[Merged] Gods save us another romance thread

[Darji]

I want a romance story implemented in the main story or main part of the game. I don't want options maybe if you want to or not. I don't want to have the possibility to have with everyone a relationship or sex. I just want a bit of love in the story integrated.

[nikolokolus]

I have learned to loathe romance options in games over the years, the apex of this loathing came after I played DA2, when being friendly eventually led to every one of your companions (or maybe it was nearly every?) wanting to screw just because you were nice to them. That completely broke immersion for me.

 

If Obsidian does include romance options then please for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, don't make every companion Bi, don't make every companion attracted to the main character and please include unrequited or doomed romances. It would be refreshing to get away from the trope where the world revolves around the PC and everybody bows to their wishes.

[The Sharmat]

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.

So you're not against it on principle, just against the largely lackluster attempts so far?

 

EDIT: Nikolo summed up absolutely everything I don't want in an in-game romance. (Well, except the unrequited/doomed part. I agree that would be cool.)

Edited September 20, 2012 by The Sharmat

[MReed]

Agreement at last, and they said it would never happen...

 

I'll add my two cents:

 

1) If romances are added, they should include both negative and positive effects on the larger plot -- for example, accusations of favoritism on the part of the PC, some paths to resolving a quest are closed off, or similar. The "bang a character, get a bonus" in Bioware games is a definite "no-go" in my book.

2) Romances shouldn't be included if including them means that players who don't choose to pursue a romance are "punished" by losing out on large amounts of content. If the choices is between "friendship dialogs" that are open to all, or "romance dialogs but the character is otherwise dull / boring", then drop the romances altogether. More content that more people can enjoy == better overall game.

[TwinkieGorilla]

So you're not against it on principle, just against the largely lackluster attempts so far?

 

If there is an actual utility for it like in the example I just gave and it is not a clumsy, embarrassing, overtly serious "I talk to you now we love" attempt like every other attempt in a game which has ever been made, fine. But I'm against companion relationships and any even slight focus on the subject. I want to play a game not seduce pixels and sprites. Romance, in my opinion, has no place as an RPG trait.

[The Sharmat]

I'm still waiting for Morrigan's God Baby to murder everything, Bioware. Get on this. I didn't spawn the Dunwich Horror for nothing.

[Tale]

I'm still waiting for Morrigan's God Baby to murder everything, Bioware. Get on this. I didn't spawn the Dunwich Horror for nothing.

I just can't say no to Claudia. I get creepy for Farscape.

[BasaltineBadger]

Voted no on the first two questions, romances would have to be humongous to drain signifficant part of both gameplay and design resources. It's an RPG not The Archers: The Game. I mean seriously what the hell. Normally romances include some dialogue and optionally companion quest (that can be accessed without romances). What do you think standard RPG romance looks like OP?

Edited September 20, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[PirateRose]

Romances are a fun addition to the story of the game that adds a lot of re-playability and variety. They shouldn't be vital, the story and game should stand up without it, but without some romance choices, the game does feel limited.

 

I played a female exile in KOTOR2 fine without the romances, the story was that enjoyable on it's own for me and I played it a bunch of times, but I still feel the lack of romance on the female exile side is a big flaw. Especially since the male side actually got choices.

 

Playing Fallout, it felt like a flaw but far less severe since the male side didn't have any choices either. Actually what was really annoying to me (in New Vegas, haven't gotten all the way through FO3 and I can't get the classics to work on my PC), was the fact all I could find playing as a female courier was a bunch female prostitutes open to same sex relations. I mean, realistically, a woman would probably not want to get accidentally pregnant considering the setting and story. But hell why can't I head canon her infertile or maybe she falls down the stairs a lot (oops). Also I think I read something in the FO wiki that condoms do still exist. I ran into male prostitutes that were strictly gay. Go figure, the women are like if you're getting paid you're getting paid, swing both ways for that cash. But then the guys all have standards. Then there was that glitched guy that would offer but the option would not appear.

 

sorry I'm done now.

[The Sharmat]

No means that you'd like romances to occur even if for some reason they drained that many resources.

[BasaltineBadger]

If they drained that many resources they would have to be overblown and would get in the way so no.

 

EDIT:

On the other hand I'd vote yes if all of the party interaction was at stake. I'd want more dialogues with party members and multiple companion quests per character, with an ability to affect them in some way (like teaching force in KoTOR 2) even if it means some towns of dungeons got cut from the game because of that.

Edited September 20, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[The Sharmat]

If they drained that many resources they would have to be overblown and would get in the way so no.

If you voted 'no' you said you wouldn't sacrifice romances even if they drained that many resources. You misread the poll.

 

EDIT: In fact I'm seeing people that said they're against romances being in the game voting in the poll, despite the fact that the question was only polling people that were pro romance. I guess I suck at wording things.

