Romance and friendship?

[metiman]

Haha! In before thread lock. I guess the mods are still eating breakfast or they are all left coasters who haven't woken up yet. Krikkert is probably reading a romance novel right now. Women like romance. Men like porn. I guess we could combine the two by including lots of tasteful rape, bestiality, necrophilia, and romances between 300 year old wizards and cute little tween girl magelings.

 

Although computer game romances tend to make me want to lose my lunch I'll admit that they are not nearly as bad as kooldowns. As long as they are optional they are merely a waste (from a male perspective) of developer time and not a game destroying feature. Some of us may not be able to resist killing any party members who start getting lovey dovey wth us however, forcing us to seek less amorous companions at the adventurers hall (thank god that's going to be in the game). Hopefully if Obsidian does decides to do some romances the female intern who writes them can include some non-lethal options for both verbally and physically abusing any companions who makes an inappropriate comment.

Edited October 15, 2012 by metiman

[JediMB]

It really can't be rationally argued that having romance paths(aka low quality paths) for certain characters would be a waste of resources, without simultaneously arguing that dynamic companion characters in and of themselves are a waste of resources.

And here's the point.Again.

 

It's not a point. It's you saying "I don't like this" and pretending that it's somehow valid in an argument.

 

EDIT:

I'll make it clear: This is not an argument for romances, because it's pointless to argue about whether or not this should be in the game.

 

It's for the writers to decide, since they're the ones who know what they can and want to write.

Edited October 15, 2012 by JediMB

[metiman]

Isn't that the same argument that the pro-romance faction is making? That they like it? There are some arguments against it. For instance, some people feel that any minigame is a waste or resource. Not just romance minigames, but anything else that steals development time from the central game itself. There is also the argument about how unlikely it is that one (or more) of your few companions just happens to be your, uh, soul mate or whatever. It's a bit improbable. In terms of just wanting a shag I guess that would be dependent on charisma. Obviously every male party member is going to want to shag Fall-From-Grace or Kaelyn the Dove. An 18 or 20 charisma is kind of difficult to ignore.

[Uomoz]

Love, as in real life, drives many people's actions\lives. It's a nice plot device if used correctly, so I guess I'm in favor of it.

[JediMB]

Isn't that the same argument that the pro-romance faction is making? That they like it? There are some arguments against it. For instance, some people feel that any minigame is a waste or resource. Not just romance minigames, but anything else that steals development time from the central game itself. There is also the argument about how unlikely it is that one (or more) of your few companions just happens to be your, uh, soul mate or whatever. It's a bit improbable. In terms of just wanting a shag I guess that would be dependent on charisma. Obviously every male party member is going to want to shag Fall-From-Grace or Kaelyn the Dove. An 18 or 20 charisma is kind of difficult to ignore.

 

Maybe you read my post before I edited it, but I made a point out of that arguing both for and against is pointless.

 

It's just fine and dandy to say that you like or dislike that sort of content, but when you find yourself needing to prove to others that your preference is the best one, I would say you're either suffering from some sort of irrational repulsion or you're just desperate to "win" and feel validated.

 

EDIT: And that's not even going into how certain people love to misrepresent their opposition, as well as the nature of the desired content. Oy vey.

Edited October 15, 2012 by JediMB

[Tale]

I think the moratorium on these threads has lifted, so I won't shut the thread down just yet. If you don't like the thread, you are free to ignore it.

 

Play nice, this goes double for those who have a habit of congregating in these threads.

[BSoda]

Chris gave an answer to this in one of his interviews

 

Would we be able to have our character fall in love with other characters in the game? Do we get to choose this or what if the game chose for us? Would it be possible to start a family, such as in the Fable games or Europa 1400 The Guild?

 

There’ll be a variety of mature relationships in the game, and you can choose to interact with them as little or as much as you want.

http://obsoletegamer...ainment-part-2/

This. Obsidians stance on this is not as vague as some people seem to think it is...of course now we'll get a myriad of posts crying on how Obsidian "caved in". Oh well.

