Jump to content

Romance in Project Eternity: How Important, How Much


Romance in Project Eternity  

365 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your feeling on romance in cRPGs?

    • I never enjoy romance in my games - it often makes me enjoy them less.
      29
    • I don't enjoy romance in my games, but it doesn't affect my enjoyment overall.
      12
    • Most of the time I don't enjoy romance in my games, with a few exceptions.
      43
    • Sometimes I enjoy romance in my games, sometimes I don't.
      66
    • Most of the time I enjoy romance in my games, with a few exceptions.
      56
    • I always enjoy romance in my games, but I don't need them for me to enjoy the game overall.
      120
    • I love romance in my games - without romance I usually don't enjoy games.
      22
    • I am indifferent to romance in my games; don't care either way.
      17
  2. 2. How well do you feel romance has been used in cRPGs in the past?

    • It has always been bad. Sometimes really awful.
      34
    • It is usually not very good, with very rare exceptions.
      78
    • It has been more bad than good, but sometimes it was alright.
      50
    • Sometimes it had been bad, sometimes it has been good.
      69
    • It has been more good than bad, but sometimes it was cringe-worthy.
      57
    • It is usually pretty good, with some notable exceptons.
      55
    • It has always been good. Sometimes exceptionally great.
      14
    • I have no opinion on how it's been done before.
      8
  3. 3. Do you want Project Eternity to include any romance in the game?

    • Absolutely not. I really do not want any romance in the game - I personally dislike the addition, period.
      26
    • I would strongly prefer not. I don't think it can add anything, and I worry that the game overall will suffer if it is done poorly.
      23
    • I'd rather it isn't part of the game, but if Obsidian decides to add it I'll adjust.
      27
    • Up to Obsidian entirely... I'll accept their decision either way equally.
      70
    • I'd rather it is part of the game, but if Obsidian decides to not include it I'll adapt.
      80
    • I would strongly prefer it. I think it can add a lot, and I feel the overall game may be less compelling if it is not included.
      80
    • Absolutely. I really want romance in the game - I personally want it, period.
      49
    • I hold no preference.
      10


Recommended Posts

and hopefully we can all stay on target and leave the personal attacks at home.

 

---

 

While I am just one more forum member with no power to enforce any rules, I can make a strong plea at the outset...

 

Don't troll. Do not insult others for stating their opinion on romance in games, regardless of what that opinion is, nor for their opinion on games that held romances. Those opinions are clearly their business, and they have a right to it. What we don't have a right to is harassing them about said opinions.

 

And if someone DOES try to insult you for your opinion – please ignore the insults. If you want to try and engage them, feel free, but the best way to keep the thread open and productive is to just not take the bait.

 

just a gentle reminder...

 

If you feel like someone is harassing you or attacking you for simply stating your opinion on the topic, it is probably better to not engage them. If you feel it is particularly egregious, use the report feature. I know it's hard not to respond... but nothing good can come from it.

 

Nothing is gained from commenting on each other's personal lives and levels of maturity.

 

and now back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

But clearly there's a lot to be gained by opening circle-jerking threads where you have to agree with the op and using the "Codexers made me cry" excuse to try to ignore arguments that might make look silly your request for asinine features.

 

Meanwhile pretty much every romancer goes:"i swear the fact that i obsessivly post about romances is not an indication i'm obssessed about this feature!!1!see i even voted that option in the poll number159!1!!"

 

Actually, this is exactly the type of post that Merin is talking about ignoring/reporting. It is one thing to disagree and it is another to specialize in these ad hominem, vitriolic posts. The issue is not people engaging in a dialogue with conflicting opinions, it's using these generalized statements to degrade the poster or devalue his/her contribution. "Nobody should take your opinion seriously since you're just an obsessive Bioware loving, sex-depraved basement dweller!"

 

Something that occurred to me reading this thread: many people have stated they hope that if romance is included, it doesn't follow the Bioware model. To me, this actually goes without saying. Even if one likes the Bioware model (I personally am ambivalent towards it), this is an Obsidian game and I would not want them to squander their creativity by copying Bioware's model for romance progression regardless of the quality of said model. Innovation is key, and I think that in addition to maturity and relevance most people probably want to see something new and uncharted in regards to romance.

It's pretty fun how your post confirms what I wrote word by word.

