Romance and friendship?

[Mrakvampire]

But all that said, this is THEIR game so we should NOT make demands and argue them endlessly with the same exact arguments which we've seen so many times before.

 

With such attitude, dear friend, I recommend you to logout from this forum and delete your account. After all, it's their game, and you shouldn't discuss it.

 

Regarding topic. I want romances. But I'm against 'DA' style romances. All NPCs should have prereqs to be romanceable! And they should be hard as stone. No more 'I will love you no matter if you are male or female or elf of dwarf'.

[.Leif.]

When I brought up romance during the countdown livestream I got a shrug for a response. I have a feeling it may be included but it certainly won't be a major feature in the game.

I loved being able to court Aerie and Viconia back in BG2.

 

I am confident that the folks at Obsidian will write quite a bit more depth into whatever possible romances there are in the game than what we saw in the Dragon Age games.

Edited October 17, 2012 by .Leif.

[Loranc]

 

 

 

We have wanted to go back to our roots and create an epic PC role-playing game adventure for years. But, it's been almost impossible to get funding through traditional methods for a game like this. The great thing about Kickstarter is that we can go directly to the people who love to play RPGs as much as we love to make them. Plus, we don’t have to make compromises with a publisher. We make the development decisions, we market the game, and we don't have to answer to anyone but you – our fans.

Our relationship with you can be even closer with Kickstarter. We can be more transparent with development and give you an inside look to what goes on day-to-day with the programmers, artists, and designers of Project Eternity. We want to give you a behind the scenes look at the game's development, and we have fun stuff planned like developer blogs, web broadcasts, dev chats, and much, much more.

[Mrakvampire]

I loved being able to court Aerie and Viconia back in BG2.

 

Absolutely agree! Romance lines for these characters perfectly show the development of this characters and are really really deep. Maturing of Aerie, changing of Viconia... Mmmm... oh, those dramas, banters and stuff...

[Landuin]

I wouldn't take anything said in the livestream too seriously. Those guys were completely trashed (and no doubt exhausted after staying up till 1am playing that pnp game the night before) towards the end and were in no state to answer design questions coherently.

[.Leif.]

I wouldn't take anything said in the livestream too seriously. Those guys were completely trashed (and no doubt exhausted after staying up till 1am playing that pnp game the night before) towards the end and were in no state to answer design questions coherently.

Curses! And here I thought beards were confirmed.

[Rahelron]

I do want romance stories in the game. Screw all the cold hearted players who hate love in videogames.

 

I don't see why romance stories would be silly and other kind of stories would not. Both of them are just fiction! Every RPG game is about pretending to be someone you are not. And if playing the role of someone looking for love is stupid because you could just do that in the real world than playing the role of someone who tries to become important by killing monsters and saving the world is stupid too. I would say: grow up guys and stop reading comic books, you have to be satisfied of the life you have, not try to live another life in a videogame.

 

Then choose:

If you think that recreating a romance story in an RPG is stupid then you have to admit that everything you do in RPGs is pointless, fictional, and good only to pretend to be something you are not.

If you think that RPGs are just games and don't need to be uplifting and teaching experiences (at least in their core aspects) then romance stories are as good as any other thing the developers could put in them.

[jarpie]

But all that said, this is THEIR game so we should NOT make demands and argue them endlessly with the same exact arguments which we've seen so many times before.

 

With such attitude, dear friend, I recommend you to logout from this forum and delete your account. After all, it's their game, and you shouldn't discuss it.

 

Regarding topic. I want romances. But I'm against 'DA' style romances. All NPCs should have prereqs to be romanceable! And they should be hard as stone. No more 'I will love you no matter if you are male or female or elf of dwarf'.

 

I didn't say we shouldn't discuss the game and give ideas but I've seen so many messages in these forums where people are basicly demanding that devs do what they want.

 

By large fans don't know what they want and if they give to everyone's demands the game will be a mess.

 

We can give them ideas, our opionions and feedback, but that should be it. The devs knows much better than any of the fans what the game needs and how it should be done.

 

This is exactly what I meant with wasting resources, if they say "Yes, there will be romances" then there's gonna be people demanding romances for every possible combination and it takes away the time from writing other content for the said companions.

 

 

 

I don't know why this is so complicated to understand? People generally ask for 2 types of relationships ,straight and gay. Please explain all these other types of relationship combinations I am unaware of that people are demanding.

 

Let's see... straight romances male -> female, female -> male, gay romances male -> male and female -> female so that's four companions out of the eight unless you want two companions both bi-sexual but then people would complain and demand that they want unique romances for all of those possibilities.

[Frusciante]

The devs should have the creative freedom to write the companions in any way they see fit. Having an obligation to make at least one of them gay is stupid and forced.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Frusciante

[Mrakvampire]

The devs should have the creative freedom to write the companions in any way they see fit. Having an obligation to make at least one of them gay is stupid and forced.

