Romance in Project Eternity: How Important, How Much

[Spess Merhenn]

It's like I'm really posting on BSN. SAN loss imminent.

It's not so bad. You get used to it. The loss of sanity I mean.

 

You never get used to the BSN.

 

No good Hunter has all his sanity points.

[Living One]

I am not against romances in games, per se.

 

I'm just against romances in this particular game.

 

It just seems like a waste of limited resources and unlike other certain studios, Obsidian doesn't need to hang their hat on a "pick your own pixel partner" dynamic to have well written character interactions.

 

Not just that but if they put romanceable characters then the possibilities of more original companions are much lower(a romanceable character would hardly be like Dak'kon,Morte,Dean Domino,etc. and the number of companions isn't that big already).

 

 

Also:1-the "but love and sex are parts of life and should be represented!1!" argument from pro-romancers isn't a sufficient reason to have an actual romance for the PC.Like at all.At most it's an argument to have stuff like NPCs that are married(not in a"big deal way" like many would like to:just something like "the blacksmith you are buying stuff from has a wife that runs the shop at different hours")or some occasional flirty lines(like FNV)or something minor like that.If it was really a sufficient reason then every story would have the protagonist fall in love with someone.Wich just isn't the case.

2-the fact that RPGs have side stories(in the form of quests)isn't a justification for romances either:the main quest and side quests that are thematically relevant to the main one(think New Vegas) should come first.And let's be onest,we know it's really unlikely such relationships will be a main theme.In other words:side quests shouldn't be a justification to randomly throw in whatever storyline you want.

3-The argument "but if they put effort I'm sure they'll do it right".I don't think it's possible but let's admit it's a possibility for a moment:if they put so much effort doesn't that gets in opposition to point 2?

 

inb4 pages and pages of "but love and sex are parts of life and should be represented!1!","but it's just optional side content","but if they put effort I'm sure they'll do it right" arguments regardless.

Well,looks like I was right.What's wrong romancers,one might think that you don't have actual arguments and after all there really is not desire for quality features but only the cheap and juvenile desire to pandered to despite insisting not to be the case.

[timobkg]

I'm not sure where the "Bioware sex-sim" fears are coming from. Last I checked, this is an Obsidian game, being made by people who formerly worked at Black Isle and Troika. Most of their games had romances in one form or another, and yet I don't recall any of the being derided as sex-sims.

 

Oh and for a snicker - http://social.biowar...5800/8#14245252

So here's the relevant info I got from the Chris Avellone quote:

I think that you get a lot more drama and impact from failed romances, or unrequited relationships that occur in games. I think that creates more player tension. ...I feel like keeping the drama going is more important.

As someone who's in favor of romances, I agree with everything he said, and would be happy with those types of romances. Would that be a happy medium for people, having flawed, unrequited romances, or ones that are not consummated during the course of the game?

[TwinkieGorilla]

I'm not sure where the "Bioware sex-sim" fears are coming from.

 

BioWare.

[Inyourprime]

Oh and for a snicker - http://social.biowar...5800/8#14245252

 

I must ask; who is David Gaider and why is he talking? Is he one of the writers for Dragon Age?

[Merin]

Oh and for a snicker - http://social.biowar...5800/8#14245252

 

I must ask; who is David Gaider and why is he talking? Is he one of the writers for Dragon Age?

 

From wikipeda -

Gaider began his professional life providing services at restaurants and hotels, while games and the design of them were his side hobby.^[2] Before entering the video game industry, Gaider had a brief position as a grip at 20th Century Fox, and worked on the film Titanic. A friend of Gaider, Kalvin happened to be working at BioWare and suggested to Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk that Gaider be given a recently opened position in the design department. Gaider got the job and, as his first assignment, was given the task of providing design for Baldur's Gate 2. He wrote HK-47, Jolee Bindo and Carth Onasi for Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, and was the lead writer for Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark, on which he wrote both Deekin and Valen Shadowbreath. Gaider was set as lead writer on Baldur's Gate's spiritual successor, Dragon Age: Origins, creating the world of Thedas in which the game is set. He wrote the characters of Zevran, Alistair, Cailan, Morrigan, Shale and a some Duncan along with the quests "Nature of the Beast" and "Redcliffe".^[3][4] After the success of Origins, Gaider also wrote its book prequels, The Stolen Throne and The Calling. Gaider recently finished writing for Dragon Age II, where he had also done major part of plot, creating characters Cassandra, Fenris, and Meredith, and wrote the follow-up novel Asunder released on December 20th, 2011. A new Dragon Age comic series published by Dark Horse Comics is set to be released in early 2012, with Gaider as the writer. Aside from design and writing, Gaider often posted messages at BioWare's Community folder.

