

 

That said, Eddie Murphy was considered a box office draw but he could save movies like Pluto Nash, so it also doesn't always work.

 

You not like Chobot doesn't change WHY she was cast.

 

No more problem with it than with people saying "I love romances in games" or "I think most romances in games have been done fine" or "I need romances in the game more than almost anything else."

 

With respect, yes there is. It's like saying "I love eggs in my beer. I think eggs in beer have been done fine." Or, "I need eggs in my beer more than almost anything else."

 

You picked that comparison due to believing that people who like romances in games are "weird" or "outside the norm"... when, using your logic, playing RPGs can be the "having eggs in your beer" as far as mainstream culture is concerned. Should there be no RPGs because most people don't play them?

 

That's assuming, of course, the majority, and not just a very, very loud minority, don't want romances.

 

Or that your audience likes beer. I'd rather drink the raw eggs, thank you.

 

Yes, that's true, but Deionnara wasn't a romance, she was a plot hook.

This is disingenuous as all hell. The TNO's relationship with Deionnara is not what is currently understood as a romance in anRPG game and nor was it treated as romance in PS:T as far as I remember. So using it as an example of how it's been done right before is a ****ty debating tactic.

She was a romance storyline used as plot hook. Which a very desirable thing in my opinion.

 

I think there's a disconnect here. I don't think every person who says they want ROMANCE in the game actually want romance with companions or mini-games to win romances

 

I know when I say I want romance in the game, I want it part of the story. I want characters to have romantic feelings where it adds to the story (not plot, story - though adding to the plot would be fine as well.) I also don't mind there being one or more options of characters in the game who are attracted to or whom my character is attracted to, or both.

 

However Obsidian would implement that is up to them.

 

Until you point to the poll that shows that people asking for romance are saying "give me the Dragon Age / Mass Effect model", you should not assume they don't mean also PS:T or Alpha Protocol or The Witcher 2 or (if I keep giving examples, someone will pick ONE and tear it apart...I'll help, try The Witcher 2, that gets picked on a lot... and I've not played it, so have at it.)

 

Only if it is not a core value of cRPGs. Are you arguing that romance is inherent to what makes an RPG an RPG?

 

Seems we've got a contingent of next-gen'ers here who really do believe this.

 

Next gen? As in, what, teen-agers?

 

I'm going to wager a bet that my nieces and nephew could be older than you (the youngest is in college) - not that this means anything at all. Age is largely irrelevent.

 

So, yeah, poison the well more. Here's the thing - whether I, or any pro-romance person, is 8 or 80 doesn't matter to the validity of our arguments or tastes.

 

For the record, my first computer was a Commodore PET. The first cRPG I played was either Bard's Tale or Phantasie, I got to Wizard's Crown late. So, yeah, Next Gen'er here.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Next gen? As in, what, teen-agers?

 

I'm going to wager a bet that my nieces and nephew could be older than you (the youngest is in college) - not that this means anything at all. Age is largely irrelevent.

 

So, yeah, poison the well more. Here's the thing - whether I, or any pro-romance person, is 8 or 80 doesn't matter to the validity of our arguments or tastes.

 

For the record, my first computer was a Commodore PET. The first cRPG I played was either Bard's Tale or Phantasie, I got to Wizard's Crown late. So, yeah, Next Gen'er here.

 

If you are a fervent fan and supporter of next-gen games I'd call you a next-gen'er. Calm down, bro. Looks like you never did cheer up. Why so serious?

[evdk]

Chobot!=Cruise.

 

Saying Tom Cruise can act is a matter of opinion. I think he's nuttier than a fruitcake and hasn't had a decent picture since Risky Business.

 

But that's a digression - it was an analogy. Analogies are not one to one equations, They are used to show similar traits.

 

Like Tom Cruise is cast in a movie to try and get more people to see it (in a sense, pandering to the people who find him sexy or a good actor or worship Scientology), Jessica Chobot was cast in ME3 to try and entice more people to play it (pandering to IGN fans, G4 fans, people who like seeing women lick portable game units, anyone who thinks she's attractive.)

 

The fact that a few dozen angry posters on a forum will decry the inclusion of a Chobot or a Day in a game doesn't weigh enough against the thousands of fans each have.

 

It's why they did it. You can think it didn't work - it's arguable whether it did or not because there is no evidence one way or the other. Casting Day got me to buy Mark of the Assassin even though I really was disappointed with DA2, so anecdotally I am proof it can work.

 

That said, Eddie Murphy was considered a box office draw but he could save movies like Pluto Nash, so it also doesn't always work.

 

You not like Chobot doesn't change WHY she was cast.

 

 

She was cast because of IGN in a disgusting attempt at further bribery. And defending obvious cash ins is sickening. I don't care if the Chobot casting paid off, it was a symptom of everything that sucks about the current publishing model.

[Monte Carlo]

Seriously?