 

Don't forget that there should be also race diversity, cause it's... you know...

[Landuin]

If this game doesn't include a romanceable black lesbian half-dragon in a wheelchair Obsidian are literally Nazis.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Landuin

[Crusty]

The kind of love and romance we've seen guys like Avellone and Ziets provide in games like PS:T, KotOR 2 and Mask of the Betrayer seem adequate to me. There is love in there, just not in typical video game romance fashion. Kreia's love for the Exile, for example. I like Avellone's stance in that everything regarding characters and writing ought to have some sort of narrative or thematic drive and purpose. If love or friendship is apart of that, then fine.

 

But the notion that we ought to be having romances for the sake of having them, or that it makes characters "deeper" is the same kind of mindset that gets us BioWare romances. I'm not saying that romances in games always end up in the sexual wish fulfillment direction theirs do. They don't. But the motives for having romances is critical in how they are implemented into the game. In the case of "I like romances and they should be in because it means deeper character interaction", we're arguing for romances as a game feature, not as a narrative or thematic hook.

 

That encourages the kind of stuff we see in BioWare games where the ability to romance a variety of characters becomes more important than the character themselves. Romances as game feature. Romances as sexual wish fulfillment.

 

Let's not even get into the "game has limited resources and Obsidian's "15 person team" is going to be in full crunch mode for ~18 months to get this done as it is" argument.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Crusty

[Loranc]

....... I just want them to keep it on the same level as PST and BG2. It was simple, fun, enjoyable, and was in no way a part of the main story. (It just added to the individual players game experience.)

[Jasede]

I loved being able to court Aerie and Viconia back in BG2.

 

Absolutely agree! Romance lines for these characters perfectly show the development of this characters and are really really deep. Maturing of Aerie, changing of Viconia... Mmmm... oh, those dramas, banters and stuff...

I hope that is sarcasm because I can't tell so well over the internet.

This thread is exactly 12 pages too long.

[Landuin]

Btw, I always got the impression that Annah and Fall-From-Grace's character arcs in PST were basically romances. They obviously cared immensely for The Nameless One. Those were great plotlines, and they didn't have to devolve into any dreadful, cringe-inducing exclamations of undying love.

[Ninjamestari]

let the devs first come up with the companion characters, then they can add romance options for them if they fit with the character. No forced categories like "this is your male/female straight/gay romance option, he/she needs to have these qualities etc.", just create interesting characters and see where they lead us.

[Loranc]

Btw, I always got the impression that Annah and Fall-From-Grace's character arcs in PST were basically romances. They obviously cared immensely for The Nameless One. Those were great plotlines, and they didn't have to devolve into any dreadful, cringe-inducing exclamations of undying love.

 

I agree with this 110%!!!

[evdk]

....... I just want them to keep it on the same level as PST and BG2. It was simple, fun, enjoyable, and was in no way a part of the main story. (It just added to the individual players game experience.)

BG2 is whole different level (of clichés) from PS:T. Torment "romances" which were almost not there were fine, BG2's were dreadful cliché ridden experience. The only thing in their favour was that you could easily skip them, because their role in overall narrative was exactly zero and the game never tried to push you in their direction anyway (DA2 I am looking at you).

[Loranc]

....... I just want them to keep it on the same level as PST and BG2. It was simple, fun, enjoyable, and was in no way a part of the main story. (It just added to the individual players game experience.)

BG2 is whole different level (of clichés) from PS:T. Torment "romances" which were almost not there were fine, BG2's were dreadful cliché ridden experience. The only thing in their favour was that you could easily skip them, because their role in overall narrative was exactly zero and the game never tried to push you in their direction anyway (DA2 I am looking at you).

 

Exactly my point, but of course they could fix the dreadful cliche ridden experience part, but keep that second part "because their role in overall narrative was exactly zero and the game never tried to push you in their direction anyway. "

[commie]

Keep (br)omances away from my RPG. You want a dating simulator go to Bioware. You want a LARP sim, go to Bethesda. You want Leisure Suit Larry in RPG form, go to CDPR. You want a RPG stay here and can the talk about romances. PS:T style bitter sweet character interactions or at a stretch the 'no sex' style of BG flirty banter are all that should be in PE.

[Landuin]

Keep (br)omances away from my RPG. You want a dating simulator go to Bioware. You want a LARP sim, go to Bethesda. You want Leisure Suit Larry in RPG form, go to CDPR. You want a RPG stay here and can the talk about romances. PS:T style bitter sweet character interactions or at a stretch the 'no sex' style of BG flirty banter are all that should be in PE.

Just a tip; your arguments and opinions will probably be better received if you at least attempt to explain and justify them rather than just stating them and telling people to accept them.

