Romance and friendship?

[Gorth]

For PS:T, I'm not far in. I've never gotten far in - this is my fourth attempt to play the game. But from initial flashbacks, to journal messages, to meeting your eternal love who solicits a pledge from you to either save or join her... yeah, I'm out of my mind for seeing this romance as central to the game so far. Again, not far in... but it's a big theme so far, as big as anything (immortality, death, and eternal love I'd say at this point.)

The "out of your mind" bit was uncalled for, but I can sort of understand it as a gut reaction. There is no "love" in PS:T. But if you plan on finishing it some day, I'll not spoil it for you by revealing the truth behind "relationships".

 

[Ieo]

I'd honestly feel a little gipped if you couldn't guide a 'romance' down the best friends path instead.

 

Just thinking about all the possiblities really hits home why they were sticking so stubbornly to only having 8 companions, saying how much resources would be going to them.

 

I'd have to agree; real relationships are fluid around those points--it's true that sometimes someone who has very strong feelings for another person who doesn't share those feelings will shut down.... which isn't very healthy either, but infatuations are rather awful as a rule.

 

That may be the most flexible scenario for the problem I have with mutually exclusive non-romance/romance path content.

[Merin]

I wonder if anyone else caught early in the livestream tonight (well before the drinking got heavy, like maybe an hour or so in) Chris Avellone answered the question of "was Neeshka supposed to be romanceable" with "I wanted her to be."

 

 

For PS:T, I'm not far in. I've never gotten far in - this is my fourth attempt to play the game. But from initial flashbacks, to journal messages, to meeting your eternal love who solicits a pledge from you to either save or join her... yeah, I'm out of my mind for seeing this romance as central to the game so far. Again, not far in... but it's a big theme so far, as big as anything (immortality, death, and eternal love I'd say at this point.)

The "out of your mind" bit was uncalled for, but I can sort of understand it as a gut reaction. There is no "love" in PS:T. But if you plan on finishing it some day, I'll not spoil it for you by revealing the truth behind "relationships".

 

I'll probably fail at staying interested in the game and end up reading a wiki or something about it. It took me 5 times to get through the NWN OC, and 3 times for Arcanum... so I've a good gauge on what it would take to get me to finish a game.

 

PS:T wasn't one I would have tried again, except, you know, PE is happening so why not. I watched Phantom Menace 4 times trying to find something redeemable in it, I can play PS:T one more time and see if the magic finally catches me.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Merin

[Kymriana]

Well, just to poke my nub-let little nose in here but....

 

I do hope some romance options are added. I want a fully developed in-depth world to play in. That includes making friends, enemies, rivals and... yes... lovers. I replay games like whoa and I want to try different types of characters, different choices, and different relationships each time. The more depth there is... the more respect I have for the writers. Ignoring that depth often makes me feel that the writers are either lacking in that area... or are ignoring a very large amount of the fan-base, which is a big no-no these days.

 

I expect a lot out of professional writers and for a project like this I expect a very deeply fleshed out world. That includes in-depth characters. And that includes things like emotions. And emotions cover all bases, from revenge, pride, nobility, hate and love. I don't really buy into the idea that 'if they do romances it will take away from what *I* care about, so they shouldn't do it!' because that's... well... a selfish claim that brushes aside a group of players for personal benefit that is claimed to be more important. *I* believe that the writers at Obsidian have the ability to balance it out well. And I truly hope to see them do so.

[Ieo]

I don't really buy into the idea that 'if they do romances it will take away from what *I* care about, so they shouldn't do it!' because that's... well... a selfish claim that brushes aside a group of players for personal benefit that is claimed to be more important. *I* believe that the writers at Obsidian have the ability to balance it out well. And I truly hope to see them do so.

 

I described the technical process for a signel game writer to linearly (e.g. 3 months) create character content and the choices required in adding romances. How would you respond to that exactly?

[Zu Long]

I don't really buy into the idea that 'if they do romances it will take away from what *I* care about, so they shouldn't do it!' because that's... well... a selfish claim that brushes aside a group of players for personal benefit that is claimed to be more important. *I* believe that the writers at Obsidian have the ability to balance it out well. And I truly hope to see them do so.