Also Obsidian/Troika/BIS romances aren't much different from Biowaste's.Another point you guys always try to ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I would love? If they made one of the romanceable females really unattractive! And I mean really unattractive, and then make her romance the best one. We always get supermodels as romance options, be different for something more 'real'. Plus I want to see how many are indeed just after eye candy and sex! :D

Edited by FlintlockJazz

"That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

"Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been talk of a subduing game mechanic. I like that. Perhaps we could introduce a similar component for romances. For player characters with low charisma who do not have even the slightest hope of romancing one of his/her sexy companions an option to use the intimidation skill or the same technique used to subdue a dragon might be interesting options. The pc might essentially hold the character against their will and force them to engage in various sexual acts and forms of humiliation. Perhaps even letting all the other party members have a go as well. They would obey you not out of loyalty or some sappy puppy love, but out of stark fear for their life. They know you are dangerous. They don't doubt that you would kill them if they attempted to escape and torture them if they are captured. That would seem a lot more interesting than sappy girlish romances.

That, sir, is very very wrong, well done! :D

 

Honestly it puts it in perspective, your typical adventurer is pretty much a sociopath who goes around murdering people for loot, so this is a logical extension...

"That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

"Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a surrender mechanism for beaten foes they could also be used in this manner. A sort of one sided unsentimental romance. A slavery system could be combined with running a prostitution ring. Forced prostitution could be a way to raise money. Perhaps you could eventually open a brothel with the prisoner-prostitutes kept in cages and chained spread-eagled to their bed posts to provide customers with 24 hour service. Not just women, but men could also be used in this way. Even children if they are present in the game. I'm picturing giant bird cages for some reason. Eventually you could open such brothels in every major city accumulating great wealth. Your party members would be acutely aware that they could also end up like that if they cross you or annoy you in any way.

 

If you've seen the film deadgirl you'll have a good idea of the sort of thing I'm talking about. (Excellent film BTW).

Edited by metiman
  • Like 3

JoshSawyer: Listening to feedback from the fans has helped us realize that people can be pretty polarized on what they want, even among a group of people ostensibly united by a love of the same games. For us, that means prioritizing options is important. If people don’t like a certain aspect of how skill checks are presented or how combat works, we should give them the ability to turn that off, resources permitting.

.
.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It tells you a lot of things when "Bioware romance" becomes terminus technicus.

The problem with the term Bioware romance is that the romances in BGII were bioware romances and were very well done. Except for Aerie. Mainly because I wanted to a take a sledgehammer to her face she was so ****ing annoying. In fairness however, her annoyingness quotient had little to do with the romance. Hell, even some of the modern romances, if you ignore the mannequin sex which is admittedly somewhat difficult, aren't that badly written for a game romance.

 

 

 

There has been talk of a subduing game mechanic. I like that. Perhaps we could introduce a similar component for romances. For player characters with low charisma who do not have even the slightest hope of romancing one of his/her sexy companions an option to use the intimidation skill or the same technique used to subdue a dragon might be interesting options. The pc might essentially hold the character against their will and force them to engage in various sexual acts and forms of humiliation. Perhaps even letting all the other party members have a go as well. They would obey you not out of loyalty or some sappy puppy love, but out of stark fear for their life. They know you are dangerous. They don't doubt that you would kill them if they attempted to escape and torture them if they are captured. That would seem a lot more interesting than sappy girlish romances.

Way to amp up the general creepiness level of this thread, ****.

Maybe he just really likes John Norman and Terry Goodkind novels. Be glad he's not a Jack L. Chalker fan or he'd be wanting half-ungulate retarded prostitutes Edited by ravenshrike

"You know, there's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it"

 

"If that's what you think, you're DOING IT WRONG."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of just wish Obsidian would tell us whether they are putting them in the game or not, just so we can get a lot of these silly debates out of the way. At least then we'd know either way. If they're in, then cool... it was already part of the game and intended as so.

 

That's cool, but you know as well as I do that when that happens, there'll be a deluge of posts from the same people demanding gay/furry/transgender romance arcs. There's already been a few. I'm not sure that situation would be preferrable to the status quo.

This. I'd prefer Obsidian just stay quiet on the subject.

Shadow Thief of the Obsidian Order

My Backloggery

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It tells you a lot of things when "Bioware romance" becomes terminus technicus.

The problem with the term Bioware romance is that the romances in BGII were bioware romances and were very well done. Except for Aerie. Mainly because I wanted to a take a sledgehammer to her face she was so ****ing annoying. In fairness however, her annoyingness quotient had little to do with the romance. Hell, even some of the modern romances, if you ignore the mannequin sex which is admittedly somewhat difficult, aren't that badly written for a game romance.