Edited October 15, 2012 by BSoda

[Ieo]

Wow, talk about timing. I was just discussing my preferred exclusion of romances in PE against a friend who really, really wants it in PE.

 

Said friend played Dragon Age: Origins with her husband before Baldur's Gate. (i.e. He played and she watched and they discussed quest options together.) They used a cheat code for all combat. Their playthroughs were decided mostly on what romanceable options there were (and the origins, I guess). They, specifically the wife, metagamed the romances heavily based on DA:O's broken score meter system (lots of reloads--both I and the husband had way more self control in this respect). In other words--they played it mostly as a dating sim, and that's what they (esp. she) is looking forward to. (Let's think about what else DA:O was missing, though, in relation to full VO romances--side quests, a main storyline that made sense, etc.: I don't want this, at all.)

 

Here's the thing about character content, as I see it given how characters are written, and why I don't want romances in the game besides very deep relationships only one or two steps shy of an actual "romance."

 

It's an inverse relationship between a deep, rom-secular* character development and pop "romance" content. 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. If a character's content is treated equal in depth and importance for both romance and rom-secular players, that essentially requires doubling the development (time and cost). Otherwise, there must be a choice--if this character is "romanceable," perhaps only 20% of its written content would be rom-secular; how much content did Jaheira have in BG2 if you didn't play her romance? LIkewise, if you want the depth of, say, Dak'kon, any romance might start after his substantial Zerthimon content, but that could be very, very far into the game.

 

I'd be open to the depth and minimal level of "romance" in the relationshp between TNO and Fall-from-Grace, for example, because the majority of content was actually rom-secular and the rest rather subtle, which I think is the best content to cover the vast majority of players. Now, I suppose one writer can handle couple characters' romances, sure, but then I wouldn't expect much rom-secular content for those characters either; and then, would they be limited to only hetero M/F options? There's that too...

 

My main concern is having a stable of companions--PE doesn't have many--with consistently deep and substantial rom-secular content available for all players regardless of any romance options.

 

As I said in other threads, I'm far more interested in the bromance/womance, deep relationships because those are difficult to do well in, well, most entertainment venues. Here's a chance for Obsidian to really shine.

 

 

* "romantically secular" or character content befitting the entire target audience rather than only those interested in romances

Edited October 15, 2012 by Ieo

[ArchBeast]

Isn't that the same argument that the pro-romance faction is making? That they like it?

 

As i sad before Living One started his crusade. If theres a romance you can start or not. You like it you starting you not you not starting. SiMPLE

 

There are some arguments against it. For instance, some people feel that any minigame is a waste or resource. Not just romance minigames, but anything else that steals development time from the central game itself.

 

And haw do you defind stealing or wasting time when you don't know Haw long they will be creating this game ? WE don't even know haw much time it takes to do some romances, HOW much it takes from "Resouces".

 

Becouse "Romances" are treatet as addons, so they will propobly will add enythig else to do in game and game will be 100% finished and to this 100% will be added romance options..

 

People al afraid of another "UNfinished" game like Dragon age 2, NWN 2 oficial campain or Dragon age orgins BUT you simly dont understad that P:E is way better for even putting romances then SIMS .... WHY ?

 

Becouse THEY "Obsidian" has no "time" limitations like dragon age 2 had, nobudy will rush obsidian WE are funders and obsidian can even work on this game 10 year if they whan't.

 

No EA will rush them for quick sell on game like they did to unfinished DA:O and DA2. Not romances killd that games funders did. You all are aruing abour resources but you simply have no idea what it is. Haw many quest like "kill wolf" or "Make my some dinner" can you put to the game. I even think that stupid quest like "Go there and bring me" is taking to much resorces from Romances desiners are to focus on quest that has no value and they simply don't have time for romances.