 

I described the technical process for a signel game writer to linearly (e.g. 3 months) create character content and the choices required in adding romances. How would you respond to that exactly?

 

 

By pointing out that I, personally, don't plan on taking any of the evil paths, ever, and I could use the exact same "resource" argument to say that they should be left out in favor of content that I would enjoy.

 

As the other poster said though, that would make me pretty selfish.

[Ieo]

I don't really buy into the idea that 'if they do romances it will take away from what *I* care about, so they shouldn't do it!' because that's... well... a selfish claim that brushes aside a group of players for personal benefit that is claimed to be more important. *I* believe that the writers at Obsidian have the ability to balance it out well. And I truly hope to see them do so.

 

I described the technical process for a signel game writer to linearly (e.g. 3 months) create character content and the choices required in adding romances. How would you respond to that exactly?

 

 

By pointing out that I, personally, don't plan on taking any of the evil paths, ever, and I could use the exact same "resource" argument to say that they should be left out in favor of content that I would enjoy.

 

As the other poster said though, that would make me pretty selfish.

 

That's a fair point.

 

The only issue I have with that general stance is that it's easy to ignore potential companions in the likes of BG2 because there are so many to choose from; there's far less potential to "sacrifice" based on breadth alone. Eight, not so much, especially if we're expecting tremendous depth to each.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If they want to include romances and can do it without making too much content and character development romance exclusive, then they should do it. Just don't pull a bioware and flood the game with fanservice romances with all the personality of a cardboard cutout.

[Kymriana]

I described the technical process for a single game writer to linearly (e.g. 3 months) create character content and the choices required in adding romances. How would you respond to that exactly?

 

Thank you, Ieo, for responding. I enjoy a dialogue about opinions between respectful individuals. ^^

 

Now, I understand your point in the post you linked me to, regarding the idea that: "Sawyer described how a character is always written by one writer to maintain consistency, which totally makes sense. This also means that development is completely linear." Some of the best story-telling I've seen has come from that area; one writer being in charge of a particular character. However, what made the entire story so amazing was that all of these writers came together to discuss how it all fit together like a giant puzzle. Just because one writer is in charge of one character doesn't mean that no other writers are involved in a solid production of any size. This means that after an over-all storyline has been decided upon, the writers of each section can come together and brain-storm what relationship options will work and how best to weave them into the overall narrative the game is delivering. I will also point out that, unlike other titles leading up to now, these writers are not under a tyrannical over-company's imposed time-limit on when they need to get things done. That was part of the reason for this kickstarter and I fully expect them to live up to that. This means that if they need to spend half a year working on the writing while the programmers create the world, art assets and the musicians get the scores written and recorded, then so be it. This is already an incredibly ambitious project and they were responded to by players in an overwhelming fashion, as the record-breaking numbers show. It makes zero sense to me that they would skimp on this aspect of the game when they are not being constricted with a publishing company's deadlines. I don't argue your 3-month numbers... at all. What I say is: So what? They HAVE the time to put into it.

[Ieo]

If they want to include romances and can do it without making too much content and character development romance exclusive, then they should do it. Just don't pull a bioware and flood the game with fanservice romances with all the personality of a cardboard cutout.

 

Obsidian wouldn't do the latter, I'm sure we can agree on that. It's the first statement that's my concern.

 

 

I described the technical process for a single game writer to linearly (e.g. 3 months) create character content and the choices required in adding romances. How would you respond to that exactly?

 

Thank you, Ieo, for responding. I enjoy a dialogue about opinions between respectful individuals. ^^

 

