[Merged] Gods save us another romance thread

[Lady Evenstar]

A romance scenario could be set up over multiple games, if they really plan to have us import characters into sequels. Could start off all friendly and maybe some flirting in the first game and having a great adventure togheter. Then in the sequel (with more time/money/designers) the relationship continues naturaly and you end up "going steady". third game = marriage? Who knows

 

Having that layed out over multiple games and my characters lifetime would rock my world. Also, this leaves the risk of being cut of if there are no more games in the series. As such, you should never use romance as a cliffhanger!

 

It would also leave your imported character free to discover love with a character who doesn't appear in the first game. I find the number of posts on the Bethesda boards by folks asking for divorce to be implemented because their character rushed into marriage to be hilarious. I actually proposed something very similar to what you suggest a couple days ago.

 

I'd also cite DA 2 as an example of a game where other content was sacrificed due to limited resources and a romances-first outlook.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Lady Evenstar

[Amentep]

Romances: KILL IT WITH FIRE.

 

I'd prefer Obsidian spend exactly 0% of development time on Romances and instead spend it on content content content!

 

Romance could be a part of the content if it's well done.

 

If Josh has already has this in mind for specific reason related to the story and story dynamic I'd be fine with that. But just adding romance because OMG I WANNA ROMANCE MAH PARTY is a waste of Obsidian's time.

 

besides we all know the party gets hot and heavy when we hit the "sleep" button and the screen fades to black anyhow.

 

I kid. I kid.

 

Joking aside, I don't think most of the people posting about romances would disagree with your statement. I think - because we don't know how much of PROJECT ETERNITY is nailed down - we're seeing a lot of people suggesting that it be considered when nailing down the story / story dynamic.

[Undecaf]

I'm willing to sacrifice romances in every condition there is.

 

This is a slippery slope anyway. What happens when romncenites get their one romance with few lines of dialog? They will be dissatisfied because the few lines they wanted ends up not being enough. Further more, the LGBT people will rage over not being presented; if the one romance is for male PC's only, female players who care about this will rage (and vice versa if the romance is for female PC's only); and the no romances people will shake their head "Why the hell was this inane bs forced in the game". It all ends a massive cluster**** of disappointed people. And for what? Nothing worthwhile. Or, alternatively, there ends up being sloppy and underdeveloped **** "for everyone" just for everyone to get included (except for the no people), and which only a few end up liking anyway.

 

It really is better for everyone to not have stuff like this at all in this game, with budget and scope this small, and focus something completely different.

[Benjamin Breeg]

 

If Josh has already has this in mind for specific reason related to the story and story dynamic I'd be fine with that. But just adding romance because OMG I WANNA ROMANCE MAH PARTY is a waste of Obsidian's time.

 

besides we all know the party gets hot and heavy when we hit the "sleep" button and the screen fades to black anyhow.

 

I kid. I kid.

 

Joking aside, I don't think most of the people posting about romances would disagree with your statement. I think - because we don't know how much of PROJECT ETERNITY is nailed down - we're seeing a lot of people suggesting that it be considered when nailing down the story / story dynamic.

 

Well said. And I think no one wants romance like it was done in Skyrim, that really was a waste of resources.

[The Sharmat]

It really is better for everyone to not have stuff like this at all in this game, with budget and scope this small, and focus something completely different.

I don't think that "because something can't please everyone you shouldn't include it at all" is any more logical than trying to please absolutely everyone, and could lead to a product just as bad.

[MReed]

I support romances, and I think this poll is a reasonable way to address the romance question.

 

"Are you willing to sacrifice swords as a weapons if it drew significant resources from other combat features?" (because I hate swords)

"Are you willing to sacrifice some spells if it drew significant resources from other combat features?" (because I hate magic)

"Are you willing to sacrifice some trees if it drew significant resources from other scenic features?" (because I hate trees)

"Are you willing to sacrifice a companion if it drew significant resources from other game features?" (because I hate companions)

 

I'd also consider these to be fair questions. Just for grins, my answers:

 

Sacrifice swords in favor of other combat features? Well, until someone pointed out that PS:T actually did this, I would have answered "No" -- however, in light of that information, I'd say "I would be willing to sacrifice swords for other weapons, but not, for example, for a dozen extra feats / perks".

Sacrifice spells in favor of other combat features? Nope -- I'd take more spells over more weapons, feats / perks, classes, and the like.

Sacrifice trees in favor of other area features? I don't really have a strong opinion here one way or the other.

Sacrifice a companion if it drew significant resources from other game features? Absolutely positively not. To put matters in perspective, "Sacrifice a companion in return for having any sort of combat system at all" would be something that I would have to think long and hard about...

