The "Unofficial" P.E. Relationship/Romance thread

[Amentep]

Let's stick with your Firefly references, because Firefly is awesome. If PE is Firefly, and Mal is my sole PC, I don't care if Wash and Zoe are in a relationship. That's on the side as part of the plot/setting.

 

However, if I'm controlling a party of the whole crew, I don't want to have dialogue tree options allowing the player to pretend to be Wash or Zoe and awkwardly "develop" the relationship. I'm not saying relationships shouldn't exist in the game world, simply that as a player, the act of using actions or dialogue to pursue these cardboard relationships adds nothing to my gameplay experience.

 

I'd agree with you actually; as the PC the Wash / Zoe relationship shouldn't be mine to command over or develop. I'd see their relationship similar to Korgan hitting on Mazzy or Mazzy making that ranger her squire. Stuff you'd only see happen that creates the illusion that your party is full of people and not 17th lvl Fighter Dwarf and 17 level Fighter Halfling.

 

I'd also be okay with a me as Mal PC who was *never* able to resolve the "thing" with Inara because it'd fit the characters.

 

Again story character is primary focus for me; I just think that within the realms of making those elements in the game Romance could be a part of it (but not must be, because again the story and characters involved may not make sense.)

[nikolokolus]

To those who oppose any kind of romances, know that they sell games and we need the game to sell if we want more games from Obsidian.

Well said. If they add the option to sex the companion characters in PE, HUNDREDS of refugees dislocated by the closure of BSN's romance subforums will buy the game.

 

Presumably they'll all be posting here from then on? Nope, sorry. I don't think we can take that kind of risk.

Edited October 18, 2012 by nikolokolus

[Kymriana]

 

Let's stick with your Firefly references, because Firefly is awesome. If PE is Firefly, and Mal is my sole PC, I don't care if Wash and Zoe are in a relationship. That's on the side as part of the plot/setting.

 

However, if I'm controlling a party of the whole crew, I don't want to have dialogue tree options allowing the player to pretend to be Wash or Zoe and awkwardly "develop" the relationship. I'm not saying relationships shouldn't exist in the game world, simply that as a player, the act of using actions or dialogue to pursue these cardboard relationships adds nothing to my gameplay experience.

 

Well, the problem I see with this is that you are doubting that the Obsidian writers can actually handle developing a relationship, be that romantic or otherwise, as anything but awkward cardboard cut-outs. Given that I DO think and expect that they can do so when not constrained by a Triple A Tyrant Over-Company forcing deadlines and un-necessary milestones on them, I wouldn't mind the option to pursue a well-written romance among other well-written relationship options.

 

As the player, my choices(or dialogue/action flags) dictate who I am to the party. How the party of pre-created characters react to that thread should be unique and understandable. Should that include romantic attraction if the flags hit match up to the NPC involved? I think so. It should also flag another NPC with deeply held beliefs in the opposite direction to consider slitting my throat at night or storming off from the party, vowing to never work with/trust someone again.

[Loranc]

I chose not to reply because I just don't agree that you have to sacrifice one thing for the other. A bit hard headed on this subject. I think at this point they actually have more money than what they need to make the game they promised us on the Kick starter, that's why I don't conclude that anything has to be lost, because I honestly believe they are over by at least 1 million dollars for the budget of the game. (Keep in mind that they have no engine to build, and very few things to build from the ground up.) I could be wrong about this, I don't make the argument that my estimation is without flaw, but I just truly believe they won't have to sacrifice anything to add romance to the game. (With that being said they should only add it if it fits the characters, and it shouldn't be a forced add.)

 

It is pretty hard-headed when you refuse to read the post and respond only in dollar terms and not in terms of time, which was my argument based on what the devs actually said as a constraint on the number of companions. Unless people are fine with hiring more writers from someplace like Bioware. Really, your refusal to even address an argument based in fact is very disappointing and doesn't cast your stance in a favorable light.

 

Though if Avellone needed two years to properly write equal-exclusive content for non/romance, I'd be fine with that, I suppose.

 

Found the interview:

Nick K: “Romances, are you planning on developing them in Project: Eternity as well?”

 

Feargus Urquhart: “Romances take a lot of effort, and I don’t want to be cagey on romances at all. We don’t want to make them a stretch goal, it’s just a question of if we feel comfortable with the funding. We have to do them right. Some people were giving us flak about, you know, the goal to get to the first companion, class, race, and things like that. They weren’t completely wrong in their criticism, but we don’t have nefarious reasons behind it. If it’s a pretty in depth companion Chris Avellone, who is a pretty quick writer, is looking at 2 or 3 months just for writing it up.”