Now, I understand your point in the post you linked me to, regarding the idea that: "Sawyer described how a character is always written by one writer to maintain consistency, which totally makes sense. This also means that development is completely linear." Some of the best story-telling I've seen has come from that area; one writer being in charge of a particular character. However, what made the entire story so amazing was that all of these writers came together to discuss how it all fit together like a giant puzzle. Just because one writer is in charge of one character doesn't mean that no other writers are involved in a solid production of any size. This means that after an over-all storyline has been decided upon, the writers of each section can come together and brain-storm what relationship options will work and how best to weave them into the overall narrative the game is delivering. I will also point out that, unlike other titles leading up to now, these writers are not under a tyrannical over-company's imposed time-limit on when they need to get things done. That was part of the reason for this kickstarter and I fully expect them to live up to that. This means that if they need to spend half a year working on the writing while the programmers create the world, art assets and the musicians get the scores written and recorded, then so be it. This is already an incredibly ambitious project and they were responded to by players in an overwhelming fashion, as the record-breaking numbers show. It makes zero sense to me that they would skimp on this aspect of the game when they are not being constricted with a publishing company's deadlines. I don't argue your 3-month numbers... at all. What I say is: So what? They HAVE the time to put into it.

 

Thanks for the response, though that didn't quite get to my point, based on a key assumption...

 

Consider that PS:T had one writer--I think PE's scene has changed a bit with Ziets added, who knows what writing he will do--but Avellone wrote PS:T all by his lonesome. If it takes Avellone up to 3 months according to Feargus/Cain (forget who) for a character of considerable depth, that's up to 24 months of writing right there for 8 characters.

 

If we want a deep and meaningful romance track for character A, that could take up the majority of the character writing cycle, or 3 months.

If we also want a deep and meaningful non-romance track for character A, that would take the usual cycle, 3 months.

So in total, for a romance-optional character covering both types of content equally, 6 months--before the writer can move onto character B.

 

Unless Obsidian hires a bunch more writers, I don't see how that kind of content creation can be done in their short development timetable. But I don't want them to hire more writers; I really don't trust them as I would Avellone (I know nothing about Ziets since I hated NWN1 and didn't bother with NWN2 due to its famous bugs). I dunno...

 

So the other option is purely linear--

If we want a deeper romance for A, maybe we'll do 1 month non-romance "friend" content and then 2 months for romance content.

If we want a more light "romance" with B, maybe we'll start out with the flirting for a month and then a sex scene and then 2 months of normal banter.

If we want a late-blooming romance for C, maybe we'll do 2 months of "friend" content and then 1 month romance content.

 

I hope you see where I'm going with this. Basically, in this kind of linear content dev, there would be uneven representation that would be more obvious since we only have 8 companions.

 

The only other equation I can think of for the current situation is--

Avellone and Ziets split writing duties, 4 characters each.

Even cutting to 2 months development per character, if aiming for equal non/romance content each, that comes out to 16 months.... Hmm.

 

 

Also, weaving romances into the main narrative makes me very leery; I wouldn't like any party relationship to be requisite or hold over significant content in the main storyline, romance or not--that is to say, I wouldn't want a romance to be required for a potentially preferred "happy" ending, for example. Of course, companion relationships should color the rest of world interaction and the epilogues.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Ieo

[Kymriana]

I see your point, Ieo, and I respect the worry about time constraints. Still, even in my hackish purely-for-fun self-indulgent attempts at writing, which I never go so far as to claim any ability outside of my schooling to at least be able to get an idea across reasonably well, I have never found it takes a huge amount of time after the initial character has been created and fleshed out, to jot down and explore how that character can or will interact with another, equally fleshed out character. What I mean to say more simply is that I don't think that they would need months upon months to write up possible romance and rivalries once they have established each of the characters. I really don't. Maybe I'm naive, which is very likely even if I have worked in a limited area of the field, but I think that if they have A: the plot and B: the characters both established that it wouldn't take a massive amount of time to figure out variations for the established characters to take when interacting. This is going along with your desire that said interactions NOT be core influences in the actual flow of the over-arching narrative and ending. (Though I sure as heck want it to flavour my ending if I decide to romance person A or have a bitter rivalry with person B, even if it is just a text acknowledgement type thing.)