 

Frankly speaking, my "perfect game" would only include non-dialog interactions (including, but not limited to, combat / quests / area graphics) to provide an excuse to write interesting dialog / character interactions. As long as the other gameplay elements aren't actually unpleasant to me they don't bother me one way or the other.

 

To address some expected response to this comment:

 

* "Go play Bioware games" -- I'd love to -- but the gameplay direction of Bioware titles is moving in a direction that I actively despise. Bioware is moving in the direction of 3rd person shooter-style gameplay, which I actively despise. If I thought that there was even the slightest chance that Bioware was going to reverse directions on this, I'd be active in their forums instead of here...

* "Go play a relationship simulator" -- in my experience, these games lack any sort of story or dialog -- I can't understand why people play the Sims, for example. I want lots of dialog / story, and relationship simulators simply don't provide this sort of gameplay in my experience.

* "Go play a visual novel" -- I do, in fact, do that -- I played and enjoyed greatly both "Cinders" and "Analogue: A Hate Story" and would strongly recommend these to others who are looking for dialog heavy games to play. But VNs tend to be very short, very mixed quality, and the lack of other gameplay elements (combat / quests / etc.) limits the amount of growth / change that can occur over the course of the game.

 

I suspect that I'm very much in the minority here, but hey, that's my opinion.

[Undecaf]

It really is better for everyone to not have stuff like this at all in this game, with budget and scope this small, and focus something completely different.

I don't think that "because something can't please everyone you shouldn't include it at all" is any more logical than trying to please absolutely everyone, and could lead to a product just as bad.

 

Consider the context of this feature (small time, not very prone for actual gameplay impact), though, and look at all the raging about it in the forums. If it was considered a bigtime feature; like combat, or branching characterdriven storyline -- it would make sense to consider the options. But this is a pure flavor feature and people are clearly divided about it in all possible directions; and with passion. It's not worth the trouble.

[The Sharmat]

I'm actually finding the trend in the later Bioware games is to ignore player choices both in narrative events AND in character interaction. Thus why the "go play a Bioware game" "advice" isn't terribly useful even for fans of romance.

[MReed]

I'm actually finding the trend in the later Bioware games is to ignore player choices both in narrative events AND in character interaction. Thus why the "go play a Bioware game" "advice" isn't terribly useful even for fans of romance.

 

Ehhhh... Maybe. I didn't play ME3 at all, and wouldn't have played ME2 if I didn't get it for free with DA2, so I can't speak about those titles, but my feeling is that DA2's "powerless / irrelevant PC" was likely an anomaly that won't be repeated. But yes, if that trend continues then that would be another reason to avoid Bioware games.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Thus why the "go play a Bioware game" "advice" isn't terribly useful even for fans of romance.

 

Perhaps, but I think you and everybody else know precisely what the sentiment means.

[The Sharmat]

Perhaps, but I think you and everybody else know precisely what the sentiment means.

Romance is yucky and girls have cooties?

[TwinkieGorilla]

Romance is yucky and girls have cooties?

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. Is this why you need to look to videogames for romance?

Edited September 20, 2012 by TwinkieGorilla

[Brodin]

Poll is ridiculously biased in assuming that the reader would want romances in a game in the first place. Sure they may be optional but ultimately they do take resources and development time that could be used to create something actually worth while for the game. In any game that has had them like in Biowares horrible creations they are very much cringe worthy and childish every one of them. If you want Romance go outside and meet people.

[Gorth]

Just a friendly reminder (in between deleting posts), that disagreeing is fine, the random flinging of personal insults isn't... play nice.

[Lady Evenstar]

And I think no one wants romance like it was done in Skyrim, that really was a waste of resources.

 

Actually, I disagree. In a big-budget game programming a mechanic primarily for modder use is fine.

 

Perhaps the OP could just add an option to his poll along the lines of: I don't believe romances would divert significant resources from other content. That would give folks an opportunity to express that opinion while still asking about priorities.

[Aotrs Commander]

_{I have no particular preference either way. But one of the things about the romances is you tended to get more interaction with the character(s) that way, and that was the fun part. I would cheerfully chunk romance out the window completely, if instead they just allow some more interactive friendships. If you could develop a bond with your companiosn like the one you could with, say, Garrus in ME1/2/3 (who I have to give the Award for Best Companion Ever, even over the stiff competition of those from prior RPGs) I would not blink in the slightest at the loss.}

 

_{Having a well-developed relationship (not necessarily a romantic one) with characters is definately something I'd sacrifice a bit for (it's all part of the roleplaying, after all); if you could get to the same sort of level as the aforementioned - or to Torment, which I think had the most interactive (in that you could hold lots of conversations and stuff with) prior to ME (which had three game's worth of interaction to build on, allowing a greater detail).}

 

_{But one thing I would say, is either do it well or don't do it at all (NWN2 didn't do it at all well!), and if you do do it, take a leaf out of Bioware's book and be fairly permissive/accomodating in the choices (BG2's male/female spilt, for example, was not a good way to go about it.) Though one might say it might be better to take it slow, and not bother too much in this first game, and save some of that for the sequel (or expansion - because we're all expecting this to be so great they'll be sequels, right?!) when, with some of the ground work out of the way, there might be more time to spend on getting it right.}

 

_{Maybe a suggestion, perhaps you could have as a game option, "disable romances" for those that didn't want it (or perhaps a "preference" section on MainChar generation (with an option to "none") which would achive the same effect.}

Edited September 20, 2012 by Aotrs Commander

[qloher]

Well said. And I think no one wants romance like it was done in Skyrim, that really was a waste of resources.