 

No, the romances in BG2 (which weren't that great anyway) were just romances by Bioware, not "Bioware Romances" (note the capitalization). As for the rest of the post needless to say I disagree very strongly.

Edited by evdk

Say no to popamole!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of just wish Obsidian would tell us whether they are putting them in the game or not, just so we can get a lot of these silly debates out of the way. At least then we'd know either way. If they're in, then cool... it was already part of the game and intended as so.

 

That's cool, but you know as well as I do that when that happens, there'll be a deluge of posts from the same people demanding gay/furry/transgender romance arcs. There's already been a few. I'm not sure that situation would be preferrable to the status quo.

This. I'd prefer Obsidian just stay quiet on the subject.

It's going to be fan seeing the "loser's" reaction though! :fdevil:

Edited by kenup
Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely don't think Obsidian should say anything about possible romances until October 17th. Then they can announce how the designers also hate romances and really don't want to write them and how they all laugh at Bioware for turning their games into romance simulators and how that is a cautionary tale for them.

  • Like 1

JoshSawyer: Listening to feedback from the fans has helped us realize that people can be pretty polarized on what they want, even among a group of people ostensibly united by a love of the same games. For us, that means prioritizing options is important. If people don’t like a certain aspect of how skill checks are presented or how combat works, we should give them the ability to turn that off, resources permitting.

.
.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a surrender mechanism for beaten foes they could also be used in this manner. A sort of one sided unsentimental romance. A slavery system could be combined with running a prostitution ring. Forced prostitution could be a way to raise money. Perhaps you could eventually open a brothel with the prisoner-prostitutes kept in cages and chained spread-eagled to their bed posts to provide customers with 24 hour service. Not just women, but men could also be used in this way. Even children if they are present in the game. I'm picturing giant bird cages for some reason. Eventually you could open such brothels in every major city accumulating great wealth. Your party members would be acutely aware that they could also end up like that if they cross you or annoy you in any way.

 

The really creepy part is that there are people who'd actually love this sort of stuff (like the aforementioned T. Goodkind fans). Wasn't there some horrible Imoen romance mod for BG2 that allowed the player to beat her up when she started making googly eyes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooooor maybe we like stories that tell about the big picture and the small picture, and romance, betrayal, friendship, rejection, the search for contentment, etc-- these are all part of the human condition and they are a part of storytelling.

 

So you want boring soap opera type nonsense ? Feh :p

  • Like 1

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a surrender mechanism for beaten foes they could also be used in this manner. A sort of one sided unsentimental romance. A slavery system could be combined with running a prostitution ring. Forced prostitution could be a way to raise money. Perhaps you could eventually open a brothel with the prisoner-prostitutes kept in cages and chained spread-eagled to their bed posts to provide customers with 24 hour service. Not just women, but men could also be used in this way. Even children if they are present in the game. I'm picturing giant bird cages for some reason. Eventually you could open such brothels in every major city accumulating great wealth. Your party members would be acutely aware that they could also end up like that if they cross you or annoy you in any way.

 

If you've seen the film deadgirl you'll have a good idea of the sort of thing I'm talking about. (Excellent film BTW).

 

What the hell is wrong with you ?

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been talk of a subduing game mechanic. I like that. Perhaps we could introduce a similar component for romances. For player characters with low charisma who do not have even the slightest hope of romancing one of his/her sexy companions an option to use the intimidation skill or the same technique used to subdue a dragon might be interesting options. The pc might essentially hold the character against their will and force them to engage in various sexual acts and forms of humiliation. Perhaps even letting all the other party members have a go as well. They would obey you not out of loyalty or some sappy puppy love, but out of stark fear for their life. They know you are dangerous. They don't doubt that you would kill them if they attempted to escape and torture them if they are captured. That would seem a lot more interesting than sappy girlish romances.

 

That is disturbing to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a surrender mechanism for beaten foes they could also be used in this manner. A sort of one sided unsentimental romance. A slavery system could be combined with running a prostitution ring. Forced prostitution could be a way to raise money. Perhaps you could eventually open a brothel with the prisoner-prostitutes kept in cages and chained spread-eagled to their bed posts to provide customers with 24 hour service.

</snip>

Dude...