 

So if one compromise is to have equal and parallel or exclusive non/romance content per companion, address that.

 

I never said I didn't read it, I said I chose not to respond because we were going in circles. And the reason I brought up dollar amounts was because there are plenty of good non bioware writers out there that would fit PE just fine. You almost seem to be against adding any other writers on the team and that Chris should write everything. All I'm saying is that if it fits the game and they do decide to add romance, they're not going to sacrifice other parts of the game to do that. I'm not sure why you would even think that they would.

[Merin]

Wow, no less than two people who more or less share my point of view in each their own way... *faints*

 

Maybe there is hope for the internet yet?

 

On a serious note, the above two sentences pretty much sums up a few posts of mine where I've tried to explain the same thing. Context is sometimes everything.

 

How far different is my stance from yours? I think more people are along this line than might seem apparent on the surface.

 

To those who oppose any kind of romances, know that they sell games and we need the game to sell if we want more games from Obsidian.

Well said. If they add the option to sex the companion characters in PE, HUNDREDS of refugees dislocated by the closure of BSN's romance subforums will buy the game.

Man....

 

 

this is almost reverse trolling. Giving fodder to the people who think this is just about BioWare style romances.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Merin

[kenup]

To those who oppose any kind of romances, know that they sell games and we need the game to sell if we want more games from Obsidian.

Well said. If they add the option to sex the companion characters in PE, HUNDREDS of refugees dislocated by the closure of BSN's romance subforums will buy the game.

 

Presumably they'll all be posting here from then on? Nope, sorry. I don't think we can take that kind of risk.

Their numbers(and other qualities) will darken the skies of every thread.

Edited October 18, 2012 by kenup

[Merin]

Let's stick with your Firefly references, because Firefly is awesome. If PE is Firefly, and Mal is my sole PC, I don't care if Wash and Zoe are in a relationship. That's on the side as part of the plot/setting.

 

However, if I'm controlling a party of the whole crew, I don't want to have dialogue tree options allowing the player to pretend to be Wash or Zoe and awkwardly "develop" the relationship. I'm not saying relationships shouldn't exist in the game world, simply that as a player, the act of using actions or dialogue to pursue these cardboard relationships adds nothing to my gameplay experience.

 

I'd agree with you actually; as the PC the Wash / Zoe relationship shouldn't be mine to command over or develop. I'd see their relationship similar to Korgan hitting on Mazzy or Mazzy making that ranger her squire. Stuff you'd only see happen that creates the illusion that your party is full of people and not 17th lvl Fighter Dwarf and 17 level Fighter Halfling.

 

I'd also be okay with a me as Mal PC who was *never* able to resolve the "thing" with Inara because it'd fit the characters.

 

Again story character is primary focus for me; I just think that within the realms of making those elements in the game Romance could be a part of it (but not must be, because again the story and characters involved may not make sense.)

 

I may be a bit biased about the concept... but I'd be all for an unrequited romance for the PC in PE.

[evdk]

Man....

 

 

this is almost reverse trolling. Giving fodder to the people who think this is just about BioWare style romances.

He's not reverse trolling, he's just trolling. I would say the sig would be a dead giveaway.

[Gecimen]

I NEVER said "romance is mature". Please start by learning to read.... pfff...

You didn't? what is this then?

What we are asking is a mature cRPG to include romance because mature topics include romance amongst other concepts.

 

I'll repeat, please, learn to read. It's not saying all romance is mature. And I must say, all romance can not be considered mature. But the state of maturity in itself involves various levels of romance.

Don't play with words. "Mature topics include romance" means that "romance" can be or is a mature topic. But what is a mature romance? And how are many "romance" options mature? Give me an example of a mature romance vs immature one in cRPGs.

 

It's not me who's playing with words. I said "orange is fruit" you bent it to "fruit is orange".

 

As to examples of mature romance, I really wouldn't want to do it with existing cRPGs, but FO2, although subtle, humorous and sex oriented, displayed a certain level of maturity in this case. So did PS:T in my opinion. Better examples can and will be done in the future. On the other hand, romances in DA:O or SWTOR are not adressed in a mature level despite of love-making scenes. They are simply "give enough gifts to bed with X" mechanism aimed for puberty.

