Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Sharmat

[Merged] Gods save us another romance thread

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

Why not remove combat?

Combat and its mechanics need an awful lot of time and distract from the story,

 

If you want battles and adventures, don't play a video game but visit Syria.

 

Seriously, I don't see any problems with romances. They won't draw significant resources, and like companions, story, combat, world, dialogues, equipment, races or classes they spice up an RPG.

Edited by volcatius
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not remove combat?

 

Because combat is an integral and defining part of classic cRPGs.

Then remove all weapons and magic and have your characters fight only with pencils.

 

It would still be an RPG... just a bad one. ^^


:closed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like romance, but...It's not the most important thing for me. I'd rather have other features.

 

I don't think it'll draw too much from other areas of design though. I hope not anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then remove all weapons and magic and have your characters fight only with pencils.

 

It would still be an RPG... just a bad one. ^^

 

You're missing the point here. Nobody is asking Obsidian to remove that which made classic cRPGs classic cRPGs in the first place. We're asking for the exclusion of that which has no real relevance or importance in the context classic cRPGs. A classic cRPG without romance would not suddenly be "a bad one".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romances are an integral part of those classic RPGs that Obsidian want to revive.

 

No, they are not. In any way. Take the "romance" out of PS:T and what do you have? The same game minus something completely innocuous, minor and unimportant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take away the shabby combat from PST and you still have the same great game.

Edited by volcatius
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not remove combat?

Combat and its mechanics need an awful lot of time and distract from the story,

 

If you want battles and adventures, don't play a video game but visit Syria.

 

Seriously, I don't see any problems with romances. They won't draw significant resources, and like companions, story, combat, world, dialogues, equipment, races or classes they spice up an RPG.

 

I wouldn't have a problem playing a combat free RPG if I'm honest :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Romances are an integral part of those classic RPGs that Obsidian want to revive.

 

No, they are not. In any way. Take the "romance" out of PS:T and what do you have? The same game minus something completely innocuous, minor and unimportant.

That's like your personal perspective. Ending of PS:T would have been much less memorable for me if there were no Fall-from-Grace romance plot. It made a departure to Lower Planes ten times more heart-wrenching, while still leaving some hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take away the combat from of PST and you still have the same great game.

fair point, but Torment was pretty unique in that regard.

however:

take away romances from BG2 and you have the very same, great game minus whining aerie

take away romances from NWN2 and you have the very same, mediocre game

take away the romance from MotB and you have the very same, great game

 

you could argue that taking them away from bioware's game leaves us hardly anything, but then again, there wasn't anything salvagable in the first place.


[intelligence] I'm fighting the Good Fight with my posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take away the shabby combat from PST and you still have the same great game.

 

Poorly implemented combat in one game does not equate with the need to remove combat altogether in future games. PST wouldn't have been much of a game without any sort of combat. Besides, PE has already advertised itself as Rtwp. If that's not your style I think you're in the wrong house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they are not. In any way. Take the "romance" out of PS:T and what do you have? The same game minus something completely innocuous, minor and unimportant.

Deionarra. Ravel.

 

take away the romance from MotB and you have the very same, great game

Absolutely vital to the crux of the entire plot. Only love could be so cruel.

 

Why the segregation between character interaction beyond the player's control and character interaction within it?

Edited by The Sharmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes on all three.

 

I really like romance in cRPGs, just like I like combat, dialog choices, deep stories, making my own party, having companions, being able to craft my own spells and items... the list is long.

 

I don't NEED any one particular item in that list. If one gets sacrificed (or many, usually) for the game's sake, I'm good with that if the game ends up better overall.

 

Romance isn't a must in an RPG for me, but so isn't combat or magic or loot or stats or... you get my point.

 

I'd like it, but if it doesn't fit the game's focus, don't shoe-horn it in.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each to his own. I liked the romances and banter in BG2, and Aerie (who had every reason to be whiny) had some character development in Throne of Bhaal. They were one of the reasons i playedit for a second time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I could just throw my 2 cents in, I am not a fan of romances in general and if they must be in the game I hope they are optional and low key so I can ignore them. My preference would be zero resources spent on romances. When did romances become standard fare in these games? That said it could be interesting if some of the NPCs got involved with each other which might present some gameplay challenges - like for example one of the NPCs refused to listen to your orders and defended their girlfriend on the battlefield, or if they started bickering at an inopportune moment, etc. but I have no interest in playing pretend romance myself in my fantasy RPG.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cute. That is *not* what we're talking about here.

