Romance and friendship?

[Lurky]

You know, even heroes sometimes cry and need a lovely hug.

 

You know, that can be fulfilled perfectly with a deep friendship too. Why does that have to be romance exclusive?

 

Seriously, that's a big reason why so many people dislike romances. They take all our close relationships and leave those of us who aren't interested in romances starving

 

Yeah. Even in real life people can live without love. But it's not a good life, at least I think it isn't.

 

Romantic love is not the only type of love that exists. It's the one that gets the most media representation, and the one that is most commonly asked for, but there are others that many times get ignored in its place. And that is a bad thing.

 

"Love" may refer specifically to the passionate desire and intimacy of romantic love, to the sexual love of eros, to the emotional closeness of familial love, to the platonic love that defines friendship,^[4] or to the profound oneness or devotion of religious love^[5], or to a concept of love that encompasses all of those feelings. This diversity of uses and meanings, combined with the complexity of the feelings involved, makes love unusually difficult to consistently define, compared to other emotional states.

 

Also, I'm fairly certain that people who identify as aromantic would highly disagree with you, on the whole "if you don't have (romantic) love you're not living life to the fullest". Not to mention that we're not talking about life, we're talking about a game. What if I, the player, am not interested in pursuing a videogame romance? Are you saying that my way to play the game is not a good one?

Edited October 17, 2012 by Lurky

[evdk]

Am I the only one who didn't play AP like a James Bond movie?

Probably not, but then I fail to see the appeal of the game.

[Morality Games]

Also, I'm fairly certain that people who identify as aromantic would highly disagree with you, on the whole "if you don't have (romantic) love you're not living life to the fullest". Not to mention that we're not talking about life, we're talking about a game. What if I, the player, am not interested in pursuing a videogame romance? Are you saying that my way to play the game is not a good one?

 

Then don't. There is the Adventurer's Hall and the friendship routes.

[Loranc]

You know, even heroes sometimes cry and need a lovely hug.

 

You know, that can be fulfilled perfectly with a deep friendship too. Why does that have to be romance exclusive?

 

Seriously, that's a big reason why so many people dislike romances. They take all our close relationships and leave those of us who aren't interested in romances starving

 

Yeah. Even in real life people can live without love. But it's not a good life, at least I think it isn't.

 

Romantic love is not the only type of love that exists. It's the one that gets the most media representation, and the one that is most commonly asked for, but there are others that many times get ignored in its place. And that is a bad thing.

 

"Love" may refer specifically to the passionate desire and intimacy of romantic love, to the sexual love of eros, to the emotional closeness of familial love, to the platonic love that defines friendship,^[4] or to the profound oneness or devotion of religious love^[5], or to a concept of love that encompasses all of those feelings. This diversity of uses and meanings, combined with the complexity of the feelings involved, makes love unusually difficult to consistently define, compared to other emotional states.

 

Also, I'm fairly certain that people who identify as aromantic would highly disagree with you, on the whole "if you don't have (romantic) love you're not living life to the fullest". Not to mention that we're not talking about life, we're talking about a game. What if I, the player, am not interested in pursuing a videogame romance? Are you saying that my way to play the game is not a good one?

 

Think you read too much into it, he said 'at least I think it isn't', stating that for him personally he prefers love and romance, he wasn't stating that anyone who doesn't prefer those things doesn't play the game right. I never got that impression from what he said at all.

[Loki Ador]

I think romances should be included in the game. They can be a way on enhancing the game's narrative and create other types of interactions with some companions or NPC (after all, why do they never concern non recruitable characters ?)

 

Some may accept your favors, some may pursu them, some may refuse them. For some of them, it may mean unconsequential intercourses, for others something meaningful (with or without sex)

 

The most important is that they should be well handled, i.e:

-align them with NPC / companion personality, not the other way around, and avoid the "hello I am your romanceable insertion without any other purpose" type of character

-do not reduce the way of interacting with romanceable characters to romance: provide other ways of deepening relations with them : friendshipe, rivalry, brother-in-arm feeling...