 

I don't argue that romances, or lack thereof, should NOT be a deciding factor on endings, happy or otherwise. But IF a player does go for one, it should at least get a nod for the player that decided to take the time and who care about it. I'm far more open to a balanced approach to the whole thing, so that everyone can enjoy an aspect of the game, than a restrictive 'no, never, I don't want to see it, not in MY game' mentality that simply alienates other players/backers. ^^

[Ieo]

I see your point, Ieo, and I respect the worry about time constraints. Still, even in my hackish purely-for-fun self-indulgent attempts at writing, which I never go so far as to claim any ability outside of my schooling to at least be able to get an idea across reasonably well, I have never found it takes a huge amount of time after the initial character has been created and fleshed out, to jot down and explore how that character can or will interact with another, equally fleshed out character. What I mean to say more simply is that I don't think that they would need months upon months to write up possible romance and rivalries once they have established each of the characters. I really don't. Maybe I'm naive, which is very likely even if I have worked in a limited area of the field, but I think that if they have A: the plot and B: the characters both established that it wouldn't take a massive amount of time to figure out variations for the established characters to take when interacting.

 

Optimism isn't a bad thing. That said, I sincerely hope Obsidian doesn't thin companion content due to the timescale (storyboarding interactions wouldn't take as much time as the actual writing output with tree testing and editing--thank the gods there is no full VO). It was extremely rare to get both quantity and quality in a game's combined interactive narrative/dialogic text content; nothing has come close to PS:T since, that I'm aware of. I hope PE breaks that trend without much, if any, sacrifice. The two ideal scenarios for me are, ignoring resource limitations, either full parallel character content development (doubling up)* or applying a smaller percentage of explicit "romance" content for a given character and allow free "conversion" to a bromance/womance track. I think the latter would be most flexible and more resource-friendly, theoretically.

 

This is going along with your desire that said interactions NOT be core influences in the actual flow of the over-arching narrative and ending. (Though I sure as heck want it to flavour my ending if I decide to romance person A or have a bitter rivalry with person B, even if it is just a text acknowledgement type thing.)

 

I don't argue that romances, or lack thereof, should NOT be a deciding factor on endings, happy or otherwise. But IF a player does go for one, it should at least get a nod for the player that decided to take the time and who care about it. I'm far more open to a balanced approach to the whole thing, so that everyone can enjoy an aspect of the game, than a restrictive 'no, never, I don't want to see it, not in MY game' mentality that simply alienates other players/backers. ^^

 

Oh, I fully expect reams of juicy epilogue content for various questlines and all companion interactions, romance or not, in the style of BG2:ToB (or outstripping). I can't imagine Obsidian not doing that, really.

 

 

*I forgot that there will also be "low intelligence" type interactions as well, so that increases dialogic workload as well. Oof.

[Morality Games]

I see your point, Ieo, and I respect the worry about time constraints. Still, even in my hackish purely-for-fun self-indulgent attempts at writing, which I never go so far as to claim any ability outside of my schooling to at least be able to get an idea across reasonably well, I have never found it takes a huge amount of time after the initial character has been created and fleshed out, to jot down and explore how that character can or will interact with another, equally fleshed out character. What I mean to say more simply is that I don't think that they would need months upon months to write up possible romance and rivalries once they have established each of the characters. I really don't. Maybe I'm naive, which is very likely even if I have worked in a limited area of the field, but I think that if they have A: the plot and B: the characters both established that it wouldn't take a massive amount of time to figure out variations for the established characters to take when interacting. This is going along with your desire that said interactions NOT be core influences in the actual flow of the over-arching narrative and ending. (Though I sure as heck want it to flavour my ending if I decide to romance person A or have a bitter rivalry with person B, even if it is just a text acknowledgement type thing.)

 

I don't argue that romances, or lack thereof, should NOT be a deciding factor on endings, happy or otherwise. But IF a player does go for one, it should at least get a nod for the player that decided to take the time and who care about it. I'm far more open to a balanced approach to the whole thing, so that everyone can enjoy an aspect of the game, than a restrictive 'no, never, I don't want to see it, not in MY game' mentality that simply alienates other players/backers. ^^

 

Hear, hear.

 

The two ideal scenarios for me are, ignoring resource limitations, either full parallel character content development (doubling up)* or applying a smaller percentage of explicit "romance" content for a given character and allow free "conversion" to a bromance/womance track. I think the latter would be most flexible and more resource-friendly, theoretically.

