Romance in Project Eternity: How Important, How Much

[Living One]

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!!"

Edited September 26, 2012 by Living One

[Ieo]

I'd rather Obsidian not put romances in PE but will tolerate their decision either way.

 

And the main reason why I'd Obsidian not bother is simple: I'm a social scientist, and I see far too much wrong with these kinds of "relationships" portrayed in all sorts of media from films to games to whatever (and of course, IRL), and games in particular suffer from fundamental mechanics limitations. Other reasons include breadth inclusion alongside depth all tied together by the project management trilemma.

 

First off, I expect nuance, depth, and 'realism' in PE's social interactions, as much as possible, because that is what makes a fictional setting "alive" and personable. That means, from a role-playing perspective, "meaningful" romance is far more immersive; of course, others will say this would be too much of a 'dating sim', but really it's just a different type of NPC interaction, and I want all of them to be fantastic (PS:T).

 

That said, the problem with software programming is that it tends to be very binary in decision-making. It's easy to see what went wrong in some other game romances:

 

(1) "The critical dialogue option" -- where, after building up "loyalty points," you chance upon a dialogue tree where you must pick the "correct" option or forfeit the path forever. It only makes sense IRL in particularly binary life choices like "must marry a Muslim." In games, this fork appears at the weirdest places sometimes; the vast majority of people do give second chances. Even third. A related problem to this is, if the PC has the "yea/nay" dialogue option, the wording is usually both too absolute and binary.

 

(2) "Flirting is the only obvious path" -- uh, that's one way; some games handle this better than others, though this obviously also depends on the NPC in question (some people really just flirt as a hobby).

 

(3) "The score" -- There must be a way to "keep score," and some games make this more obvious than others. There is no possible way this mechanic reflects healthy or realistic relationships in real life, though; score bribery is part of this (thanks, DA:O). Some relationships endure despite the incompatibility, others fall apart at the smallest thing. Humans really are neurotic creatures. The only positive thing about the DA:O system I can remember is in relation to below..

 

(4) "Breaking points" -- Love and happiness are not the same thing. There are plenty of very loyal "love" relationships out there relying on momentum, and the people involved are not quite 'happy' despite the relationships surviving many would-be breaking points. There are also plenty of happy love relationships that do not survive a breaking point when they should have. When navigating contentious subject matter within a relationship, people generally exhibit some "give," but this isn't easily calculated in programming because people have different levels of "give" for different topics. Some topics are outright taboo and can break a relationship while others have very fuzzy lines; game programming can sort of address this (the taboo topics are easily binary) by applying different scoring values on either end of the binary scale for a given topic, but this is still rather limited in dimension.

 

(5) "The prize" -- should be obvious. The real prize, 'marriage/long-term sole' by most cultures, isn't even addressed in most games containing romances due to the fundamental nature of storyline RPGs.

 

(6) Other psychology -- Sometimes NPCs say things in the name of shoehorned romance that just don't make sense. Also, subtext is great--from the gaming perspective, it's better for the player to expand the blanks, IMO, for NPC relationships where there is such room. IRL, just be aware that this method sucks, and communication is always best. The "leading so-and-so on" bit is stupid on so many fronts, saying this to both men and women, because I can't even count how many times merely "being nice" somehow counted as "leading someone on" or vice versa depending on the party. Stupid. *cough* I'll stop now; I could never get into a therapy practice because I'd be screaming at everyone about how stupid they were being.

 

 

Implementation...

 

Specifically, I don't want cut-scenes or cinematics. BG2-style dialogue is enough and should be the focus (having witnessed so many crappy relationships, I can say that the biggest issue is always communication, FFS). And to be honest, the game development should be structured somehow such that the romance doesn't "take over" the rest of the game; some people play DA# just for the romances, for example, but that should be (quite) secondary to the main storyline. Not saying people who enjoy romances shouldn't have their fun, but this is a sort of content balance...

 

Think about the amount of content for a solidly built NPC, like Dak'kon and his Zerthimon personal discussions. Now, a 'romance' could and should ostensibly cover most or all of that content--implementation can cover a romance with a deep NPC either by true binary branches of content which means doubling development or by overlap with existing NPC content and adding more romance-specific content. The third and unacceptable option is romance-only NPCs, so never mind that. All of that content is, of course, to do a romance "well," and in relation to the breadth I'd expect on top of depth, this is not small request. In my mind, since this isn't a AAA-funded title, if some players truly demand this, then they really are asking for specific priority to romances over base PE content.