Edited September 20, 2012 by The Sharmat

[BasaltineBadger]

If they drained that many resources they would have to be overblown and would get in the way so no.

If you voted 'no' you said you wouldn't sacrifice romances even if they drained that many resources. You misread the poll.

 

EDIT: In fact I'm seeing people that said they're against romances being in the game voting in the poll, despite the fact that the question was only polling people that were pro romance. I guess I suck at wording things.

 

Sorry,I've misread that, gonna change my vote. Thanks.

[Lostbrain]

Romance are just adding more dialog options (which results of past action/decisions from the character).

More options= better roleplay. Don't understand why so many people want them to disapear. They won't take so much resources and you can ignore them.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Lostbrain

[dan107]

No means that you'd like romances to occur even if for some reason they drained that many resources.

 

That's a pretty questionable premise. That's akin to asking would you want to have different races or a player stronghold "even if for some reason" it meant you couldn't have sidequests or an ending. Romances are fun, take minimal resources without voiceover and make the game more interesting while hardly taking anything away.

[The Sharmat]

The poll wasn't for "Should there be romances or not?" The poll was asking "Those in favor of romances: under what conditions, if any, would you be willing to lose them as a feature?"

[Milten]

*Sigh* Presence of BSN is getting stronger every day, endless romance threads, official LGBT thread, only two things are missing: 'philosophers' discussing same meaningless Choices over and over again, and teammate sectarians.

To not be off-topic, I don't need any romances, but if there will be some funny ones, I'll check them.

[Lurky]

Well, I'd like to contribute my own experiences with videogame romances. Hopefully they can put in perspective my point of view in this topic.

1. I have played RPGs with no romances for the player at all.
    
   Yet, I never missed them when playing. I never felt I was lacking in character interactions, because they were very diverse even without them, with different and clearly visible effects. Some of them had sex and seduction, usually as a mean to an end, but they didn't have player romances (and at least in one of them it made sense, because while you could be very nice, the PC was unable to feel that kind of love). Yet I was thoroughly immersed when playing because they were fantastic RPGs, and they remain some of my most cherished gaming experiences. Turns out, romantic interactions are not a necessary feature for a RPG, because some games worked very well without them.
    
   
2. I have played RPGs with player romances. They were implemented in various ways in each game, so I have varying opinions of them.
   

• In some cases, a romanceable character was clearly designed without the role of love interest in mind, and the interactions with the character were written from the platonic point of view. The romantic content was woven into each interaction with the player, and its presence was felt without overwhelming the conversation. In these cases, I enjoyed both the platonic and the romantic routes of interaction. Both felt natural, and they allowed me to appreciate the character in two different lights that complimented each other.
  
• In some cases, a romanceable character was clearly designed without the role of love interest in mind, and the interactions with the character were written from the platonic point of view. The romantic content wasn't well woven into the conversations, and there was a notable separation between "these are meant to be general interactions" and "these are meant to be romance-only interactions". In these cases, I enjoyed the platonic route, but the romance route felt lacking, as if the character occasionally forgot that we were in a relationship.
  
• In some cases, a romanceable character was clearly designed with the role of love interest in mind, and the interactions with the character were written from the romance point of view. The romantic content was woven into each interaction with the player, but there was some platonic content in its place that also added to the character. In these cases, I enjoyed the romance route, and while the platonic route was nice, I also felt like it had some unresolved sexual tension, which was kind of uncomfortable.
  
• In some cases, a romanceable character was clearly designed with the role of love interest in mind, and the interactions with the character were written from the romance point of view. The romantic content was woven into each interaction with the player, but the platonic content consisted of cutting out the romantic interactions, putting nothing or very little in its place. In these cases, I did not enjoy the platonic route very much; I felt like I was going against the game, missing out content and insight into the character because of my roleplaying choice. As for the romance route, I found it very hit and miss; when I liked the character because of its personality (shown outside of the romance, before it could be triggered) I enjoyed the romance very much, but when I wasn't interested in the character I didn't enjoy it. Turns out, choosing to romance a character because the game wants you to isn't really very enjoyable. And some characters were designed with this mindset yet the romance route was unavailable to my character because of its customization options, so I didn't enjoy any of my interactions with these characters in those cases.
  

Thus, my plea for handling any potential romances is this: For the love of everything that is good and sacred, don't design characters with romance in mind. Don't write their interactions from the romance point of view.

 

Make sure that the game could work well if it was the first type of RPG I mentioned: design everything with no love interest roles in mind, and flesh out characterization and interactions without the romances in mind. This avoids the third and fourth cases. Only when you have them mostly worked out should you consider if a romance would fit the character. In order to avoid the second case, the key would be to revise all interactions with the character and iterate until both variants work well separately. If there is no time for this revision, well, the first type of RPG I mentioned proves that romances aren't essential for the genre, so it's not a crippling loss. And I say this as someone who has played and enjoyed RPG romances very much.