 

Romances are simply an expansion not stech goal, they will be added not as consolation prize to unfinished game.... like this was in NWN2 or DA:O or DA:2

 

You know what i like in Blizzard ? That they can spend even 3 years on simple expansion but nobady will say that expansion is Unfinished.

 

The potential of P:Eternity is not that they will be some similaris to BG but they have unlimited time and no bady rushes them for quick finishing the game.

 

Don't get my wrong i don't whant another arguing post and please Leaving One don't respond to this. I also don't whant a situation like in NwN2 where we hve unfinished game wiht almosed forced romance with druid stalker. But P:E has almoust unlimited time for adding new resorces so there will be planty of quest and where will propably BE romances becouse adding romances is the same as adding bigger quest.

 

So if anywan will ask me "Do you whant 5000 quests of killing wolfes and rats" or "Do you whant 2500 quest of killing wolfes and some romances" i will go with secoud option and the most funny part that "Resorces" in secound option is lesser but had beter quality.

 

And please don't "Quete" me ...

Edited October 15, 2012 by ArchBeast

[Aedelric]

Okay, I warn I am using a Bioware game for the basis of what I like and dislike about romance/friendships.

 

I can not stand Liara in Mass Effect, she creeps me out. I turned her down several times and in the third I had to do it again. I get that many people love romance and I have no desire to take that fun aspect of the game away from them. But I do not want to feel hassled at every turn by a character infatuated with mine, I eventually just stopped talking to Liara.

 

If I ignore a romance with a character then I want all references to it dropped for the entire game, the last thing I want is to be left with the Liara syndrome again.

 

About friendship, it can work really well, my buddy Garrus is what made the game for me. But friendship should not be given easily or quickly, getting to the "Garrus" style banter takes time of building a friendship through experience, mutual hardship and relying on each other. I hope Eternity will have such fluid and familiar dialogue with companions.

 

Obsidian are great writers, but not a single character in New Vegas had that buddy quality personality and dialogue, though Heck from Alpha Protocol was an amazing (even if he was psychotic) character.

[Grand Heresiarch]

I have to say I am really torn on this topic. I agree with those individuals who say that romances in games tend to be a silly add-on that adds little depth to a game, but does this invalidate the premise?

Whether we like it or not, romance and relationships are a massive part of adult human interactions. So to leave it on the proverbial cutting room floor in favor of dungeon delving seems to me to be leaving behind a significant part of the "why" of why people do the things they do. On the other hand, a mindless gift exchange for "favors" does not reflect the reality of these necessarily complex social interactions.

One thought on the topic: Charisma is a much maligned stat, and yet in Arcanum (where it was beauty) it made a huge difference in all sorts of player interactions. I think that if a player elects to make a knuckle dragging warrior (all dex str and con with everything else minimized) then romance and even civil discourse should take a back seat. If a player elects to make an intelligent, charismatic character, then it seems that this should effect how NPCs interact with the character, including how "attractive" they find your character to be.

 

Lastly I will say, as a combat veteran, that going through life threatening situations with other people tends to generate extreme emotional responses. I am not just talking about romance but in all aspects of social interaction. People you get along with become like brothers and people who annoy you or those whose abilities you do not respect become an object of intense hatred. The extremity of the situation generates an extreme social atmosphere, and often pushes people romantically towards or away from each other. I think that if we are to have a game that is seriously grounded in adult social interactions we ought not to leave behind such an essential aspect of those interactions.

[anubite]

Women like romance. Men like porn.

 

Speak for yourself please, I am thoroughly sick of porn and romance is just another kind of it. Both of these things are done to death in video games and I cannot even be bemused by either at this point. Give me another hypersexualized Mass Effect inspired game and I will vomit.

 

I want characterization that is "believable" and "captivating". Porn and romance are things developed by people who are out to make a quick buck or have no taste, shame, and cultiviated sense of beauty.