 

I mentioned in a couple other threads that romances would be more unique in PE if they were between companions and not the PC--make PC the counselor and witness, if you were, with the power to influence or even shape said relationships depending on the PC relationship to each party NPC. Love stories out in the world would be great too--PE will have several cultures to present, and I'd love to see different cultural views about and involving love stories among world NPCs.

 

Better yet...

 

"Affection" more generally should be explored more in various media venues, including games. This is the Facebook Age--as far as I'm concerned, many people these days are losing touch with what "friendship" should mean. Camaraderie. Bromance/womance, etc.--deeper non-romantic relationships could stand to see more media development. I'd rather have more of this to appeal to a broader base and no explicit 'romances' so players could expand the blanks if they so desire on their own time (since people will read subtext into anything anyway). Romance, in itself, is not required for immersion; meaningful NPC relationships can and do cover a gamut far around that.

 

But, if Avellone, Romance Writer Extraordinaire (Not), decides to do it or is forced to by higher Obsidian powers, more power to him. I'd fully expect only dark/grim unrequited and failed romances, though.

[SqueakyCat]

Well, what I mean is that when games can include it without having a truckload of curmudgeons waving it off as fapping material, the medium has finally matured.

Well, we already had that. I think it's been fairly argued that old games did it well. It's the Bioware style that is primarily objected to.

 

The curmudgeons seem to have a, badly presented, worry that it's not going to be well done. That the main implementation would be the poorly done fapping material version. Because that is the version that's in demand. And if Obsidian wanted to implement it in such a way outside the popular demand, they wouldn't need people asking for it.

 

Maybe the logic ends up being "people asking for it"->"must want the fapping material version." I'm not prepared to deny the logic of it, but I'm not prepared to support it.

 

Okay, I'm done talking about other people's arguments. Let me make an argument. There's no maturity on either aisle. You have kid friendly romance on the left and adult friendly titillation on the right. We have WALL-E here (a movie I love, so I'm not being disparaging) and Fair Game over here. Of the two, I'd probably prefer Wall-E but I'm not prone to calling it mature. I'd sooner call Watchmen mature because it had a point about its own artform. And since I've now diverged into comics, Kingdom Come. Or back to games Planescape. Where the romances were so subtle most people don't even care about them. Because they were too busy focusing on what they wanted to say, they didn't get distracted by it.

 

Well stated and accurate. Alot of us are under the impression PE is a true homage to the classics which do not have anything in common with the product Bioware has been putting out as a RPG.

 

That would include, of course, no tent-sex (as depicted by Bioware), instead (if at all) it would be like BG or PS:T.

 

When you come to the forums and daily see threads requesting something outside the classic approach, it generates concern - rightly or wrongly. What's more concerning to me is the cost involved on such a limited budget, but I'm willing to believe Obsidian know what they plan to do and how to do it right.

[Malcador]

No, I didn't mean that it's mandatory when I said I think it belongs. That just means I think it belongs. It wouldn't be out of place. It would improve the game, and no one would be forcing you people to play that bit.

 

Eh, improve the game, well that's up to the player I suppose, doing it right would probably chew time better spent in this case. But alright I stand corrected, usually when people use belong it implies some necessity in my experience.

 

Also, is Merin a moderator yet ?

[Delterius]

Also, is Merin a moderator yet ?

 

Wouldn't he have to merge, like, 10 different threads in that case?

[Cthulhu0316]

I like them. I mean I dont terribly NEED them but I do like them being part of a storyline, either an opitional sidequest type or part of the core questline. I definitely can see arguments for both sides. I think that it should ultimately be OPTIONAL to pursue but present nonetheless.

[jtav]

I'd enjoy BG style romances. Talking, talking, and more talking, with nothing shown by necessity. I don't think this will be a problem, considering those involved, but I don't want a character designed primarily as LI. Make them interesting first, then worry about the romance. If there's no romance, I can create it via fanfic. But dull fanservice is intolerable.