 

That's assuming, of course, the majority, and not just a very, very loud minority, don't want romances.

 

The loudest, most vocal minority are the romance fans. They have been ever since all the Buffy fans infested the Bioware forums.

[Merin]

If you are a fervent fan and supporter of next-gen games I'd call you a next-gen'er.

 

That's a good criteria. Someone who is a fervent fan of and supporter of next-gen games would be a next-gen'er. I'll freely accept that definition.

 

So - you know what games I fervently defend? Curious. What are my favorite games? No, no, that's not what you said... favorite isn't it.

 

What next-gen games am I fervently defending? Clearly I have a list of them, at least a few, for you to define me as such.

 

Empirical evidence trumps all. What next-gen games did I fervently defend?

 

She was cast because of IGN in a disgusting attempt at further bribery. And defending obvious cash ins is sickening. I don't care if the Chobot casting paid off, it was a symptom of everything that sucks about the current publishing model.

 

You have proof of bribery more than conspiracy theory, I wager? Like, even circumstantial evidence, that IGN's score is outside the norm of all other rankings? A cursory check shows me that IGN gave the XBOX version a 95, and 33 other critics gave it that score or higher so it was a largely ineffectual bribe... especially since IGN gave Mass Effect 1 & 2 largely the same score (94 and 96, respectively) without Chobot's addition.

 

Who do you think shot JFK, btw?

 

Also - shooting down your conspiracy theory isn't my defending the decision to include her, nor is my explaining why she was included. I said I have no problem with her (or other "celebrities") being included in the game, and later that Felicia Day's inclusion in Mark of the Assassin got me to buy it. I'd rather NOT have bought an expansion to DA2, thankyou, so I'd rather she HADN'T been included. That said, Veronica was AWESOME in New Vegas, so... there's that.

 

They have been ever since all the Buffy fans infested the Bioware forums.

 

Now being a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a slur, too? Wow. Alrighty then.

 

*adds to his list of things Obsidian forum posters like to bash*

 

How do you feel about Shakespeare?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Merin

[Monte Carlo]

Relax. My post ended "with best regards." Why get so het up about it?

 

As for Shakespeare, I thought casting Ben Affleck in the movie was genius.

[evdk]

 

 

Also - shooting down your conspiracy theory isn't my defending the decision to include her, nor is my explaining why she was included. I said I have no problem with her (or other "celebrities") being included in the game, and later that Felicia Day's inclusion in Mark of the Assassin got me to buy it. I'd rather NOT have bought an expansion to DA2, thankyou, so I'd rather she HADN'T been included. That said, Veronica was AWESOME in New Vegas, so... there's that.

 

So let me get it straight - you bought a horrible dlc to a terrible game because it had a vapid pseudo celebrity in it? I hate the current gaming SO MUCH.

[Merin]

As for Shakespeare, I thought casting Ben Affleck in the movie was genius.

 

And I'm the Next Gen'er.

[Monte Carlo]

Wow, you seriously missed your saving throw Vs Irony there.

[Merin]

a vapid pseudo celebrity

 

Can any of you anti-romance people make posts that aren't just digs at things?

 

Of eveyrthing I wrote, you ignored any salient points and grabbed something to make fun of.

 

It's like discussing quantum physics with grade schoolers.

 

"So, if you consider whether the waveform has collasped..."

"When's recess?"

"Listen, just one second please, when quanta can only can in discrete..."

"You're old. And boring."

[Merin]

Wow, you seriously missed your saving throw Vs Irony there.

 

Or I answered sarcasm with sarcasm.

[Monte Carlo]

@ Grey storyteller dude...

 

It's because the debate is, by virtue of the subject, one that ends up being binary. You either find romances lame and a waste of time or you don't.

 

I try to empathise with the romance fans and... fail. They leave me utterly unmoved and then, as I think about them and how they strike me as utterly superfluous they begin to annoy me. Firstly because they detract resources from Stuff I Like and secondly many romance fans (but not all, and I'm not saying you are one of them, you are clearly a pleasant and thoughtful person) are the type of people who fervently Love Stuff I Hate.

 

So that's where I am. I struggle to engage meaningfully with something I view as utterly pointless, verging at destructive. It's like trying to persuade me that candy floss has ballistic protective qualities, or that Scientology is a completely valid worldview.

[Malcador]

This thread is at least good for a laugh, one good thing about this whole 'Romance' business.

[Monte Carlo]

I think we should have a Bromance.

[Merin]

I understand not wanting something. And advocating for other things in it's place.

 

What might be more effective than continuing to argue in a thread that is about something you don't want... either create a thread about or argue in a thread about stuff you are in favor of.

 

If there's one thing I dislike most about pop culture and how media interacts with it, it is that people so easily band together over what they don't like. It ventures nothing of yourself to say you don't like something.

 

It's much braver, IMO, to support something you like. If you dislike something, you only have to deal with the few defensive responses from those who really like that thing. But if you like something, you invite all the invectives directed at you of those who don't like what you like.

 

Anywho...

 

there's a lot of "resources pulled away for romance that I'd rather have in other things." A lot of that.

 

Because, I argue, the anti-romance people aren't united by what they WANT in the game... just in criticizing romance.

 

What's more important to you... other features you prefer, or the non-inclusion of romance?

Answer carefully.

 

Do you put as much effort into supporting any one feature as you do denouncing this one?

 

Is it really about the resources you'd rather have spent on something more important to you...

or that you don't want any resources spent on this at all?

 

I'm not saying which it is for you... I'm honestly asking.

 

I'm over in threads supporting being able to create your whole own party quite strongly. That's my pet desire.

 

And, you know, if I got that then "sex with companions" would only be possible as head canon. Just pointing that out.

 

Again, I DO understand the "romances have never been done well" argument. I don't agree, but I accept that it is opinion. And I understand you having a hard time with comprehending why people want romances in their game - I, personally, cannot comprehend why people like playing evil characters.

[lord of flies]

Only if it is not a core value of cRPGs. Are you arguing that romance is inherent to what makes an RPG an RPG?

Ah, yes, "core value" of cRPGs. Let's remove all lore books, they're not a core value. All side quests, they aren't a core value. Character creation isn't a core value*. Chatting with people and discussing **** isn't a core value*.

 

*: No, JRPGs are still RPGs.

So let me get it straight - you bought a horrible dlc to a terrible game because it had a vapid pseudo celebrity in it? I hate the current gaming SO MUCH.

Wow can we not call women vapid? It's really gendered and extremely misogynistic. Felicia Day is a perfectly intelligent human being deserving of as much respect as you or I. Well, at least as much respect as you. Not sure she deserves quite as much respect as me.

I try to empathise with the romance fans and... fail. They leave me utterly unmoved and then, as I think about them and how they strike me as utterly superfluous they begin to annoy me. Firstly because they detract resources from Stuff I Like and secondly many romance fans (but not all, and I'm not saying you are one of them, you are clearly a pleasant and thoughtful person) are the type of people who fervently Love Stuff I Hate.

This is literally you: "How can people like things that I don't like? Don't they realize that they suck?" mixed with some "It's not that I don't like romances. It's that I don't like the people who like romances.

The astonishing and frankly terrifying success of Bioware's erstatz-emo soap opera romance approach is an unholy taint. It is literally like Ebola for gaming. And the hotzone / infection vectors have reached our shores. The poll is suggesting that my, albeit extreme, view is echoed by many.

The poll is ludicrously biased, I literally can't believe that you believe that poll sides with you.

 

I have to ask all the people who seem to believe that a single romance in a video game is like some kind of horrifying infection that destroys all possibilitiy of enjoyment, what Obsidian games have you been playing recently? Because, uh, Dungeon Siege 3 had no romances, and that's about it for their entire library. Knights of the Old Republic 2, Mask of the Betrayer, Alpha Protocol, even Fallout: New Vegas.

Edited September 22, 2012 by lord of flies

[evdk]

a vapid pseudo celebrity

 

Can any of you anti-romance people make posts that aren't just digs at things?

 

Of eveyrthing I wrote, you ignored any salient points and grabbed something to make fun of.

 

It's like discussing quantum physics with grade schoolers.

 

"So, if you consider whether the waveform has collasped..."

"When's recess?"

"Listen, just one second please, when quanta can only can in discrete..."

"You're old. And boring."

You bought a bad game because of the work of one person. Not me.

[lord of flies]

You bought a bad game because of the work of one person. Not me.

But enough about Ultima 9!

[Monte Carlo]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the whole point is to display an array of views and advocate what you like. This allows the developers to gauge what the customer wants. The idea that threads like this should be a one-view knitting circle for a certain feature is fatuous.

 

I created a mega-dungeon thread where some people offered the view that they hated the grind it might entail. I disagree fervently, but at least I tried to moderate my view and even suggest that it was designed in such a way that it inconvenienced people as little as possible.

 

This is about advocacy, and about making sure that the squeakiest wheel doesn't get the most oil. Romances have become popular but are like poison ivy - an alien interloper that can quickly overwhelm the host organism.

 

My final word in this thread is that I can live with BG2 level romances. They were easily ignored. Do you think the Bioware fans and Squee-merchants can live with that? No, neither can I.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Monte Carlo

[evdk]

Never bought that. And to buy a game because of a main designer is several times saner than buying it because of one voice actor. Of many. But it's nice to see marketing works, I guess.

[lord of flies]

This is about advocacy, and about making sure that the squeakiest wheel doesn't get the most oil. Romances have become popular but are like poison ivy - an alien interloper that can quickly overwhelm the host organism.

Once again, please explain how you enjoyed any Obsidian games besides Dungeon Siege 3 and Storm of Zehir.