[Vargr Raekr]

The Pro - Romance Camp (Complete with MCA style twist(ed) ending):

 

 

The Anti - Romance / Hater Camp (me included ):

 

 

Maybe we should just spend the next two years just having romances and meaningful relationships in our lives instead.

[Snerf]

Let's stick with your Firefly references, because Firefly is awesome. If PE is Firefly, and Mal is my sole PC, I don't care if Wash and Zoe are in a relationship. That's on the side as part of the plot/setting.

 

However, if I'm controlling a party of the whole crew, I don't want to have dialogue tree options allowing the player to pretend to be Wash or Zoe and awkwardly "develop" the relationship. I'm not saying relationships shouldn't exist in the game world, simply that as a player, the act of using actions or dialogue to pursue these cardboard relationships adds nothing to my gameplay experience.

 

I'd agree with you actually; as the PC the Wash / Zoe relationship shouldn't be mine to command over or develop. I'd see their relationship similar to Korgan hitting on Mazzy or Mazzy making that ranger her squire. Stuff you'd only see happen that creates the illusion that your party is full of people and not 17th lvl Fighter Dwarf and 17 level Fighter Halfling.

 

I'd also be okay with a me as Mal PC who was *never* able to resolve the "thing" with Inara because it'd fit the characters.

 

Again story character is primary focus for me; I just think that within the realms of making those elements in the game Romance could be a part of it (but not must be, because again the story and characters involved may not make sense.)

 

I appreciate this response. It helps clarify my opinion. Romance as part of the setting = no problem. Romance as something to develop through gameplay choices between a player controlled character and a npc = not interested, would rather Obsidian spend that time and effort developing other things.

 

Really, FONV as an inspiration.

[Ieo]

I never said I didn't read it, I said I chose not to respond because we were going in circles. And the reason I brought up dollar amounts was because there are plenty of good non bioware writers out there that would fit PE just fine. You almost seem to be against adding any other writers on the team and that Chris should write everything. All I'm saying is that if it fits the game and they do decide to add romance, they're not going to sacrifice other parts of the game to do that. I'm not sure why you would even think that they would.

 

It's not even a circle if you skip addressing the argument in words and say "money" and expect others to figure that out as a legitimate point. (Really, was it that much work just to say that?)

 

If the debate then can go down to "Obsidian should hire more writers," that's a whole other thing. And no, I don't think Obsidian should hire more writers; Avellone and Ziets should be enough for full consistency. I can't find the BG2 credits for the writers, and for some reason IMDB is listing only Lukas Kristjanson, whoever that is, and PS:T obviously had Avellone. It'd be interesting to see how many writers were used in other AAA games.

[nikolokolus]

I'm notifying PETA, clearly that is animal abuse.

[Industrial Scribe]

Stories and sagas are driven by three basic things LOVE, DEATH and GOLD.

(or Family, threats and resources to put it in more boring terms)

 

To take any of these vital elements of story telling out and you have a lesser story. Romance is a huge narrative imperative and any good game will include it (even if it is in its subverted form like in PS:T)

 

I found enjoyment in the Aribeth de Tylmarande story in NWN and the fact it didn't work out till much later in the series (in a kinda odd way) was a nice ending and a good story.

 

I think the ROADBLOCK ROMANCES that bioware seemed to put into its later games would have been better if they were more subtle but they are written for the CONSOLE so have a demographic to hit.

 

I want good stories and blood, sugar, sex and magic seem to be a good starting point for an adventure I can enjoy as more than a very pretty game of chess.

[Loranc]

I'm going to duck out of this thread probably permanently. I think I've pretty must got the gist of how people feel about romance. And for the most part I'm in agreement with the majority of you guys, so I really see no reason to keep going back and forth until PE actually submits something about it in an update.

 

The main points I agree with are; (In no particular order)

 

*It should only be added if it fits the story.

 

*It doesn't need to revolve around the main character.

 

*It shouldn't be forced.

 

*Every companion should not be romance able.

 

*It should be added in a way that adds depth and feel to a character, and not something cheesy 'fan service' equivalent.

 

*I shouldn't have to romance a character in order to get the same feeling of depth and overall emotion. The companions should have the same depth and emotion to them with or without being romanced. (This is a big one for me, I felt that a lot of games you 'had' to romance a character in order to get an in-depth feel for them. It actually ruined a lot of gaming experience for me.)