[SqueakyCat]

No, I didn't mean that it's mandatory when I said I think it belongs. That just means I think it belongs. It wouldn't be out of place. It would improve the game, and no one would be forcing you people to play that bit.

 

Eh, improve the game, well that's up to the player I suppose, doing it right would probably chew time better spent in this case. But alright I stand corrected, usually when people use belong it implies some necessity in my experience.

 

Also, is Merin a moderator yet ?

 

The 'Report' feature on BSN gets alot of use. I have never used it, but to each his own.

[JediMB]

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.

 

They seem to be pretty good friends, since they tweet (and retweet) each other constantly.

 

They had a particularly amusing thing going with the hashtag #HardToWriteForEasyToLove

 

When you come to the forums and daily see threads requesting something outside the classic approach, it generates concern - rightly or wrongly. What's more concerning to me is the cost involved on such a limited budget, but I'm willing to believe Obsidian know what they plan to do and how to do it right.

 

Well... that's what happens when a small group of individuals come into the threads and insult anyone who doesn't share their point of view, often with strawman arguments. It pretty much inevitably leads to arguments that then go on until a moderator closes the thread to let the involved parties cool off for a while.

 

Some time later someone starts a new thread, and the cycle begins anew.

Edited September 26, 2012 by JediMB

[TwinkieGorilla]

the kind of tone you use against people you disagree with.

 

I resent that. Every post I make is executed with just the right mixture of respect and careful consideration and executed with perfect aplomb.

 

The curmudgeons seem to have a, badly presented, worry that it's not going to be well done.

 

I resent that. Every post I ma-

 

Actually, I think "poorly presented" would sound nicer there.

 

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.

 

I've always found putting members who disagree with you on 'ignore' status is the fastest track to a sense of community and provocative discourse.

Edited September 26, 2012 by TwinkieGorilla

[Merin]

Alot of us are under the impression PE is a true homage to the classics which do not have anything in common with the product Bioware has been putting out as a RPG.

 

That would include, of course, no tent-sex (as depicted by Bioware), instead (if at all) it would be like BG or PS:T.

 

When you come to the forums and daily see threads requesting something outside the classic approach, it generates concern - rightly or wrongly. What's more concerning to me is the cost involved on such a limited budget, but I'm willing to believe Obsidian know what they plan to do and how to do it right.

 

But here's the rub -

 

who is asking for BioWare style romances?

 

I'm sure some people who voted would like them. Full disclosure - I don't nearly have the problem with them that some people seem to, I've enjoyed them well enough. But, then, I enjoyed stealth and combat in Alpha Protocol and apparently that makes my judgment skills impaired...

 

But I've only seen the word BioWare or BSN appear in these threads as cautionary tales, at best, or subjects of ridicule, at worst.

 

This is a straw man.

 

I didn't put the word BioWare in any poll questions. I didn't give the option for BioWare style romances to be selected -

except for Question 4, which I've not seen one person say they wanted BioWare style romances in response to the question.

 

It is a straw man because there's not a majority, or even vocal minority, advocating for "tent sex" or "fapping material."

 

At worst I've seen mentions by people that "it wouldn't bother me if there was sex depicted", but that's almost always in the same post that will also state "It wouldn't bother me if romances weren't included at all" as well as "I only want them if they are of good quality."

 

It's darn near universal that nobody really wants Obsidian to include them if they don't fit their vision of the game.

 

So all the fear of BioWare or tent sex or whatever is almost baseless.

 

Almost.

 

I'm not denying some people will want that.

 

But it's not the "barbarians at the gate " that many of the people are trying to make it out to.

 

It's not even close to equivalent. There are far more people harassing others and, against the Forum Guidelines, mercilessly bashing BioWare or David Gaider or the boogeyman

 

okay, that last one was sarcasm. Or a metaphor?

Edited September 26, 2012 by Merin

[TwinkieGorilla]

But I've only seen the word BioWare or BSN appear in these threads as cautionary tales, at best, or subjects of ridicule, at worst.

 

Untrue.

 

I went through the trouble of detailing concerns the first 115 times this thread came up. Now it's kind of pointless/worthless/stupid.