-do not abuse stereotyped conversation lines. Romance, as any interaction with a companion/NPC may contain some cliché, but overuse them and the interaction become boring

-make them consequential: if I romance somebody, I would expect some consequences/follow up: ex: while the romance in PST was well handled, once carried out with Annah it would completely fade away as it did not happen! Maybe tweaking the dialogs with the character a bit after the romance has been concluded would do the trick. And this statement works for any kind of deepened interaction besides Romance: friendships, strong rivalries and such should be consequential when brought to a certain point.

 

As for some people arguing that badly executed romances downgrade game content, it is true for ANY badly executed game feature (magic, combat mechanics, mega dungeon, big cities, paladin classes...)

 

Actually the biggest reason why I want to see romances in PE is precisely because I trust Obsidian to make them right

[Ieo]

****ing IE ate my post...

Since Obsidian wants our opinions I'll state mine here in regards to romances: NO!... please. Romance/ sex does NOT equal deep characterization. There are so many other ways to convey emotion (friendship/platonic love/brother-in-arms/love of family/etc.) that doesn't lead to the inevitable bedroom romp. To me this comes across as juvinielle and stereotipical. Focus on characterization which does NOT equate to sex. Saywer and MCA are smarter than that.

I agree that there are several different ways to express and convey emotion, but let me ask you this. If the romance did not include sex and was in no way intrusive or a major part of the storyline (meaning that you wouldn't notice it unless you were looking for it) and done in a way that truly did enrich the character(s) it was implemented for, would it bother you to the point of still being 100% against it?

This wasn't directed at me, but I'm fine with this kind of implementation with the only caveat that non-romance content must be at least equal to romance content in the parallel/exclusive sense--it's a problem if a character is written with a romance path taking up 50% of its content, then someone who pursues it gets twice as much content as someone who chooses not to pursue it. A much better implementation is to have that 50% generic content that branches as a "Y" into two equal and exclusive paths, one of "romance" and the other of "bromance/best friend" or whatever.

 

And this cannot be dismissed with "just ignore it" because we only have eight companions. Eight. Not eighteen. For a party of six. Honestly, if we were going to have over a dozen companions of considerable depth, I'd have much less of a problem with this overall, but that's simply not within the scope of the project. Companion interaction is critical for PE, and that means everyone should have equal opportunity to experience it in both quantity and quality.

 

The only other fundamental disagreement I have with some people who want romances is the idea that "romance" somehow brings higher objective value to a character interaction. To repeat myself, since I doubt most would read the earlier parts of this thread: I don't believe stories "benefit" or not by inclusion of romance but rather that such stories are either designed to be such from the outset by virtue of genre application or the plot mechanism is specifically added to hook proponents of said genre--thus romance is not something I see as having additional intrinsic value in a fictional work, but is either the underlying nature of the story itself already or is used for marketing. Either you like the genre and reactive positively to the audience targeting, or you don't care for it (for whatever reasons). There are many other aspects of a relationship that give depth and meaning, and romance isn't by default any better than them.

[Bos_hybrid]

Crap, now Alma memories.

 

I think there is one thing we can all agree on.

 

No raping of the PC in PE.

[Morality Games]

****ing IE ate my post...

Since Obsidian wants our opinions I'll state mine here in regards to romances: NO!... please. Romance/ sex does NOT equal deep characterization. There are so many other ways to convey emotion (friendship/platonic love/brother-in-arms/love of family/etc.) that doesn't lead to the inevitable bedroom romp. To me this comes across as juvinielle and stereotipical. Focus on characterization which does NOT equate to sex. Saywer and MCA are smarter than that.

I agree that there are several different ways to express and convey emotion, but let me ask you this. If the romance did not include sex and was in no way intrusive or a major part of the storyline (meaning that you wouldn't notice it unless you were looking for it) and done in a way that truly did enrich the character(s) it was implemented for, would it bother you to the point of still being 100% against it?

This wasn't directed at me, but I'm fine with this kind of implementation with the only caveat that non-romance content must be at least equal to romance content in the parallel/exclusive sense--it's a problem if a character is written with a romance path taking up 50% of its content, then someone who pursues it gets twice as much content as someone who chooses not to pursue it. A much better implementation is to have that 50% generic content that branches as a "Y" into two equal and exclusive paths, one of "romance" and the other of "bromance/best friend" or whatever.