 

*Romance doesn't have to be based on sex, the romance could be something with an underlying text. (I could picture the main character having feelings for someone but never being able to express them, sort of scenario. Not sure what this is actually called but i'm sure there's a named for it.)

 

*The romance doesn't always have to be goofy-fun. (I'd love for a game to do a dark romance. Perhaps they introduce a character that is really enjoyable, someone you really grow to love/like, and then something tragic happens to them.)

 

Anyways, I've spent way too much time on these forums lately and I really need to get to playing some games.

[kenup]

I NEVER said "romance is mature". Please start by learning to read.... pfff...

You didn't? what is this then?

What we are asking is a mature cRPG to include romance because mature topics include romance amongst other concepts.

 

I'll repeat, please, learn to read. It's not saying all romance is mature. And I must say, all romance can not be considered mature. But the state of maturity in itself involves various levels of romance.

Don't play with words. "Mature topics include romance" means that "romance" can be or is a mature topic. But what is a mature romance? And how are many "romance" options mature? Give me an example of a mature romance vs immature one in cRPGs.

 

It's not me who's playing with words. I said "orange is fruit" you bent it to "fruit is orange".

 

As to examples of mature romance, I really wouldn't want to do it with existing cRPGs, but FO2, although subtle, humorous and sex oriented, displayed a certain level of maturity in this case. So did PS:T in my opinion. Better examples can and will be done in the future. On the other hand, romances in DA:O or SWTOR are not adressed in a mature level despite of love-making scenes. They are simply "give enough gifts to bed with X" mechanism aimed for puberty.

So they were subtle in the games you consider mature. In PST as far as I remember, they were limited and they were part of the narrative. Then why did you make a list of features, based on how many different options there should be? And that there should be bitter things like marriages with raped victims and persons the pc widowed? Those are not subtle. Too many options, don't make them subtle or mature.

 

And again you play with worlds. If you said "orange is fruit", which is a very bad analogy, since nobody argues that an orange isn't a fruit, but let's forget about that. I said "a fruit can be an orange". But what chances does that fruit romance has to be an orange mature?

Edited October 18, 2012 by kenup

[FlintlockJazz]

I'm going to duck out of this thread probably permanently. I think I've pretty must got the gist of how people feel about romance. And for the most part I'm in agreement with the majority of you guys, so I really see no reason to keep going back and forth until PE actually submits something about it in an update.

 

The main points I agree with are; (In no particular order)

 

*It should only be added if it fits the story.

 

*It doesn't need to revolve around the main character.

 

*It shouldn't be forced.

 

*Every companion should not be romance able.

 

*It should be added in a way that adds depth and feel to a character, and not something cheesy 'fan service' equivalent.

 

*I shouldn't have to romance a character in order to get the same feeling of depth and overall emotion. The companions should have the same depth and emotion to them with or without being romanced. (This is a big one for me, I felt that a lot of games you 'had' to romance a character in order to get an in-depth feel for them. It actually ruined a lot of gaming experience for me.)

 

*Romance doesn't have to be based on sex, the romance could be something with an underlying text. (I could picture the main character having feelings for someone but never being able to express them, sort of scenario. Not sure what this is actually called but i'm sure there's a named for it.)

 

*The romance doesn't always have to be goofy-fun. (I'd love for a game to do a dark romance. Perhaps they introduce a character that is really enjoyable, someone you really grow to love/like, and then something tragic happens to them.)

 

Anyways, I've spent way too much time on these forums lately and I really need to get to playing some games.

 

I actually agree with pretty much this whole post, especially with the part about characters having depth with and without romance, and I do think alot of people arguing here are actually in agreement with each other without realising too.

[bobobo878]

The Anti - Romance / Hater Camp (me included ):

http://youtu.be/csPPqdbcVwM

Hard to argue with that, Rarity is the best pony after all.

[Gecimen]

Not all mature fiction include romance at all.

 

I read all kinds of fiction and I must say the ones that can be considered mature 90% of the time includes romance even if it's a only soldier writing a letter to his fiancee. Can you please exemplify which mature fiction doesn't include romance "at all"? Or even better I'll give you 5 opposite examples for each of yours.

 

What about Aflred Bester's Demolished Man? Or Philip K. D Ick's The Man in the High Castle? Those mature enough for you?

 

edit: WTF, I can't write name D*ck?

 

Both are invalid examples.

 

I've read Demolished Man a few years ago and the story was full of sexual tension between Ben and her secret sister, not to mention the party (where the murder occured) with orgies and other erotic games. So that one is out.