[Althernai]

I must ask; who is David Gaider and why is he talking? Is he one of the writers for Dragon Age?

Yes. He is also one of the writers for Baldur's Gate 2 (wherein he is notable for working on the Ascension semi-official revised ending for Throne of Bhaal), Knights of the Old Republic and several other BioWare games. I would assume he's talking because he knows Chris Avellone and wants to have some fun.

[Hmm-Hmm.]

I don't mind romance options, but I wouldn't miss them. Although from a relationship standpoint it would be sensible to include those which.. well.. make sense.

I would mind being forced into a romance. I'd also wager they're some of the more tricky parts to write well considering all the variables and differing player perceptions involved.

 

So I suppose I lean slightly towards romance options.

[Merin]

After the first page or so I've not seen much discussion onf question 4 so I'll pose it again -

 

4 - If Project Eternity does include romance, how do you want it implemented?

some thoughts on the ways: just backstory and NPCs; player character with an NPC/NPCs; player character with companions; just amongst companions; flirting; platonic relationships... lots of ways it could be done, not just the PC on companions model (though, if that's what you want, go ahead and voice your desire for it)

 

And my answer -

 

I'd, personally, prefer the romance to not be between the PC and the companions. If there is romance, it should be outside that dynamic. Some flirting, mutual attraction, whatever - if it is included, that's fine. But I'd rather see the romance in the background, at best, as part of the story you interact with, or between the PC and a few potential, non-companion, NPCs in the world.

 

I think the vocal minority (as far as any of these polls and threads have shown, it's a minority voting no to romance at all) have as their most salient concern the waste of writing resources on companions, and this is a very real concern that I understand and sympathize with. If there is a writer assigned to a companion, any potential romance with said companion is more for the writer to have work on and weave into non-romance parts of the dialog at times as well. For those who want nothing to do with romance, or whom just might not want to romance a given character, that character will suddenly have less content and might feel a bit shallow compared to other companions.

 

I don't think its a minority who hold that particular concern - I think most people posting in this thread want strong companions and no wasted writing.

 

In any event, due to the small size of the game and the limit funds they have to work with, I am for romance being background, window dressing, part of the story around the character and their party... not integral, or even optional, for the PC and the companions.

 

To sum up - romance should be part of the story of the game at some level, with characters you meet having their own relationships, perhaps some motivations of more important NPCs be tied up to romantic feelings, and maybe even some non-companion NPCs having the optional plot thread of a romance. But I don't want it to be a major part of the game, unless that is Obsidian's design goals, and I'd rather it not be romance with companions.

 

---

 

Other thoughts on question 4? Do you want it with companions? Background? With your character or not?

 

If you've already answered this, don't feel the need to reiterate. Just for those who might have missed it as they might have answered the poll questions and skipped my OP.

[Bos_hybrid]

 

 

 

Is that not a declaration of war? If not I'm pretty sure it's at least against the Geneva conventions.

[kjrubberducky]

2-the fact that RPGs have side stories(in the form of quests)isn't a justification for romances either:the main quest and side quests that are thematically relevant to the main one(think New Vegas) should come first.And let's be onest,we know it's really unlikely such relationships will be a main theme.In other words:side quests shouldn't be a justification to randomly throw in whatever storyline you want.

Well,looks like I was right.What's wrong romancers,one might think that you don't have actual arguments and after all there really is not desire for quality features but only the cheap and juvenile desire to pandered to despite insisting not to be the case.