 

And this cannot be dismissed with "just ignore it" because we only have eight companions. Eight. Not eighteen. For a party of six. Honestly, if we were going to have over a dozen companions of considerable depth, I'd have much less of a problem with this overall, but that's simply not within the scope of the project. Companion interaction is critical for PE, and that means everyone should have equal opportunity to experience it in both quantity and quality.

 

The only other fundamental disagreement I have with some people who want romances is the idea that "romance" somehow brings higher objective value to a character interaction. To repeat myself, since I doubt most would read the earlier parts of this thread: I don't believe stories "benefit" or not by inclusion of romance but rather that such stories are either designed to be such from the outset by virtue of genre application or the plot mechanism is specifically added to hook proponents of said genre--thus romance is not something I see as having additional intrinsic value in a fictional work, but is either the underlying nature of the story itself already or is used for marketing. Either you like the genre and reactive positively to the audience targeting, or you don't care for it (for whatever reasons). There are many other aspects of a relationship that give depth and meaning, and romance isn't by default any better than them.

 

Well, I broadly agree. As I said earlier, the inclusion of the platonic dialogues alongside the romance track in Swtor didn't do much for the narrative's immersion.

 

I might add though that it doesn't have to be a straight 50/50. Some platonic dialogues could be in the romance track, though preferably with minor alterations.

[evdk]

Crap, now Alma memories.

 

I think there is one thing we can all agree on.

 

No raping of the PC in PE.

I'd be pretty OK with no raping of anyone, really.

[Merin]

In Alpha Protocol you got an achievement if you slept with all the women in one playthrough even.

 

But, to be fair, you were given the option to play James Bond, so...

Am I the only one who didn't play AP like a James Bond movie?

 

No, I didn't for, uh, the first five times through the game. But my last play - yeah, I finally played as the egotistical, womanizing, murdering ****.

[Lurky]

Think you read too much into it, he said 'at least I think it isn't', stating that for him personally he prefers love and romance, he wasn't stating that anyone who doesn't prefer those things doesn't play the game right. I never got that impression from what he said at all.

 

Oh, I know that he didn't say that. I extrapolated it to make the point that what he said doesn't really apply to this topic

 

Then don't. There is the Adventurer's Hall and the friendship routes.

 

And there is the crux of this whole matter. When a character is romanceable, the friendship path usually suffers. Both paths should be equally fulfilling.

 

Granted, many people in this thread are saying the same thing, and I'm glad for that. But some don't, like those who talk about romantic love as if it were the only kind of close relationship possible, or the best and most fulfilling one. And that irks me, just like the people who don't want romances irk those of you who want them. Which is why I wanted to speak out.

[metiman]

Only one of those was a IE game though. So are you saying you want the same sort of romances as were available in PS:T? If that's all you want then just go ahead and say it.

[metiman]

Are you asking for romance minigames or romance as part of the main story?

[Morality Games]

Only one of those was a IE game though. So are you saying you want the same sort of romances as were available in PS:T? If that's all you want then just go ahead and say it.

 

That would be fine by me.

 

Are you asking for romance minigames or romance as part of the main story?

 

The Annah romance wasn't part of the main story, because Annah wasn't an obligatory character. It was just blended well with the main story because of good technique.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Morality Games

[Teuthida]

I can enjoy romances in games quite a lot if they're written well. A lot of game romances, unfortunately, seem to only exist to make the Love Interest swoon over the player and to inflate their ego. Jack's romance from Mass Effect 2 was one of the worst examples I can think of. The writers completely confused vulnerability with emotional attachment and had Shepard fill in the role of "saving" Jack instead of just aiding her in realizing her own strength, which was sort of creepy and... ick. To top if off, if you met her again in Mass Effect 3, there was no additional character growth there except for her constantly bringing up the fact that you two shared a night of passionate pants-on hugging. If romantic interactions are going to be present, they need to show character development in a way that is meaningful and significant.