 

I've read Man in the high castle long time ago and I don't really remember names and stuff but there was a lot of sexual stuff there either. I asked wikipedia and found lots of it but one is enough: "Juliana, living in Colorado, begins a sexual relationship with Joe Cinnadella, a truck driver claiming to be an Italian war veteran."

[Merin]

Okay, okay... I said attacking the person is bad.

 

I'm being bad.

 

But it is very, very hard for me to take seriously a brony telling people to go out and have a real life.

 

apologies if you are an adolescent girl, Vagr Raekr

[bobobo878]

Man....

this is almost reverse trolling. Giving fodder to the people who think this is just about BioWare style romances.

He's not reverse trolling, he's just trolling. I would say the sig would be a dead giveaway.

What's that supposed to mean? Haven't you ever played Mass Effect 3? Morinth got totally screwed by the writers, they turned her into a monster! She deserves a WAY better ending.

[Vargr Raekr]

Okay, okay... I said attacking the person is bad.

 

I'm being bad.

 

But it is very, very hard for me to take seriously a brony telling people to go out and have a real life.

 

apologies if you are an adolescent girl, Vagr Raekr

 

I don't have a life, do i?

 

So ... I'm a zombie then?

[Merin]

Man....

this is almost reverse trolling. Giving fodder to the people who think this is just about BioWare style romances.

He's not reverse trolling, he's just trolling. I would say the sig would be a dead giveaway.

What's that supposed to mean? Haven't you ever played Mass Effect 3? Morinth got totally screwed by the writers, they turned her into a monster! She deserves a WAY better ending.

 

It means that I know you aren't trolling - you are serious....

 

but what you are saying is directly feeding into the beliefs a few people here who think all people saying that romance in games is good are people looking for BioWare's formulaic relationship with companions system.

 

Apologies if it comes across as me saying you are trolling or aren't honest - I've seen you post elsewhere and know you are serious about this.

 

Just - what you are posting with this is EXACTLY what some people are all about.

 

But it is very, very hard for me to take seriously a brony telling people to go out and have a real life.

I don't have a life, do i?

 

So ... I'm a zombie then?

 

You have a life. I simply mean - you know - bronies are the subject of about as much unwarranted hatred as Twihards... so for them to try and make pseudo-judgmental statements about other's life due to their interests...

 

comes across as more than a little ironic, don't you think?

Edited October 18, 2012 by Merin

[Gicusan]

If it is done well, I am for it as I am for any other relation building with any npc. Feed the fans a little.

 

But what I want, in order to feel real, is to be able to bang a girl here and there. I am a hero, there should be some groupie in a city I saved ready to show me all her specially shaved parts. Or a night of drunkenness and in the morning I am found out in the ample arms of the ugliest half-orc girl, telling me how much she loves me. Or a witch possessing me for some evil purposes. Anyway, you dont have to show me real arts of the bodies. I dont mind but we have to be able to sell this game to little guys as well. Make it half joke if needed.

 

I bang in real life. Many of you do it as well. Some dont too much and could be a special bonus to them. Let me immerse into this game and if it is mature in many ways, it should be in this direction as well. Real fantasy.

I dont care much if I fall in love with that sexy, flying spirit, could be fun, but banging it, even in dialogue, would certainly be more fun. I played DA2 and many romances in rpgs lately and I dont exactly remember most of them. But I remember the girls on the street in Witcher. It certainly makes you talk to every girl in the game, even unnamed npc

 

Saving a catholic girl's school from the bad guys is out of discussion I guess but a brothel could be fine.

 

And dont forget the nurse, or cat ears.

 

Thanks in advance.

[SeekDWay]

I don't understand why people keep segregating "romance" out like it was some kind of different species of the human psyche. Feeling attraction (and the opposite) to people you spend a lot of time with is not a form of lycantropy.

 

I can understand that "feelings" make some people queasy and uncomfortable, but pretending that they don't play a role in communities (and I consider an adventuring party a mini community) is like pretending the Earth is flat (lalalalala I can't see the horizon). Fear, loathing, attraction, lust, obsession, hate etc. all make for interesting tensions and relations in such a mini community. Why single one particular facet of the spectrum out and keep telling "Don't go there!"?

 

Yes, I'm genuinely curious by nature

 

Exactly what I was trying to say earlier, your statement is much clearer than mine. Me rykes.

Edited October 18, 2012 by SeekDWay