Thematically relevant? Okay.

 

Project Eternity is about the nature of souls, right? How about exploring the idea that souls can interact with and affect each other? Can certain types of souls "harmonize" with other compatible souls, making both stronger or somehow changing them? On the other hand, can souls of such different ethics, like order/chaos and good/evil, coexist, or does prolonged contact and interaction "erode" them? Do souls exist in a vacuum, only to be affected by their vessel, or can they feel the effects of other souls, in cases like magic use and romantic/platonic relationships? Is there even a difference for the soul if the relationship is romantic or platonic? If they are affected by relationships, how quickly do the changes, if any, become noticeable to the character? Along the idea of there being stronger and weaker souls, does a strong soul make a weak soul stronger, or vice versa? Or does the stronger soul start to impose itself on the weaker soul, pressing it into submission? Or do the two souls find an equillibrium?

 

There. Thematically relevant.

[Monkcrab]

Other thoughts on question 4? Do you want it with companions? Background? With your character or not?

 

If you've already answered this, don't feel the need to reiterate. Just for those who might have missed it as they might have answered the poll questions and skipped my OP.

 

Answered in veeeeeeery old thread, but. I'd like love stories. It adds to the world that some people actually loves and are not out just for greed/lust. Love stories are one of the few constants of humanity. Doesn't matter where it is, doesn't have to be in the party. NPC-NPC or PC-background NPC will also do just fine---and actually, that way might be a better use of resources. It'll be kind of like a recurring quest you drop by and develop sometimes, you can completely ignore it, and it'll probably waste far less resources than full romanceable companions.

 

So basically, optional Deionarra-styled romances might be the best of both worlds. Only without a fixed, depressing ending. Or maybe it's more like NWN1?

Edited September 26, 2012 by Monkcrab

[TwinkieGorilla]

Sounds like a theme they could cover in the game.

 

Now THAT I could get behind!

[Cryticus]

I usually do romance sub plots sometimes because I am completionist but usually because they just start and this is I think main problem with them characters that are romanceable when romance sub plot kick in feel like they were desgine not as characters but as love intrest, I always play a good guy and when I talk with character that I like I chose nice options and then bum suddenly everyone want to bone my character , it is somewhat off putting not to mention the fact that in some plots of crpgs romances don't really have sense.

So personally if Obsidian don't want to put it in and just feel like they are obligated to put in because of genre than by gork and mork they should not put it in!

Edited September 26, 2012 by Cryticus

[Nonek]

Not fond of romances, they usually come across as mawkish, overly sentimental and generally as cheesy as hell. Don't think you need a love interest to complete a character, especially if he's got a few years on his back, all this teenage angst and romanticism dries up as one gets older.

[Amentep]

If it fits the story, if it fits the characters, if it fits the setting and if Obsidian determines its right for the game (the resources and planning needed) then sure.

 

But I think it'd be very possible to create Project Eternity and make it a game I enjoy and want to play repeated both with and without romances.

[SqueakyCat]

This thread seems to have quieted down some since the links on the previous page were posted.

 

For me, alot of this comes down to funding and where those precious few dollars should be allocated. Some want romance, some MP, and many others want completely different mechanics added to the game. It's just not all going to be possible with the limited budget for this IP.

 

Can't we just trust the developers to give us a compelling story (with or without romance), in-depth companions and an intriguing world?

 

Our voices have been heard on this issue as well as many others.

 

 

This is for your TwinkieGorilla and Monte Carlo:

 

http://www.cafepress...rt?shop=ingenre

 

Edited September 26, 2012 by SqueakyCat

[Undecaf]

That's some scary T-shirt you got there.

[Amentep]

Can't we just trust the developers to give us a compelling story (with or without romance), in-depth companions and an intriguing world?

 

I do. But in lieu of anything new to discuss in concrete terms about the project, its probably inevitable that the forums look like an impossible wish list even if the budget was 4 billion dollars simply because people are discussing what possibilities (no matter how remote) the game has.

[SqueakyCat]

That's some scary T-shirt you got there.