 

In a lot of games that choose to include romantic options, it's actually more difficult to avoid entering a romance, which is a big mistake in my eyes. If the player wants to pursue a romantic interaction with a character, then let them, but I think they should be the ones to initiate it. One of my least favorite parts about Dragon Age 2 was how I couldn't walk five feet without a party member aggressively hitting on me (Anders, I already told you to get you and your ponytail out of here!). That's a lazy approach as far as writing goes. This sort of writing also means that getting to know party members just as friends suffers, which is no fun at all. If I had to choose (and I hope I won't have to with Project Eternity) I'd rather have well-written, compelling friendships than ham-fisted romances any day.

[Merin]

It is rather depressing isn't it?

 

Here's the thing, though...

 

it's usually closed as a result of someone finally taking the bait. Anytime a romance thread pops up, there's a crew of about a half-dozen regulars who come in and start calling people names (biodrones, promancers, "lonely basement dwellers with body pillows", whatever), start posting a lot of negativity, and then start making "serious suggestions" about raping dragons and such - all in an effort to poison the conversation, provoke strong reactions, and get the threads closed down.

 

And they rarely get called to task.

 

If it just remained people civilly discussing pro's and con's, or their personal preferences, these threads wouldn't be so long and the topic wouldn't be so heated.

 

But for all the talk of "people coming over from BioWare" and "ruining things" - it's my fervent opinion that most of the problem from romances on the forums comes from the virulently anti-romance crowd.

 

Well, and games are mostly to blame for that. I stated in an earlier post that they really have corrupted a person's way of thinking in resemblance to Hollywood. (being that they can't produce a movie without T&A being in it anymore.) Random shower scenes, pool scenes, things thrown in as eye candy because it gets more people to watch the movie. Well, ever since the first games started experimenting with how far they can take it, they saw the $$$ signs. Now it's become a cliche so to speak and a part of our gaming society.

 

No, BioWare is mostly to blame for this. If we have to use the word "blame" - they were heralded as kings of RPGs for a long time (whether everyone agrees with this or no), and then they simultaneously did two things -

 

1 - went cinematic and storytelling over game designing

2 - overreacted to pressure from minority opinions that caused them "bad press"

 

with point one, they show cinematics in everyone's face, so we get slow motion scenes of gutting dragons and, more importantly, video game character making out awkwardly. Deeper into point one, they are so set on telling a certain story that they force certain things to happen - and to the consternation of players who DON'T want to role-play romance in a game, this meant companions quite visibly and verbally (cinematic, after all) hitting on them.

 

with point two, they bowed to Fox News and whomever that lawyer with an axe to grind to gain 15 minutes of fame was (Adam Sessler hated the guy, I remember that much) and after their largely (arguably) tasteful "sex scenes" in Mass Effect 1, decided to put diapers and fur bikinis on characters in Dragon Age. This made the already awkward sex scenes farcical. Moreover, they overreacted to calls for inclusion and equality in DA2 and just made every character (save Varric and Aveline, mind you) bi-romanceable. Which REALLY tripped the triggers of people uncomfortable with homosexuality when virtual characters of the same sex hit on them (see point one)

 

It is bigger than BioWare, but I do know that BioWare does deserve the lion share of responsibility for the anti-romance crowd being so virulent.

 

----

 

I think, however, very few people asking for romance, even romance with companions, are asking for Dragon Age 2, diaper sex, or cinematics. Some may be, but I think they are a smaller minority than the virtolically anti-romance people.

[grotbag]

Romance, as it appears in RPGs with full player choice, compromises the writing of every game it appears in. Yeah, every single one. It doesn't celebrate love and recognise an incredibly important part of the human experience, as some people are suggesting, it demeans it, because no matter how good the writing might hypothetically be, there's no way of getting around the basic situation that the player is participating in a mini-game in which the aim is explicitly to choose the right dialogue topics and perform the right actions and successfully make a fictional character with pre-set responses pretend to fall in love with your character. By its very nature, it ends up taking love and turning it into cause-and-effect emotional pornography, an artificial playing-out of an 8-year-old's conception of love as a ritual with pre-determined steps (If I give Suzy this flower, she'll be my girlfriend!) in which the winner gets to hear the robot tell them how attractive and heroic and loveable they are. It's Romeo & Juliet, if Juliet was a sockpuppet on Romeo's own wrist.

 

Because it isn't the presence of love that's the problem, it's the player's agency which makes the whole affair tasteless and perverse. No matter how hard the player squints and sucks in their breath and roleplays it, the player character is not a real character. They're a projection, a figure that's entirely defined by their actions and their statistics; their actions can be reacted to, their statistics can be acknowledged, but there's not enough to them to make them worthy of anyone's love, fictional or otherwise - and every time an NPC character is forced to say, '(CONDITIONAL MET: ROMANCE) Oh, PLAYERNAME, I never thought I could fall in love with a RACENAME, least of all a CLASSNAME, but I just can't get over all of your UNSPECIFIED POSITIVE QUALITIES', that character is compromised; it ceases to be a purportedly living, breathing personality and becomes a Marilyn Monroe-bot who's there to gratify and flatter the player.

 

...you know, in my opinion.

Edited October 17, 2012 by grotbag

[metiman]

Were you able to at least kill Dragon Age characters who hit on you or was that not allowed?

[Rahelron]

Are you asking for romance minigames or romance as part of the main story?

 

Romance Minigames? Can you point me an example of that?

 

Personally I'm talking about romances as subplots of the main storyline, as one of the many ways to interact with your companions. In my dreams romances should not be stuff like "you choose what NPC you want to date, hit the button, and then the storyline triggers". NPCs should fall in love with you only if you were the right person, meaning, you should fight for their same ideals, you should show to be the person they dream of and so on.

 

An example: If I go around and take every task from every poor villanger asking for help my cynic and individualistic NPC companion should never fall in love with me.

[Gorth]

Hmm... procedural romances. Just something for the AI guys.

[Teuthida]

Were you able to at least kill Dragon Age characters who hit on you or was that not allowed?

 

I gleefully killed Anders in every playthrough!

[metiman]

An example of a romance mini-game is any romance in BG2.

[Rahelron]

Romance, as it appears in RPGs with full player choice, compromises the writing of every game it appears in. Yeah, every single one. It doesn't celebrate love and recognise an incredibly important part of the human experience, as some people are suggesting, it demeans it, because no matter how good the writing might hypothetically be, there's no way of getting around the basic situation that the player is participating in a mini-game in which the aim is explicitly to choose the right dialogue topics and perform the right actions and successfully make a fictional character with pre-set responses pretend to fall in love with your character. By its very nature, it ends up taking love and turning it into cause-and-effect emotional pornography, an artificial playing-out of an 8-year-old's conception of love as a ritual with pre-determined steps (If I give Suzy this flower, she'll be my girlfriend!) in which the winner gets to hear the robot tell them how attractive and heroic and loveable they are. It's Romeo & Juliet, if Juliet was a sockpuppet on Romeo's own wrist.

 

 

This is true for every interaction in every RPG that has companions in hit. You have to create a group and keep everyone loyal to you, so you have to choose the right dialogue options when issues arise. Love is not the problem, the problem is within the way by which RPGs recreate human relationships... any kind of human relationship.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Rahelron

[Merin]

Are you asking for romance minigames or romance as part of the main story?

 

For me?

 

Part of the story - it doesn't even have to be part of the main story, or the focus.

 

But there should be romance. Side characters. NPCs with NPCs. Maybe part of the main story, if that's the story Obsidian wants to tell. Maybe between companions. Maybe your main character with an NPC who isn't a companion.

 

I don't want a mini-game. I want role-playing.... so there shouldn't be a cookie cutter formula applied to companions. IF it fits the story Obsidian is telling or the characters Obsidian is creating, then romanceable companions. If that isn't what Obsidian is planning for companions, then not romanceable companions shoe-horned in just because.

 

But romance should exist in the world, and should be a motivating force for at least some of the characters in said world.

[evdk]

Were you able to at least kill Dragon Age characters who hit on you or was that not allowed?

You can kill Anders, but he wants to be martyred, so it lacks the satisfaction. I personally wanted to make him tranquil, because that would actually punish him instead of giving him what he wanted all along but the stupid game never gave me a chance. FAIL.