 

Finally, let's use some existing examples here. Please name romances/sexual relationships Obsidian has helped create or added into their games. Were any of them so spectacular you can honestly say you want more of that? I mean, I enjoyed KOTOR2, but none of the romance was especially deep or evoking. Some aspects (like the Handmaiden's mother or Visas' master) added some interesting context, but those kinds of romances don't seem to be the kind people want.

 

It sounds to me like they want BioWare-style romances. Which is fine, if they want that kind of thing, but Obsidian has never written something quite like that before. Do you honestly expect them to deliver on the kind of romance you want? I don't think so.

 

What Obsidian has delivered on, is great characterization in other respects. All of FO:NV, or Kreia from KOTOR2, or all of PS:T -- Obsidian does really well when its characters have a deep philsophical backbone, or when they're involved in a conflict which is wrenching. Romance doesn't suit any of that, usually. The romance I hear people clamoring for is the kind that happens when you're having a walk in the park or in a fashionable night club, which I doubt PE will turn out to be.

Edited October 15, 2012 by anubite

[Tale]

Finally, let's use some existing examples here. Please name romances/sexual relationships Obsidian has helped create or added into their games. Were any of them so spectacular you can honestly say you want more of that? I mean, I enjoyed KOTOR2, but none of the romance was especially deep or evoking. Some aspects (like the Handmaiden's mother or Visas' master) added some interesting context, but those kinds of romances don't seem to be the kind people want.

Handmaiden is a passable example. It had enough subtlety that it didn't seem to be objectionable. Elanee was creepy, I think that should be avoided a bit. Safiya seemed to be purpose built for a romance. The backstory of Akachi and how it connected with her and the player laid all the pieces out remarkably well for a romance. The Alpha Protocol romances, despite Avellone's hatred of them, were consistent with spy thriller conventions. Then there's Annah-of-the-Shadows, another mostly subtle example.

 

Now maybe many people who ask for it come from a background of expecting Bioware romances. However, it's unfair to claim that's the only kind they appreciate. I never heard aspersions cast upon Handmaiden/Safiya/Annah for the differences those interactions held. And I think a similar one would probably satisfy them the same.

[Tamerlane]

... wherein people argue about the inclusion of a basic aspect of human interaction.

[Ieo]

... wherein people argue about the inclusion of a basic aspect of human interaction.

 

A basic human interaction that's quite complex to properly represent on multiple fronts for thousands of people with different preferences and that fails half the time in the real world. Unless we're talking rape->marriage trope or arranged, related also to the historical period...

 

Unless what you expect is "romance" a number of poor market-washed women actually expect in mass media these days (including Twilight drivel, etc.).

 

All the same arguments from prior locked threads will be rehashed anyway. Just hope Obsidian doesn't go all out for... people like my friend who only "played" DA:O for the romances and was disappointed in BG2 only because of the romances.

[BSoda]

Romances in PE might not even be between the PC and his/her partymembers. They might be with NPCs (which you than can ignore completely) or even not with the PC at all. Heck if you really want to split hairs "a variety of mature relationships" doesn't even necessarily mean romances.

Edited October 15, 2012 by BSoda

[Ieo]

Romances in PE might not even be between the PC and his/her partymembers. They might be with NPCs (which you than can ignore completely) or even not with the PC at all. Heck if you really want to split hairs "a variety of mature relationships" doesn't even necessarily mean romances.

 

One of my original suggestions was actually for interparty-non-PC romances--but with the PC playing a role in advising, basically. I think that'd be interesting, and it may have been done only once before (ME3? dunno). A party NPC and a non-party NPC would be interesting to see too and would create group tension per obligations, hmmmm.

[BSoda]

Romances in PE might not even be between the PC and his/her partymembers. They might be with NPCs (which you than can ignore completely) or even not with the PC at all. Heck if you really want to split hairs "a variety of mature relationships" doesn't even necessarily mean romances.