 

Without a doubt the latter is more friendly, although for the sake of narrative, I wouldn't characterize it as a free conversion so much as ending the romance on good terms

 

I can indulge most designs, but Swtor left me believing that blending platonic and romantic dialogue tracks together is sub optimal unless the platonic conversations are altered perceptibly to indicate that a relationship exists between the two characters. The romance neutral conversations in Swtor were mildly immersion breaking when they took place in a romance, although some worked better than others.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Morality Games

[Ieo]

The two ideal scenarios for me are, ignoring resource limitations, either full parallel character content development (doubling up)* or applying a smaller percentage of explicit "romance" content for a given character and allow free "conversion" to a bromance/womance track. I think the latter would be most flexible and more resource-friendly, theoretically.

(1)

Without a doubt the latter is more friendly, although for the sake of narrative, I wouldn't characterize it as a free conversion so much as ending the romance on good terms

(2)

I can indulge most designs, but Swtor left me believing that blending platonic and romantic dialogue tracks together is sub optimal unless the platonic conversations are altered perceptibly to indicate that a relationship exists between the two characters. The romance neutral conversations in Swtor were mildly immersion breaking.

 

(1) That works.

 

(2) Errrm, forgive my confusion, but isn't SWTOR an MMO? I have no idea how dialogic content containing "memory" would work in that setting. It could be your poor experience with the proposal was hampered by the underlying technology?

 

Romance NPCs in an MMO? I'm still flabbergasted... How would that work in a group...

[Jarmo]

Hey cool, 4.0 millions reached!

 

And if I read the goal correctly, they'll be using every last penny between 3.5 and 4.0 to enhance the whole of romances in the game!

Adding new romance scripts and quests, doing live recorded romantic music, violins mostly (but with a bass at the most romantic scenes).

And there'll be a lot of added romance animations. And I heard you can totally do the giant statue in the endless dungeons.

[Kymriana]

(2) Errrm, forgive my confusion, but isn't SWTOR an MMO? I have no idea how dialogic content containing "memory" would work in that setting. It could be your poor experience with the proposal was hampered by the underlying technology?

 

Romance NPCs in an MMO? I'm still flabbergasted... How would that work in a group...

 

Ah, er... ahem. I feel a bit like I should explain a bit about that... >_> For ah... reasons.

 

SWTOR was an attempt to merge the 'party NPC' with an MMO in that players have companion characters that join them in the process of the class storyline. Among them are romance options that can be explored if the players want to, and ONLY if they want to, as they took work to up the character's opinion of the player with gifts, talking to them, and having them present during storyline moments where decisions made by the player gained them or lost them points with that character. It let players who played more 'squishie' types solo easier as one of their companions was always a tanky-class, and a tanky character could use a healie or dps companion at will. Groups were limited to 4 characters, so two friends could run around with 2 companions out and so on.

 

It was a neat take on it, however that turned out. >_>

 

Jarmo: Very funny.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Kymriana

[Ieo]

And I heard you can totally do the giant statue in the endless dungeons.

 

This is factually incorrect. I do believe Obsidian said in their streamed live KS video that players could have sex with all the dragons.

 

 

(2) Errrm, forgive my confusion, but isn't SWTOR an MMO? I have no idea how dialogic content containing "memory" would work in that setting. It could be your poor experience with the proposal was hampered by the underlying technology?

 

Romance NPCs in an MMO? I'm still flabbergasted... How would that work in a group...

 

Ah, er... ahem. I feel a bit like I should explain a bit about that... >_> For ah... reasons.

 

SWTOR was an attempt to merge the 'party NPC' with an MMO in that players have companion characters that join them in the process of the class storyline. Among them are romance options that can be explored if the players want to, and ONLY if they want to, as they took work to up the character's opinion of the player with gifts, talking to them, and having them present during storyline moments where decisions made by the player gained them or lost them points with that character. It let players who played more 'squishie' types solo easier as one of their companions was always a tanky-class, and a tanky character could use a healie or dps companion at will. Groups were limited to 4 characters, so two friends could run around with 2 companions out and so on.

 

It was a neat take on it, however that turned out. >_>

 

Gwah.