 

Really, I have tried pretty much all variations, and this is the one that consistently works the best. And it makes sense: if romances are only one possible form of character interaction, why should you narrow your entire view of them through that lens?

 

 

I want a romance story implemented in the main story or main part of the game. I don't want options maybe if you want to or not. I don't want to have the possibility to have with everyone a relationship or sex. I just want a bit of love in the story integrated.

 

I'm afraid that is not going to happen.

One of the few things confirmed about the game is that we can play it entirely solo. If love was plot critical, that wouldn't be possible. Unless love was the driving motivation of the PC, but we already know that's not the case.

[PN8YTV]

I hate romances in games. Its almost never done well. See: any Bioware game ever

But I liked the romance(if you could call it that) in Planescape Torment (the Deionara story) or in KotOR 2.

[justaleaf]

Romance is a must, and it's not to the detriment of other aspects of the game. People go on a life changing adventure and have personal needs. The absence of optional romance render one less dimension than a character should have. Whether or not you LIKE playing romances is rather besides the point, artistically. Some people like it, some people don't. It should be optional. But the characters themselves have desires for love and belonging just like any other person. Not to mention it can power some pretty great (and sometimes tragic) storylines.

[SirPetrakus]

Romances are usually very hit and miss. I'd rather be able to know a character better without having to go to bed with them. A good romance is always welcome, though.

[Lurky]

You know, statements like this at the top of this page baffle me. The notion that letting the player have a romantic relationship with a NPC is crucial to the roleplaying experience, that the game is lesser or incomplete if this option is lacking.

 

It's not. It really isn't. There are RPGs out there in the most purist sense of the term that don't have romances, and they're still fantastic immersive games. What if the game puts you in the shoes of a vampire in a setting where vampires can't experience things like mortal love and have to struggle to keep their humanity and not become mindless predators? What if the game put you in the shoes of an asexual aromantic species who do reproduction in an entirely different way? It's a roleplaying game, after all, so you are playing a role. Even if you have freedom to play the role in whatever way you want (that's the fun), you still have to adhere to the role. Why not use this opportunity to experience a story in an entirely different mindset?

 

No, I am not saying that Project Eternity should incorporate an inability to love into the role of the PC (though it would be interesting if one of the races available for PC customization had this particularity). No, I am not bashing game romances (I have enjoyed many of them, and I've written a long post with my experiences). No, I am not saying that romances are out of place in this project (though I know nothing about the setting, so who knows). But the notion that PC-NPC romantic relationships are fundamental for roleplaying is asinine. What if the story wants to explore what it means to be unable to have romantic relationships? It could be interesting, and it would be a change.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Nothing is a must, and romances especially.

 

Torment is easily one of the best RPG's ever made (personally it stands alongside BGII as the ultimate RPG for me), and it had no player led romances to speak of.

Let me list what it did have:

 

a) One love story you could give a resolution to by the time you reached the finale (Deionarra)

b) Two attractions that were not about the PC romancing anyone but more about pointing out the strange power of his condition (Annah and Fall From Grace). And the latter was not explicitly stated , just hinted at.

All of these combined had maybe two dozen lines of dialog overall.

 

This proves you can have both a good RPG and a great story without Bioware style romance minigames, leading us to the obvious conclusion that romances aren't necessary at all.

 

It also proves you can successfully include love as a theme in the form non interactive storytelling (there was no real player choice regarding Deionarra, just one that gave a conclusion to the matter - towards the end).

If the designers feel that love is a part of the story they want to tell they should include it.

 

What they should not do is throw some half baked minigame consisting of a few lines of dialog seemingly lifted from a hentai adventure just to meet the expectations of those who want project eternity to be another Bioware game.

 

Dragon Age 2 shows what happens in this regard when you let unreasonable player demands run the show instead of the designers following their own vision, so lets not have another DA2 hmm?

Edited September 20, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[BasaltineBadger]

*Sigh* Presence of BSN is getting stronger every day, endless romance threads, official LGBT thread, only two things are missing: 'philosophers' discussing same meaningless Choices over and over again, and teammate sectarians.

To not be off-topic, I don't need any romances, but if there will be some funny ones, I'll check them.

 

There are almost no specifics about gameplay and story, so it's no wonder people are talking about stuff like that, and both issues are highly controversial LGBT because LGBT is always controversial, romances because of people who want to know how Tali's sweat tastes like.

 

@Drowsy Emperor:

Proving that romances aren't necessary in RPGs doesn't require posts that long, just some name dropping. Fallout, BG1, ID, ID2, Morrowind all were good without them. On the other hand I wouldn't call PS:T a game without romances just because it doesn't have standard Bioware's juvenile ****fest.

Edited September 20, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[Drowsy Emperor]

Which just leads me to the conclusion that the BSN are not game related forums but a form of collective therapy.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor