Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

[Merged] Gods save us another romance thread

The Sharmat
 Share

For people who are NOT apathetic or opposed to romances in games:  

455 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you willing to sacrifice romances as a feature if it drew significant resources from other story features?

  2. 2. Are you willing to sacrifice romances as a feature if it drew significant resources from gameplay design?

  3. 3. Would you still want romance options in the game even if your hypothetical favorite NPC did not end up being available?


Recommended Posts

TwinkieGorilla

TwinkieGorilla

Posted
Posted

Please tell me you are only being ironic about wanting bromances in Project Eternity

 

Gee...what tipped you off?

 

Here, to show you I'm not such a bad guy (and certainly not an ableist) let me give you a gift and make amends:

 

Forum Glasses of Seeing +1 Perception

 

351batf.png

 

 

This is on-topic because gift-giving makes me feel very romantic.

 

hopw roewur ne?
lord of flies

lord of flies

Posted
Posted

List of Obsidian games with romances:

Alpha Protocol (good)

Mask of the Betrayer (good)

KotOR 2 (good)

Fallout: New Vegas (good)

NWN2: Original Campaign (bad)

 

List of Obsidian games without romances:

NWN2: Storm of Zehir (eh)

Dungeon Siege 3 (eh)

 

Coincidence? I think not.

Tale

Tale

Posted
Posted

List of Obsidian games with romances:

Fallout: New Vegas (good)

Who?
"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Rosbjerg

Rosbjerg

Posted
Posted

List of Obsidian games with romances:

Fallout: New Vegas (good)

Who?

 

You could date that homosexuals doctor I think..

Fortune favors the bald.

evdk

evdk

Posted
Posted

Not to start a flame war, but I'm curious -

 

how many anti-romance people are also visitors / posters on RPGCodex?

 

What would that have to do with anything?

It's a appalingly ignorant gathering place for hateful ciscentered rape culture enablers.

  • Like 1

Say no to popamole!

Merin

Merin

Posted
Posted

List of Obsidian games with romances:

Fallout: New Vegas (good)

Who?

 

Depends on what you define as "romance"

 

But possibly qualifying "who's" are Veronica, Sarah, Joanna, Cass and Arcade.

Lurky

Lurky

Posted
Posted
I'll clarify: I'm talking about RPGs in that same purist definition. Character customization, combat, dialog choices, deep stories, things like that. Perhaps WRPG would be more appropiate, so sorry for my lack of precision.
But then you're just defining a "core feature" as a thing that you want to be in the game and a non-core feature as a thing that you don't want to be in the game. Certainly it's valid to want certain things but not others, but the pretensions of y'all that your opinions represent Objective Reality on what an RPG Is is ridiculous.

 

I will repeat my stance: I am not against romances. I understand that you feel strongly about this, but please don't jump to conclusions.

 

Since this seems to have devolved into semantics, let's go for definitions. Wikipedia says:

 

Though sharing fundamental premises, Western RPGs tend to feature darker graphics, older characters, and a greater focus on roaming freedom, realism, and the underlying game mechanics (e.g. "rules-based" or "system-based"); whereas Eastern RPGs tend to feature brighter, anime-like graphics, younger characters, faster-paced gameplay, and a greater focus on tightly-orchestrated, linear storylines with intricate plots (e.g. "action-based" or "story-based"). Further, Western RPGs are more likely to allow players to create and customize characters from scratch, and since the late 1990s have had a stronger focus on extensive dialog tree systems (e.g. Planescape: Torment). On the other hand, Japanese RPGs tend to limit players to developing pre-defined player characters, and often do not allow the option to create or choose one's own playable characters or make decisions that alter the plot. In the early 1990s, Japanese RPGs were seen as being much closer to fantasy novels, but by the late 1990s had become more cinematic in style (e.g. Final Fantasy series), while at the same time Western RPGs started becoming more novelistic in style (e.g. Planescape: Torment); by the late 2000s, Western RPGs had also adopted a more cinematic style (e.g. Mass Effect series).

 

Purist definitions of WRPGs refer to the more old-school way of making RPGs. Remember that I've consistently used the word "purist" in order to define what I'm talking about. "Purist" is more in the line of Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, which is the spirit of what Project Eternity tries to accomplish.

 

In any case, hey, the definitions are there, and romances are mentioned nowhere in the definition. They are a non-core feature. I consider core features to be defining of RPGs (and in this case, of WRPGs). I consider non-core features to be extras. More features are always nice, but if they aren't there, I won't say that the game has ceased to be part of the genre. It's a "nice to have" versus a "must have".

 

 

Anyway, I think that if we have to resort to semantics, then we've clearly been derailed. Please let's drop this argument. Are we good?

 

As I said, I am not against romances. I have enjoyed many of them, in fact. If they are in Project Eternity and they are of good quality, I will enjoy them. If they are in the game and are of bad quality, I will bitch about them. And if they aren't in the game, I won't miss them. Maybe you will, and I understand that you're defending them if they're important to you, but please try to understand me when I defend the distinction that they're non-essential. Call me anal-retentive if it'll make you feel better, but I am not attacking your preferences.

Grimlorn

Grimlorn

Posted
Posted

Not to start a flame war, but I'm curious -

 

how many anti-romance people are also visitors / posters on RPGCodex?

How many pro-romance people are from Bioware?

Maybe we should create a poll.

  • Like 1
Merin

Merin

Posted
Posted

Not to start a flame war, but I'm curious -

 

how many anti-romance people are also visitors / posters on RPGCodex?

 

What would that have to do with anything?

 

Just curious. Doesn't really have anything to do with anything. I'm just wondering.

evdk

evdk

Posted
Posted

What would that have to do with anything?

It would explain why you apparently think that just posting outrageously bigoted things is "trolling".

TBQH I didn't know vapid was supposed to be a gendered slur because

a) I don't keep up with the latest developments of social justice

b) English is not my first language

Say no to popamole!

Monte Carlo

Monte Carlo

Posted
Posted

I posted on the Codex once or twice, about eight years ago IIRC. I found it too gonzo for my tastes, but hey they seem like they are having fun over there.

 

But, yeah, look at the creatures on the Bio forums and ask yourself... do you want that here?

sonsofgygax.JPG

TCJ

TCJ

Posted
Posted

If they were done as they were in BG2, then fine, have them. However, considering the way romances seem to have gone in recent games, I feel it would be better to leave them out entirely.

lord of flies

lord of flies

Posted
Posted

Oh yeah, that Red Lucy romance, wow. What depth and feeling!

 

RL: Fetch!

PC: Ok.

RL: Fetch!

PC: Ok.

RL: Fetch!

PC: Ok.

RL: Fetch!

PC: Ok.

RL: Fetch!

PC: Ok.

RL: Fetch!

PC: Ok.

RL: Fetch!

PC: Ok.

RL: Ok, I sleep with you now.

Sounds like my last relationship. Booya.

TBQH I didn't know vapid was supposed to be a gendered slur because

a) I don't keep up with the latest developments of social justice

b) English is not my first language

I have literally never heard a human being use the term "vapid" to describe a man.
TwinkieGorilla

TwinkieGorilla

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just curious. Doesn't really have anything to do with anything. I'm just wondering.

 

Well, outside this official forum we're probably the biggest Obsidian fanboys&girls collected in one spot so yeah...there's going to be members here. And since most of us hate what next-gen games have done to the legacy of classic cRPGs you can take a wild guess what sort of things we might end up posting for or against. That said, we ain't all the same. Beyond our love for MCA and hatred for most modern gaming there's not a whole lot we tend to agree on...about anything.

 

I have literally never heard a human being use the term "vapid" to describe a man.

 

Oh for petes sake. I use it all the time for anything which fits the description. Like your analysis of its use for instance.

Edited by TwinkieGorilla
hopw roewur ne?
Merin

Merin

Posted
Posted (edited)

Purist definitions of WRPGs refer to the more old-school way of making RPGs. Remember that I've consistently used the word "purist" in order to define what I'm talking about. "Purist" is more in the line of Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, which is the spirit of what Project Eternity tries to accomplish.

 

In any case, hey, the definitions are there, and romances are mentioned nowhere in the definition. They are a non-core feature. I consider core features to be defining of RPGs (and in this case, of WRPGs). I consider non-core features to be extras. More features are always nice, but if they aren't there, I won't say that the game has ceased to be part of the genre. It's a "nice to have" versus a "must have".

 

Sadly, though, I consider myself older school than Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, and those Infinity Engine games (with the wonderful exception of IWD) introduced mechanics I don't like or don't believe are core but are considered such now.

 

Like dialog trees, one PC with a party of recruitable companions, or a slew of other things that are now considered core to so many players.

 

You can't quantify this definitively. Because if you "purist where we came from", we should have six party members that we create ourselves and no dialog options.

 

My core comes from a lot more games. There are five Infinity Engine games, two of which have what I've long considered "core" but missing. There are fourteen Gold box games alone.

 

But this IS a digression. Games change, even genres. "Core" or "came before" are poor arguments for what "needs" or "should" be included.

 

Not to start a flame war, but I'm curious -

 

how many anti-romance people are also visitors / posters on RPGCodex?

How many pro-romance people are from Bioware?

Maybe we should create a poll.

 

You could. I don't think a number proves anything either way.

 

Should we ask who's from the City of Heroes forums, too? Creation Matrix? WoW forums? Pokemon?

 

I think plenty of people visit plenty of forums.

 

I wasn't making a statement disqualifying anti-romance people - I was just curious to see if RPGCodex regulars were the regular anti-romance people.

 

But, yeah, look at the creatures on the Bio forums and ask yourself... do you want that here?

 

Some of it, yeah. I know a lot of people over there who've been arguing against BioWare developers and their direction they've been taking for several games now.

 

And their Moderators are far better at shutting down trolls, flamers, etc, then here. Though I forgive Obsidian - a little over a week ago there wasn't traffic enough to warrant the amount of moderation needed now.

Edited by Merin
Grimlorn

Grimlorn

Posted
Posted

I wasn't making a statement disqualifying anti-romance people - I was just curious to see if RPGCodex regulars were the regular anti-romance people.

I wasn't making a statement disqualifying romance people - I was just curious to see if the Bioware regulars were the regular pro-romance people.
  • Like 1
lord of flies

lord of flies

Posted
Posted

Oh for petes sake. I use it all the time for anything which fits the description. Like your analysis of its use for instance.

No you don't. I knew, 95% shot, that somebody would go "NYYEAH WELL YOU'RE VAPID DON'T QUESTION ME" (and it would probably be you, given you're the worst around), but that obviously doesn't count.
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...