Like all $15 of resources overall ?

But, yeah, no one wants this kind of execution here.

[The Sharmat]

Poll is ridiculously biased in assuming that the reader would want romances in a game in the first place.

How is it biased when the poll was just meant to poll people that wanted romance in the first place? There was already a general poll on whether or not romances should be in period. This is a different set of questions.

[incubus9]

This is the last time I post in a romance thread until I hear for sure one way or another from the devs whether we are getting romances or not. I have a few reasons why romance "COULD" be put into PE while still adding to the story.

 

1. If done with maturity and class, a romantic element to the story is a great addition to any story.

 

2. Writing a romance is only slightly more resource draining then writing any other complex human relationship, i.e. mother - son, antagonist - protagonist, brother - sister.

 

3. If added to the game, it can only serve to enrich the companions. However, I would want the same level of complexity between all the companions.

 

I don't really care much one way or another if its in there. I do enjoy the complex interactions between companions and romance is just one of those. I recently went back and played the Baldur's Gate trilogy again with all sorts of mods included. I especially enjoyed the NPC banter pack and the romance pack. It didn't change anything, just added more depth to all the companions.

 

I hope we eventually get a definitive answer eventually and if it is included I hope its as meaningful as possible. Just my two cents.

[The Sharmat]

Perhaps the OP could just add an option to his poll along the lines of: I don't believe romances would divert significant resources from other content. That would give folks an opportunity to express that opinion while still asking about priorities.

I'd do this, but I can only have three questions in the poll at a time.

[Luckmann]

At this point, I am so tired of people trying to force their fetishes, mental diseases, orientations and whatnot into games, sexualising whatever they can get their hands on, and clamorings for dating-sim features that I feel almost obligated to vote No on everything suggesting romances, just as to sabotage polls and skew them in favour of just getting rid of romances altogether.

 

This just isn't worth it. Nothing is.

[dlux]

If you want Romance go outside and meet people.

If you want to be social then go and talk to your mom. Remove all interaction with companions.

 

 

ohhh, the irony. ^^

Edited September 20, 2012 by dlux

[TwinkieGorilla]

If you want to be social then go and talk to your mom. Remove all interaction with companions.

 

Really wouldn't be a deal-breaker or even a big deal. Most of the interesting dialog with FO1 & 2 companions comes before they're your companions anyway.

[Gazoinks]

_{I have no particular preference either way. But one of the things about the romances is you tended to get more interaction with the character(s) that way, and that was the fun part. I would cheerfully chunk romance out the window completely, if instead they just allow some more interactive friendships. If you could develop a bond with your companiosn like the one you could with, say, Garrus in ME1/2/3 (who I have to give the Award for Best Companion Ever, even over the stiff competition of those from prior RPGs) I would not blink in the slightest at the loss.}

 

_{Having a well-developed relationship (not necessarily a romantic one) with characters is definately something I'd sacrifice a bit for (it's all part of the roleplaying, after all); if you could get to the same sort of level as the aforementioned - or to Torment, which I think had the most interactive (in that you could hold lots of conversations and stuff with) prior to ME (which had three game's worth of interaction to build on, allowing a greater detail).}

 

_{But one thing I would say, is either do it well or don't do it at all (NWN2 didn't do it at all well!), and if you do do it, take a leaf out of Bioware's book and be fairly permissive/accomodating in the choices (BG2's male/female spilt, for example, was not a good way to go about it.) Though one might say it might be better to take it slow, and not bother too much in this first game, and save some of that for the sequel (or expansion - because we're all expecting this to be so great they'll be sequels, right?!) when, with some of the ground work out of the way, there might be more time to spend on getting it right.}

 

_{Maybe a suggestion, perhaps you could have as a game option, "disable romances" for those that didn't want it (or perhaps a "preference" section on MainChar generation (with an option to "none") which would achive the same effect.}

Ah Garrus. Forgot romances, we need more bromances in our RPGs! :D

[The Sharmat]

This just isn't worth it. Nothing is.

Internet discussions are pretty horrifying, yeah. If it's souring you on things that much I'd just stop looking at these threads.