 

I do not like it when games try to mix technical genres. I like my SP games competely SP, my MMOs as traditional MMOs (yes, I've played a couple), and everything else in their proper places.... Content experimentation is fine, but when the mechanics of one genre break a strength of another genre (e.g. I do remember a friend telling me how SWTOR companion "pets" broke grouping behavior in the game, among other things--and MMOs in general should encourage grouping), that's bad. I didn't know you could actually romance them, though. Eh. Well, it was by Bioware/EA...

 

That said, forgive me if I don't consider SWTOR a valid implementation of potential party NPC interactions. Even if SWTOR didn't do that sort of dialogue right, well.... SWTOR didn't do a lot of things right.

[Valinthor]

I personally think romance should be tasteful and not like Dragon Age of the Witcher which focuses too much on FMV and In game Sex scenes. I want them to be like BG2 where inter party dynamics changed based on the interactions you had with others. It adds another human element to a game and especially if they talk or say stuff in the middle of encounters etc. It is just another aspect of interactions with your party much like other kinds of emotions like hate, empathy, friendship, comradire. Why not Love. Just be tasteful if you can . No DA crap!

[Kymriana]

That said, forgive me if I don't consider SWTOR a valid implementation of potential party NPC interactions. Even if SWTOR didn't do that sort of dialogue right, well.... SWTOR didn't do a lot of things right.

 

No, you're basically right.

 

It was an experiment to see if they could take the BW style story-choice game and merge it into an MMO. I do like that they experimented with it and it had a lot of, in my opinion, potential... it just had ah... some issues. >_>

 

This is factually incorrect. I do believe Obsidian said in their streamed live KS video that players could have sex with all the dragons.

 

Wait, what? REALLY? Coooooooooooooooool!

 

Well, either way... at this point we have both explained and discussed our opinions on this idea. It's really up to the writers as to what will happen. I'm excited to find out... and yes, hopeful that it's inclusive for everyone who donated.

[BruceVC]

I enjoy romances in my RPG's and MMORPG's (if done well) and I hope PE has them. I also hope they have Gay and Lesbian romances for those who wish to go that way. I have friends (both Gay and Lesbian) who only came to game because of BioWare's Mass Effect/Dragon Age series, those relationships were simple, but at least it showed the game industry noticed that not everyone in the world is straight...

 

I agree, there should relationships but also the option for people to have gay relationships if a person wants to. The principle of relationships should be as inclusive as possible ( and no that doesn't mean I want relationships with animals and children, I seem to hear this annoying point from some who are opposed to gay relationships and are just being sarcastic and making fatuous arguments )

[JediMB]

Well, I'm not going to bother with reading up on what I've missed in the last 34-ish hours, but I do have a link for the people who haven't already listened to it...

 

The Extra Curricular: Romance in Games podcast brings up some good points on the subject of... well... romance in games. Some good and bad parts from games such as Mass Effect and Dragon Age, Final Fantasy VII, The Walking Dead, Persona 3, and Uncharted.

[Landuin]

I'd kind of like Obsidian to include a romance if only to show that it can be done without the godawful schock that BioWare excretes into all of their games.

[Loranc]

You know what, if the gay and lesbian community wants those options, that's fine. BUT and this is a huge BUT it better not be anything like it was with Anders in DA2, where by just being nice to him forced you into a conversation that lead to him disliking you because you didn't want to have sex with him. That's where I draw the line, if it's going to be in the game I don't want to ever have to see it, because it literally ruins characters for me. (You can call me prejudice if you want but I have a real life friend who is gay, and it doesn't bother me. But it really irked me in DA2 the way it was presented.)

[jarpie]

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.

 

The devs said that there will be mature relationships in the game and that doesn't necessarely (and probably not) mean romances and sex, but instead of somekind of friendships and adversaries.

 

I actually would like to get friendly-relationships into the game, but I wouldn't want them to be solving "daddy" or other personal issues of the companions, those are so overly done and so tedious, instead I'd love to have greatly written "Brothers in Arms"-type of relationships instead of the before mentioned melodramatic "Oh woe is me" stuff.

 

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.

 

I have enough trust in Avellone, Ziets and other writing team to write this game as they want.

[BruceVC]

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.