Shadow Thief of the Obsidian Order

My Backloggery

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been talk of a subduing game mechanic. I like that. Perhaps we could introduce a similar component for romances. For player characters with low charisma who do not have even the slightest hope of romancing one of his/her sexy companions an option to use the intimidation skill or the same technique used to subdue a dragon might be interesting options. The pc might essentially hold the character against their will and force them to engage in various sexual acts and forms of humiliation. Perhaps even letting all the other party members have a go as well. They would obey you not out of loyalty or some sappy puppy love, but out of stark fear for their life. They know you are dangerous. They don't doubt that you would kill them if they attempted to escape and torture them if they are captured. That would seem a lot more interesting than sappy girlish romances.

 

That is disturbing to say the least.

yeah really

Edited by Living One
Link to post
Share on other sites

Liiiiiike....one romance? Normal? Two romances...maybe on ice skates? But seriously I think we just need a show of hands here what to do about romances.

 

For me, it depends. If romances are in the game I want them to fit the characters, story, game and setting. Because of this it is entirely possible the answer would be "0" or "52" depending on what the game would support and work within its confines.

 

There is nothing wrong with the story of it. There's something wrong with the roleplaying of romance. Nothing wrong with friendships, betrayals, etc. A lot of you guys are inflating your argument and adding things to romance.

 

I see romances as one possible avenue of PC-NPC relationships which could include friendship, platonic love, mutual respect, or enmity.

 

Romance is your character going around trying to start relationships and have sex with your companions and possibly other NPCs. It's not having friendships or companions. It doesn't mean there can't be a story about a husband and wife. It doesn't mean no relationships or stories of love in the game. It means trying to roleplay a relationship in a RPG. I hear there is another genre of gaming for that kind of stuff.

 

To me, "Romance" is your character and an NPC developing a relationship through speech and action that involves romantic feelings and/or commitment toward each other. I do not believe that this needs to end in sex - depending on the structure of the story it might make perfect sense for the two characters to not have sex at all and yet their relationship is still there.

 

Part of the problem many - including myself - have with romances in video games is that they are PC centric to the extreme. The NPC gets sublimated to the PC and the romance only fails if the PC slaughters baby kittens in front of his/her intended. I'm not for that. I think for a romance to work right, the PC should meet some "criteria" established for what the NPC would pursue (or like to be pursued) by. I also think the player should be able to flirt with a "flirty" character who would never actually have a romance (essentially the PC should be able to fail at romance for reasons other than the PCs choice just as bad choices could fail any relationship in the game).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a surrender mechanism for beaten foes they could also be used in this manner. A sort of one sided unsentimental romance. A slavery system could be combined with running a prostitution ring. Forced prostitution could be a way to raise money. Perhaps you could eventually open a brothel with the prisoner-prostitutes kept in cages and chained spread-eagled to their bed posts to provide customers with 24 hour service. Not just women, but men could also be used in this way. Even children if they are present in the game. I'm picturing giant bird cages for some reason. Eventually you could open such brothels in every major city accumulating great wealth. Your party members would be acutely aware that they could also end up like that if they cross you or annoy you in any way.

 

Reported...

to the interpol, Sanctum Officium and Lithuanian mobsters.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Liiiiiike....one romance? Normal? Two romances...maybe on ice skates? But seriously I think we just need a show of hands here what to do about romances.

 

For me, it depends. If romances are in the game I want them to fit the characters, story, game and setting. Because of this it is entirely possible the answer would be "0" or "52" depending on what the game would support and work within its confines.

 

There is nothing wrong with the story of it. There's something wrong with the roleplaying of romance. Nothing wrong with friendships, betrayals, etc. A lot of you guys are inflating your argument and adding things to romance.

 

I see romances as one possible avenue of PC-NPC relationships which could include friendship, platonic love, mutual respect, or enmity.

 

Romance is your character going around trying to start relationships and have sex with your companions and possibly other NPCs. It's not having friendships or companions. It doesn't mean there can't be a story about a husband and wife. It doesn't mean no relationships or stories of love in the game. It means trying to roleplay a relationship in a RPG. I hear there is another genre of gaming for that kind of stuff.

 

To me, "Romance" is your character and an NPC developing a relationship through speech and action that involves romantic feelings and/or commitment toward each other. I do not believe that this needs to end in sex - depending on the structure of the story it might make perfect sense for the two characters to not have sex at all and yet their relationship is still there.

 

Part of the problem many - including myself - have with romances in video games is that they are PC centric to the extreme. The NPC gets sublimated to the PC and the romance only fails if the PC slaughters baby kittens in front of his/her intended. I'm not for that. I think for a romance to work right, the PC should meet some "criteria" established for what the NPC would pursue (or like to be pursued) by. I also think the player should be able to flirt with a "flirty" character who would never actually have a romance (essentially the PC should be able to fail at romance for reasons other than the PCs choice just as bad choices could fail any relationship in the game).