[LucyZephyr]

Well, this thread is excessively depressing. I see the critique of Bioware's methods, but since they are the only company that has made a strong effort to write for a demographic outside Straight Dudes, I'm always going to support them.

 

If Obsidian wants to put some romance in (not a deal-maker or deal-breaker for me personally), I'd want them to either put a lot of effort into it or none at all. If you don't feel like you can sell a decent love interest, don't bother.

 

And as "unrealistic" as some people find the Everyone Is Bi option, I hugely support it. I see absolutely no reason to take away queer romances from gamers in their escapist media when, believe me, they get that enough IRL. Nothing is more infuriating that enjoying a character, feeling a connection between your PC and the LI, then only to find out they're het only. Just. Don't do that. It's bull****.

 

On the flipside, I do not think there should be any material bonus to romance in a game. The games where I've romanced someone just for the achievement/bonus item/extra quest/etc have been hollow ventures at best and painful at worst.

 

If romance is going to be a thing, basically:

1. Keep all options open to players of either gender.

2. Have as many female options as male options. (And actual queer options, not like the asari in Mass Effect where they're incidentally female due to not having an concept of "male" in their species.)

3. Don't tie in-game bonuses to them.

4. Sex positivity is a rare thing, let's have more of that.

5. Either put some effort into it, or cut it entirely. Don't pull a Skyrim on me.

[SqueakyCat]

@Merin

 

What are you on about . . . really? I never said you did. I was using it in an example in my direct response to someone else, who themselves used it as an example. Any yes, people have stated they want sex, repeatedly, but I'm not going to bother going back through the multitudes of closed threads on this topic to show you. You have surely read them all as well.

 

There was absolutely no basis for your post.

[JediMB]

I have no problem admitting that I've enjoyed quite a few BioWare romances.

 

But I also generally see them as highly flawed, much too mechanical, and sometimes terribly written. BioWare's approach, while enjoyable enough, is not something I want to see imitated by other developers, and hopefully BioWare themselves will eventually do better as well.

 

I didn't put the word BioWare in any poll questions. I didn't give the option for BioWare style romances to be selected -

except for Question 4, which I've not seen one person say they wanted BioWare style romances in response to the question.

 

I guess the next thread needs that additional poll question:

 

"Should BioWare's model serve as inspiration for Project Eternity?"

 

EDIT: And possibly a "Should romance arcs inevitably lead to sex?"

 

(I've already expressed a few times that I'd prefer it if sex was left out of the game. In part because it would be a "fresh" way to go about it after so many BioWare games, and in part because it just doesn't feel like it belongs in an isometric game to begin with.)

Edited September 26, 2012 by JediMB

[Merin]

@Merin

 

What are you on about . . . really? I never said you did. I was using it in an example in my direct response to someone else, who themselves used it as an example. Any yes, people have stated they want sex, repeatedly, but I'm not going to bother going back through the multitudes of closed threads on this topic to show you. You have surely read them all as well.

 

There was absolutely no basis for your post.

 

I wasn't attacking you, SqueakyCat, just the argument given. "When you come to the forums and daily see threads requesting something outside the classic approach"

 

You didn't say BioWare in THAT post, no - though a post prior you did say something (in reference to me) about report functions on BSN, so you'll have to forgive me for connecting BioWare bashing with you.

 

But the general argument against thist, that you are speaking of, comes with much gnashing of teeth over "sex in tents" or "the BioWare method" which, again, are not the focus of the thread, the poll, or the vast, vast majority of the "indifferent to pro" romance people.

 

I again apologize if you felt like I was singling you out, it was not my attention to upset you.

 

That said - my point has plenty of basis. Every single snide jab at BioWare or rude comment about people's personal lives is the basis of my point.

 

The point being, again - "It is a straw man because there's not a majority, or even vocal minority, advocating for "tent sex" or "fapping material."

 

At worst I've seen mentions by people that "it wouldn't bother me if there was sex depicted", but that's almost always in the same post that will also state "It wouldn't bother me if romances weren't included at all" as well as "I only want them if they are of good quality."

 

It's darn near universal that nobody really wants Obsidian to include them if they don't fit their vision of the game."