[evdk]

You want Leisure Suit Larry in RPG form, go to CDPR.

Not fair as Geralt is actually successful.

[Krios]

It's no mystery why when you go through mod databases you will find many fan made companions which feature romance or banter packs. When you take banter up to a level, it becomes romance. It is an evolution of what people want in their games. Project Eternity is a single player game. Unless you prefer to play solo, I find it unrealistic to rule out having romance options entirely. It is part of what makes us human.

 

Personally I hope Obsidian will infuse the human races with a human nature. Have the NPCs embrace their nature and come alive. I believe the players can relate to that and it will resonate with the fans.

[BruceVC]

But all that said, this is THEIR game so we should NOT make demands and argue them endlessly with the same exact arguments which we've seen so many times before.

 

With such attitude, dear friend, I recommend you to logout from this forum and delete your account. After all, it's their game, and you shouldn't discuss it.

 

Regarding topic. I want romances. But I'm against 'DA' style romances. All NPCs should have prereqs to be romanceable! And they should be hard as stone. No more 'I will love you no matter if you are male or female or elf of dwarf'.

 

I didn't say we shouldn't discuss the game and give ideas but I've seen so many messages in these forums where people are basicly demanding that devs do what they want.

 

By large fans don't know what they want and if they give to everyone's demands the game will be a mess.

 

We can give them ideas, our opionions and feedback, but that should be it. The devs knows much better than any of the fans what the game needs and how it should be done.

 

This is exactly what I meant with wasting resources, if they say "Yes, there will be romances" then there's gonna be people demanding romances for every possible combination and it takes away the time from writing other content for the said companions.

 

 

 

I don't know why this is so complicated to understand? People generally ask for 2 types of relationships ,straight and gay. Please explain all these other types of relationship combinations I am unaware of that people are demanding.

 

Let's see... straight romances male -> female, female -> male, gay romances male -> male and female -> female so that's four companions out of the eight unless you want two companions both bi-sexual but then people would complain and demand that they want unique romances for all of those possibilities.

 

Okay I see where you get your number from, I agree. We should have ( the first part is always the main character)

• 2 x Straight relationships: Male - Female and Female - Male
  
• 2 x Gay relationships : Male-Male and Female-Female
  

 

Thats not too hard to implement I hope ? Other games have done it successfully

[Rahelron]

The kind of love and romance we've seen guys like Avellone and Ziets provide in games like PS:T, KotOR 2 and Mask of the Betrayer seem adequate to me. There is love in there, just not in typical video game romance fashion. Kreia's love for the Exile, for example. I like Avellone's stance in that everything regarding characters and writing ought to have some sort of narrative or thematic drive and purpose. If love or friendship is apart of that, then fine.

 

But the notion that we ought to be having romances for the sake of having them, or that it makes characters "deeper" is the same kind of mindset that gets us BioWare romances. I'm not saying that romances in games always end up in the sexual wish fulfillment direction theirs do. They don't. But the motives for having romances is critical in how they are implemented into the game. In the case of "I like romances and they should be in because it means deeper character interaction", we're arguing for romances as a game feature, not as a narrative or thematic hook.

 

That encourages the kind of stuff we see in BioWare games where the ability to romance a variety of characters becomes more important than the character themselves. Romances as game feature. Romances as sexual wish fulfillment.

 

Let's not even get into the "game has limited resources and Obsidian's "15 person team" is going to be in full crunch mode for ~18 months to get this done as it is" argument.

 

You would be right... if we were talking about movies or books. But we are talking about videogames. Let me explain.

In books and movies the audience is passive. You have to read or watch something that the author wants to tell you. After that you can judge if that theme (or message) was worth your time, if you agree with the author and stuff like that. In that kind of environment "giving what the audience wants" is a bad thing because destroys the artistic freedom of the author and always turns out in boring and cheap stories.

 

But games are different. In games the audience is not passive, the players are the active force that drives the story forward. As the story goes on they make choices that change what happens, they shape their own experience. If the developers don't embrace this concept (which by the way is what makes games different from other kind of media as a form of art) then they create an interactive movie where the player has to fight his way thourgh dungeons (like in RPGs) or solve puzzles (like in graphic adventure games) to see how the story goes on. This is what every true RPG fan hates because limits freedom and doesn't take advantage of the strenghts of the media: the ability to provide interactive experiences.

 

What I want to say is that the developers should give the players the possibility to shape their own experience with their actions. This doesn't mean "including romance stories for the sake of having them", it means allowing the people who want to roleplay a romantic character to be free to do just that. If the developers think that spending time with romance stories is something that should have negative consequences within the world and the story they are want to create (i.e.: you shouldn't waste time having sex with your companion while the monsters are conquering the world) they should add some negative consequences within the gameplay. But limiting the player freedom by erasing romance stories is just a pure loss.