 

This is a problem I do have with romances: you don't or shouldn't have to have romances in order to have relationships, and yet often I find that's all you get, either bang em or develop very little relationship with them. I find often that I'll do a romance just to be able to interact with a character. So I'd rather friendship tracks are made for all characters rather than romances for some, but thats just one rabbit's opinion...

  • Like 1

"That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

"Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a problem I do have with romances: you don't or shouldn't have to have romances in order to have relationships, and yet often I find that's all you get, either bang em or develop very little relationship with them. I find often that I'll do a romance just to be able to interact with a character. So I'd rather friendship tracks are made for all characters rather than romances for some, but thats just one rabbit's opinion...

 

I agree; I really want some depth to the characters and how they relate (or not) to the PC or others. I was entertained by BG2's party antics - some of which wasn't PC Centric - (Korgan pursuing Mazzy or Mazzy forcing Valgyar to be her squire for example) and some was (Edwin or Jan's dialogues). But I don't recall any of them having the depth of the romance dialogues (but my memory may be cheating here).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had some thoughts I considered getting feedback on in the thread, but after this whole creepy mess in the last two pages I think I'll save them for another day.

 

I'm gonna go somewhere else now.

Something stirs within...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a surrender mechanism for beaten foes they could also be used in this manner. A sort of one sided unsentimental romance. A slavery system could be combined with running a prostitution ring. Forced prostitution could be a way to raise money. Perhaps you could eventually open a brothel with the prisoner-prostitutes kept in cages and chained spread-eagled to their bed posts to provide customers with 24 hour service. Not just women, but men could also be used in this way. Even children if they are present in the game. I'm picturing giant bird cages for some reason. Eventually you could open such brothels in every major city accumulating great wealth. Your party members would be acutely aware that they could also end up like that if they cross you or annoy you in any way.

 

If you've seen the film deadgirl you'll have a good idea of the sort of thing I'm talking about. (Excellent film BTW).

 

Well, at least you managed to clear out the thread. Seriously, can you see China yet, or are you still burrowing your way towards earth's core?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In b4 that evolves into a plea for Naked Lunch centipede reference.

 

I want to romance a mugwump.

 

You want to romance Republican party members who wouldn't support Republican presidential candidate James Blaine in 1884? :o

 

(I know its a follow-up on the reference to Naked Lunch. Or well maybe the 1960s band, The Mugwumps)

 

I have to say I'm generally against sexual slavery in games (to pull this vaguely back on topic) and wouldn't consider such a thing as part of "romance" options either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a problem I do have with romances: you don't or shouldn't have to have romances in order to have relationships, and yet often I find that's all you get, either bang em or develop very little relationship with them. I find often that I'll do a romance just to be able to interact with a character. So I'd rather friendship tracks are made for all characters rather than romances for some, but thats just one rabbit's opinion...

 

I agree; I really want some depth to the characters and how they relate (or not) to the PC or others. I was entertained by BG2's party antics - some of which wasn't PC Centric - (Korgan pursuing Mazzy or Mazzy forcing Valgyar to be her squire for example) and some was (Edwin or Jan's dialogues). But I don't recall any of them having the depth of the romance dialogues (but my memory may be cheating here).

 

Yep I think you're right: there was banter but no actual friendship tracks. And I recall seeing more of the romance tracks than of the banters too. Always thought that you should have been able to ask Minsc for Boo's advice whenever you wanted to too. :(

"That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

"Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a surrender mechanism for beaten foes they could also be used in this manner. A sort of one sided unsentimental romance. A slavery system could be combined with running a prostitution ring. Forced prostitution could be a way to raise money. Perhaps you could eventually open a brothel with the prisoner-prostitutes kept in cages and chained spread-eagled to their bed posts to provide customers with 24 hour service. Not just women, but men could also be used in this way. Even children if they are present in the game. I'm picturing giant bird cages for some reason. Eventually you could open such brothels in every major city accumulating great wealth. Your party members would be acutely aware that they could also end up like that if they cross you or annoy you in any way.

 

If you've seen the film deadgirl you'll have a good idea of the sort of thing I'm talking about. (Excellent film BTW).

 

I don't know if this was a facetious remark or not and I don't care one way or another. But I had to hold back the laughter. I'm at work, damnit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...