 

 

I didn't put the word BioWare in any poll questions. I didn't give the option for BioWare style romances to be selected -

except for Question 4, which I've not seen one person say they wanted BioWare style romances in response to the question.

 

I guess the next thread needs that additional poll question:

 

"Should BioWare's model serve as inspiration for Project Eternity?"

 

 

That would be targeted immediately as "biased" and wouldn't possibly help anything. It would probably make things deteriorate faster as everyone quoted just that part as proof of some kind of grand conspiracy to get PE to be a hentai dating sim or some such nonsense.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Merin

[JediMB]

I didn't put the word BioWare in any poll questions. I didn't give the option for BioWare style romances to be selected -

except for Question 4, which I've not seen one person say they wanted BioWare style romances in response to the question.

 

I guess the next thread needs that additional poll question:

 

"Should BioWare's model serve as inspiration for Project Eternity?"

 

 

That would be targeted immediately as "biased" and wouldn't possibly help anything. It would probably make things deteriorate faster as everyone quoted just that part as prove of some kind of grand conspiracy to get PE to be a hentai dating sim or some such nonsense.

 

Well, it doesn't really matter if it seems biased or not. As long as people are honest about their opinions, it's the best way to see what people's preferences are.

 

Not because Obsidian should actually pay attention to the results (because they shouldn't), but so we can stop arguing semantics.

[Capitalism]

If Eternity is not a date-sim RPG for biodrones, I'm okay with it. At least Obsidian said about skippable romances.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Capitalism

[Delterius]

If Eternity is not a date-sim RPG for biodrones, I'm okay with it. At least Obsidian said about skippable romances.

 

The bioware community isn't bizzare because biowarian romances aren't unskippable (at worst they are thrown at your face in a uncomfortable and cheesy manner that is only surpassed by the 'romance' itself) - but rather that the bioware community seems more concerned about this sort of thing than the game itself. A mere mention of bioware doing something (it can totally be closing itself) springs 10 threads about possible stereotypes for love interests.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Delterius

[Nonek]

I wouldn't mind seeing the protagonist turned down multiple times, be a slap in the face for those who argue that they should never experience any kind of rejection in any form. From my experience of dating back in the day that was a far more likely outcome than the object of my advances suddenly being overcome with passion and jumping me, don't know if times have changed, is it wrong to turn someone down now, no matter your feelings or sexual orientation?

Edited September 26, 2012 by Nonek

[Delterius]

I wouldn't mind seeing the protagonist turned down multiple times,

 

I'd love that.

 

If only because I know someone's going to complain about it.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Delterius

[Living One]

Alot of us are under the impression PE is a true homage to the classics which do not have anything in common with the product Bioware has been putting out as a RPG.

 

That would include, of course, no tent-sex (as depicted by Bioware), instead (if at all) it would be like BG or PS:T.

 

When you come to the forums and daily see threads requesting something outside the classic approach, it generates concern - rightly or wrongly. What's more concerning to me is the cost involved on such a limited budget, but I'm willing to believe Obsidian know what they plan to do and how to do it right.

 

But here's the rub -

 

who is asking for BioWare style romances?

 

I'm sure some people who voted would like them. Full disclosure - I don't nearly have the problem with them that some people seem to, I've enjoyed them well enough. But, then, I enjoyed stealth and combat in Alpha Protocol and apparently that makes my judgment skills impaired...

 

But I've only seen the word BioWare or BSN appear in these threads as cautionary tales, at best, or subjects of ridicule, at worst.

 

This is a straw man.

 

I didn't put the word BioWare in any poll questions. I didn't give the option for BioWare style romances to be selected -

except for Question 4, which I've not seen one person say they wanted BioWare style romances in response to the question.

 

It is a straw man because there's not a majority, or even vocal minority, advocating for "tent sex" or "fapping material."

 

At worst I've seen mentions by people that "it wouldn't bother me if there was sex depicted", but that's almost always in the same post that will also state "It wouldn't bother me if romances weren't included at all" as well as "I only want them if they are of good quality."

 

It's darn near universal that nobody really wants Obsidian to include them if they don't fit their vision of the game.

 

So all the fear of BioWare or tent sex or whatever is almost baseless.

 

Almost.

 

I'm not denying some people will want that.