 

Hehehe

[Malcador]

Can't we just trust the developers to give us a compelling story (with or without romance), in-depth companions and an intriguing world?

 

Have you seen all the polls ? I don't think 'we' do, based on that, heh.

[TwinkieGorilla]

This is for your TwinkieGorilla and Monte Carlo:

 

http://www.cafepress...rt?shop=ingenre

 

 

[Living One]

2-the fact that RPGs have side stories(in the form of quests)isn't a justification for romances either:the main quest and side quests that are thematically relevant to the main one(think New Vegas) should come first.And let's be onest,we know it's really unlikely such relationships will be a main theme.In other words:side quests shouldn't be a justification to randomly throw in whatever storyline you want.

Well,looks like I was right.What's wrong romancers,one might think that you don't have actual arguments and after all there really is not desire for quality features but only the cheap and juvenile desire to pandered to despite insisting not to be the case.

Thematically relevant? Okay.

 

Project Eternity is about the nature of souls, right? How about exploring the idea that souls can interact with and affect each other? Can certain types of souls "harmonize" with other compatible souls, making both stronger or somehow changing them? On the other hand, can souls of such different ethics, like order/chaos and good/evil, coexist, or does prolonged contact and interaction "erode" them? Do souls exist in a vacuum, only to be affected by their vessel, or can they feel the effects of other souls, in cases like magic use and romantic/platonic relationships? Is there even a difference for the soul if the relationship is romantic or platonic? If they are affected by relationships, how quickly do the changes, if any, become noticeable to the character? Along the idea of there being stronger and weaker souls, does a strong soul make a weak soul stronger, or vice versa? Or does the stronger soul start to impose itself on the weaker soul, pressing it into submission? Or do the two souls find an equillibrium?

 

There. Thematically relevant.

That's just your speculation about how they are going to deal with the souls thing.Also wath you are writing sounds more like a desperate attempt to ham-fist romances in it rather than what Avellone would write(seriously is it even possible to get more cheesy than"love can change souls","can different souls hug each other or are they damaged by it").

Also you skipped the other points.

But,hey,carry on watching romancers getting so desperate to justify this crappy feature while pretending to be so different than GaiderFans is moderatedly amusing.

[Merin]

Can't we just trust the developers to give us a compelling story (with or without romance), in-depth companions and an intriguing world?

 

I think the vast majority of people posting in this (or any other thread of "do you want this or do you want that") want for Obsidian to make the game they want to make and do it well in the Obsidian way. But, as has been pointed out, they want our input. They want us to talk about what we want and don't want. They encourage it, ask for it, direct people to the forums here to do such. Does that mean they are waiting for our instructions on how to make their game? No. Does that mean they'll take polls and use that to focus-group what should and should NOT be in the game? No. But does it mean they'll take the temperature of the donators who take the time to voice what they want and then see what, in those ideas and wants, fits their vision of the game? Yes, probably.

 

This is for your TwinkieGorilla and Monte Carlo:

 

http://www.cafepress...rt?shop=ingenre

 

 

That is so not for them. That design has been around for about a couple years now, I believe, as it was an idea I had around the time either Alpha Protocol or New Vegas was released. Basically it's intended meaning is that what BioWare used to be praised for, choice in game and storytelling, Obsidian was doing much better and Obsidian should replace BioWare in prestige as one of the premiere cRPG developers. AND - it's tongue in cheek, mocking the whole "pink is the new black" trope.

 

Shirt had zero, zippidity-doo-dah to do with romance. Nada.

 

Of course, my explaining that will simply reaffirm to certain people that the shirt must absolutely be about promance and only came into existance in the last week or some such. Just like climate change is a hoax, evolution is "only a theory", and JFK was killed by a conspiracy between the mafia and the Russians.

[SqueakyCat]

This is for your TwinkieGorilla and Monte Carlo:

 

http://www.cafepress...rt?shop=ingenre

 

 

 

Everytime I see your avatar, I laugh a little. Just too cute. Will you be purchasing a t-shirt and posting a picture on the forum?