 

One of my original suggestions was actually for interparty-non-PC romances--but with the PC playing a role in advising, basically. I think that'd be interesting, and it may have been done only once before (ME3? dunno). A party NPC and a non-party NPC would be interesting to see too and would create group tension per obligations, hmmmm.

Heh, sounds good to me.

[Malcador]

Hah, this again. That quote by Avellone should be enough of an answer, though.

[Orogun01]

Personally I would prefer if they focused on defining the characters and if along the way the developers see that the relationship between companion and player starts shaping to allow for romantic involvement, then they shouldn't shy away from it. The process seems better than writing a character as a romantic option from the offset.

 

On the romances as a whole in a video games; there are worse things to waste time writing, (e.g: all the books and backstories in Bethesda's games, specially Dishonored)

All things that won't see the light of day on the final product.

[anubite]

Dishonored's books were decent, small excerpts - but you're right. They don't serve any purpose considering I want to play a video game, not sit around and read a novel. It's fine to have long dialogue, since I'm responding to it - but a book just sits there. It's not interactive. It was a waste of somebody's time. Especially when Dishonored's main story was lamer than even some of the lamest saturday morning cartoons. What wasted potential.

 

Bethesda hasn't written a new book since Morrowind - you can find nearly every book in Oblivion/Skyrim in there. Yet, Morrowind ended up being larger in scope and size than either...

 

Romance can be something people mod into the game, and I'm not against being able to flirt or fling, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about "romance" which is a term which goes way back and has certain connotations, like requited love, a dating ritual, marriage, and everything else. Such connotations may be absolutely inappropriate for the characters and themes already established. It's why most recent BioWare games are ridiculous, the hypersexuality contrasts with everything else they're trying so hard to legitify.

 

"So wait, we're in this cool sci-fi world, and there's a blue alien? And she wants to bang me? What? Does she have a vagina? Can she even feel love? How does that even work?" How anyone can praise the series for its setting is beyond me. I couldn't write trashier scifi if I tried.

Edited October 15, 2012 by anubite

[Frisk]

For an interesting twist - have a romance develop between two of the companions....and the player can possibly influence that development somehow.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Frisk

[AGX-17]

Now maybe many people who ask for it come from a background of expecting Bioware romances. However, it's unfair to claim that's the only kind they appreciate. I never heard aspersions cast upon Handmaiden/Safiya/Annah for the differences those interactions held. And I think a similar one would probably satisfy them the same.

 

I think a lot of the troubles about the concept come from the fact that Bioware has shifted narrative focus from story to companions, and especially companion romance, in recent years. If you take a look at the cesspit that is the Bioware forum, you'll see that it's dominated almost entirely by romance discussion, fanboy/girlism threads about a given companion, etc.

 

The most hilarious thing about Mass Effect is that Shepard engaging in sexual relations with crew members is conduct unbecoming an officer and grounds for a court-martial.

[d0riangray]

For me personally, an RPG without romance simply isn't one, as there is one of the most basic human motivators (sex/lust/love) missing entirely. I would be fine with a level of romance as it was included in BG 2. Not all characters were romancable, but those that were provided a deep enduring experience and all had a different tone. Some adaption to more modern social mores should be done however (e.g. SGR). Everything else can (and will hopefully) be modded in anyway.

 

Missing out on romance arcs that span multiple games and grow (ala ME although hopefully a little more in depth) would be a shame.

[Jasede]

Message to Chris Avellone

 

If people keep asking for romances even though there's a moratorium on romance threads, please do what you do best: make those tragic romances that punish the player. I know how much you hate those sissy happy romances, so I, as a humble fan of your work, implore you to either not give in to the lonely masses, or better yet, to punish them for their ridiculous desire with more tragic or twisted romances as you have in the past. They'll probably be thankful for whatever you come up with, even if you're mocking them as you do it.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Tale
politeness