 

But it's not the "barbarians at the gate " that many of the people are trying to make it out to.

 

It's not even close to equivalent. There are far more people harassing others and, against the Forum Guidelines, mercilessly bashing BioWare or David Gaider or the boogeyman

 

okay, that last one was sarcasm. Or a metaphor?

If people don't care that much about romances why do they feel the continuos need to have these threads and put quite a lot of effort into them?

[Simonosaurus]

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

With intelligence and subtility. Not too "crude", not too "soapy"... well, it should depend on characters and players at least.

It must be believable. With many ways to deal with "your lover" (I remember in BG2, when you could choose the way you interact with Viconia, leading to a sex relationship, or something more gentle)

It doesn't have to lead everytime to something tasteless like having sex and "ok honey, let's continue the game". It could be "just" a certain number of dialogs, all along the game, without "reaching the sex state" for example. It would be platonic. Or not. Depending on dialogs.

You could hurt feelings of your partner, all the way i mean (being selfish, disrespectful, not loving, etc).

 

Anyway, It should make your character and NPC more vibrant, bringing you feelings, good or bad. And not something tame with a gift at the end ^^

Planescape romances were very good. I've also a good memory of romances in BG2. But, well, i was young and it was new for me. Maybe it was not so good, i don't remember enough to judge it.

But Dragon Age Origins romances seemed tasteless to me. Not bad, but... i don't know.

And i don't even speak of wedding in Skyrim

 

For a practical reason, i feel that romances should happen in the team, but with some NPC could be fine too.

And we could also be spectator, with two companions being closer and closer for example.

 

 

However, i don't feel all of that HAS to be done.

Romances are an option. The game can off course be excellent without it. But it's an interesting option though, if it is intelligent and well written.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Simonosaurus

[LucyZephyr]

If Eternity is not a date-sim RPG for biodrones, I'm okay with it. At least Obsidian said about skippable romances.

 

The bioware community isn't bizzare because biowarian romances aren't unskippable (at worst they are thrown at your face in a uncomfortable and cheesy manner that is only surpassed by the 'romance' itself) - but rather that the bioware community seems more concerned about this sort of thing than the game itself. A mere mention of bioware doing something (it can totally be closing itself) springs 10 threads about possible stereotypes for love interests.

 

Not in an attempt to make the BSN forums seem less like a pit of voles (because it really is awful), but given that Bioware is the only company to put effort into providing high-quality romances (whether they succeed all the time is another matter), I can understand fans' fixation on the romances. Bioware romances are sadly above and beyond what any other RPG is currently offering in the mainstream market.

 

So it's clearly something some gamers want, and they want done well. I also think it's a sign of the maturation of the medium, though obviously every gamer who just wants something to wank to is a step backward.

[Tychoxi]

http://vimeo.com/18479035

 

Lots of options but you haven't actually defined what you mean by a "romance". Do you mean an in-game love interest like Deionarra in PS:T or do you mean a Bioware style romance minigame? Without a definition your choices are meaningless. I think as part of the main plot they can be as good as the writer's ability. As a minigame that is not part of the plot they are a waste of developer resources.

 

I think it's pretty obvious we are talking about Bioware romances (which they started doing in BG2 I guess, hence it is relevant to PE). And I would bring the Annah and Grace relationships as Torment romance examples, not Deionarra. Deionarra was just some ghost gal who was there to provide an initial setup and mystery, and eventually led to some revelation about your past self(evs). But the real deal were the aforementioned ladies, I remember quite a "bit" of sexual tension between Annah and the NO, that's all it was and it fit thematically with the game. Their final "sacrifice" was also fiting given their emotional ties, their feelings added another layer of torment to their characters at that point and another level of investment from the player.

 

Anyways, as for PE I'm OK with romances if they manage to make them develop more or less organically and avert any cheese and idiocy. And if I can crush or bend their feelings. And if the relantionship has actual consequences whenit comes at least to the main quest. It would also be good if companions developed feelings between them, that would add a whole tier of complexity to the companion system they may implement. I wouldn't want to hear them exchanging lovewords, though.

 

(Also, that video was great lol!)

 

(Also, for yet another romance poll/thread I actually liked the poll options).