My point is that there's no reason a romance couldn't deeply affect the plot. What does it matter if it involves the PC instead of some NPCs or being purely in the background? Just because it hasn't been done that way doesn't mean it can't be.

 

Of course having everyone romanceable and trying to force in some critical plot turn based on a potential romance with all of them would be a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PST wouldn't have been much of a game without any sort of combat. Besides, PE has already advertised itself as Rtwp. If that's not your style I think you're in the wrong house.

 

PST has always been like a novel with attached skirmishes, and since i don't mind combat, be it rtwp, turn-based or real-time, i'm already at home.

Edited by volcatius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that there's no reason a romance couldn't deeply affect the plot. What does it matter if it involves the PC instead of some NPCs or being purely in the background? Just because it hasn't been done that way doesn't mean it can't be.

 

Of course having everyone romanceable and trying to force in some critical plot turn based on a potential romance with all of them would be a disaster.

 

There's a big difference between plot devices or themes and frivolous, tacked-on relationship-simulating.

 

Hey, yo. Wassup. Name's Shepard. Hey, um...I have this pretty important mission which is like, something about saving a whole bunch of living things, but like while I'm here I just wanted to say, um, Hi. Hi! Um, also I noticed you have holes...and I...well, I'd really like to find my way into those holes. What? Oh, no...it won't really help my mission. Yeah, I guess it seems kind of silly. I just, you know, care about my crew. And their holes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that there's no reason a romance couldn't deeply affect the plot. What does it matter if it involves the PC instead of some NPCs or being purely in the background? Just because it hasn't been done that way doesn't mean it can't be.

 

Of course having everyone romanceable and trying to force in some critical plot turn based on a potential romance with all of them would be a disaster.

 

There's a big difference between plot devices or themes and frivolous, tacked-on relationship-simulating.

 

Hey, yo. Wassup. Name's Shepard. Hey, um...I have this pretty important mission which is like, something about saving a whole bunch of living things, but like while I'm here I just wanted to say, um, Hi. Hi! Um, also I noticed you have holes...and I...well, I'd really like to find my way into those holes. What? Oh, no...it won't really help my mission. Yeah, I guess it seems kind of silly. I just, you know, care about my crew. And their holes.

 

This. A million times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on the "I would prefer not to see romance" side, but one type of romance I actually would like to see is a less romantic one. Romantic love as we understand it is only recently so popular. And most adult relationships I see aren't nearly as romance obsessed as I see the romance of video games.

 

Can I at least get it toned down a little bit? Two adults that find each other attractive and share the same opinion on whether or not babies make for good eating. Maybe they have sex. And that's about as far as it gets.

 

But, no, they've all got to plan futures out together, up to retirements, and stare at each other wistfully while talking about how they're the most important thing in one another's lives. I just met you Visas, turn the creepy down. Shakespeare was a warning, not a schematic to be put in mass production.

  • Like 1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't asking for "We'll bang, ok?" I was suggesting something on par with the romances I cited. Only under player control. Although something more trivial is fine to as long as a more trivial amount of resources is assigned to it.

 

Edit: Tale, yeah that would be a nice spin too. Think Visas was supposed to be creepy in that way, though. Lady has issues.

Edited by The Sharmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't asking for "We'll bang, ok?" I was suggesting something on par with the romances I cited. Only under player control. Although something more trivial is fine to as long as a more trivial amount of resources is assigned to it.

 

If it actually had something to do with the plot (like sleeping with Benny and killing him in FO:NV) sure, but not tacked-on embarrassing nonsense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romance is a low priority for me. I would rather have fun companions who interact with the PC and each other. I am not against romance but would like to be able to avoid it if I wish. If resources and time permit fine but if choices need to be made then a lot of other things take priority.


 I have but one enemy: myself  - Drow saying


nakia_banner.jpg


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...