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

[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.

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?

 

I'm really tired of this but again, all romantic themes doesn't have to be mature, and I didn't say that... I'm saying, it can/should be adressed in a mature and realistic level and complete lack of romance would result in a drawback in maturity level.

 

In FO2, the PC could be forced to marry a man/woman he/she slept with. In PST the player dealt with stories of broken hearts he caused. These are fine examples but also they don't dominate the story.

Yes I gave examples of mature romance themes but I don't want romance to dominate the story unless the main plot is about love. And unless it's some kind of wicked love, I don't think it's a good idea. Yet leaving romance out is not a good option.

[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.

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.

Really? Awesome? Did you see that thread I did on BSN about Ardat-Yakshi brain extracts?

[Estelindis]

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

Not really a fan of "surprise sex," I must say, doubly so when used as so-called comedy...

[jarpie]

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."

 

Been ten years since I read those so I my memory is fuzzy, and I was at work. Now that I am at home I can give better examples, what about 2001: A Space Odyssey? M by Fritz Lang, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre? Platoon by Oliver Stone, that serious enough for you? The Thing by John Carpenter?

[Merin]

Really? Awesome? Did you see that thread I did on BSN about Ardat-Yakshi brain extracts?

 

I actually avoid most of the game forums, and have since a little after Dragon Age 2 released... and almost never visited the Mass Effect forums, to be honest. I was there for Dragon Age: Origins, and stayed pseud-active due to making friends there.

 

But I recognize your forum name and avatar, so there's that.

[Gicusan]

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

Not really a fan of "surprise sex," I must say, doubly so when used as so-called comedy...

 

Comedy is part of life. Of course I was exaggerating with a cliche there. Of course never happened to me. I mean it looked like it but there are no half orcs in Romania.

 

Dont tell me you are against nurse outfits as well.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Gicusan

[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?

 

I'm really tired of this but again, all romantic themes doesn't have to be mature, and I didn't say that... I'm saying, it can/should be adressed in a mature and realistic level and complete lack of romance would result in a drawback in maturity level.

 

In FO2, the PC could be forced to marry a man/woman he/she slept with. In PST the player dealt with stories of broken hearts he caused. These are fine examples but also they don't dominate the story.

Yes I gave examples of mature romance themes but I don't want romance to dominate the story unless the main plot is about love. And unless it's some kind of wicked love, I don't think it's a good idea. Yet leaving romance out is not a good option.

That's because the father of those npcs is pissed about your deed, not because of happy "romance". And considering that you can be a pornstar, I don't see any romance arc here. Nobody says it should "dominate" the story. But relationships do affect the persons involved. You can't just have a romantic relationship with someone in a story and not affect the plot, and if it doesn't it's just a minigame. And won't multiple romances, in the same time table affect their quality, since each one of them will be given less attention by the author? And excluding romance is not a good option? According to what, sales? Plot integrity? Self satisfaction? Does the inclusion of other kinds of relationships instead of romance make up for any of those?

[Estelindis]

Comedy is part of life. Of course I was exaggerating with a cliche there.

I love comedy in general, but what you described trivialised the issue of consent when drunk and reinforced a gender double standard that says that guys don't really mind "surprise sex."

 

You're free to think this is hilarious and I am free to disagree.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Estelindis

[LadyCrimson]

I want dynamic relationships; rivalries, friendships, relatives and more. I don't think every NPC should be romanceable. I even think that there are plenty of scenarioes and NPCs where romance makes no sense for the characters involved (even whole games - again if PE has no romances I'll not have an issue so long as the characters are well realized).

Agree with this whole bit.

 

As many regulars here know from the past, I liked Boone a lot in FNV. And I know a lot of fans of that chr. that wished he had been romanceable in-game (I don't mean just being able to bump uglies, but actual plot romance). But I didn't, and would have been disappointed if he had been. To me that would have invalidated/compromised the whole character arc/background story that had been created, the very things which had me so attached in the first place.

 

A romance in-game to me has to make sense and feel like some kind of natural progression of character over time, not be there for the sake of being there, or just consist of 3 dialogue lines.

[Gicusan]

Comedy is part of life. Of course I was exaggerating with a cliche there.

I love comedy in general, but what you described trivialised the issue of consent when drunk and reinforced a gender double standard that says that guys don't really mind "surprise sex."

 

You're free to think this is hilarious and I am free to disagree.

 

You are reading too much into it. I am speaking from my perspective. I am just a guy and not one of the smartest ones. Dont kick me too bad. Never said we should skip Jonny D - the sexy pirate. With cat ears if you like. I am afraid a nurse outfit on top would be too much.

[Jarmo]

The big disconnect I'm finding with the pro-romancers here is that many of you probably share my stance in principle, but arguing for romances as a game feature in practice.

 

"It adds to companion depth"

 

"It adds to interaction"

 

"It adds to roleplaying decisions"

 

Whether or not this is the case, the prism you're viewing romance is as a game feature. Regardless of whether it would make sense for the characters, make sense for the narrative, or make sense for the themes.

 

The reason why even people who are anti-romance like the way they were handled in Planescape: Torment was because they were woven into the core narrative themes of the game. Romances were used as a storytelling device. Not as a "let's make characters deep by letting you enter into a relationship with them" device.

 

I think you're right about that being the difference. Sort of.

But then, what are the stories about and what are the narrative themes?

And I guess you'd agree with me as well, in principle. Sort of.

 

From my viewpoint, the story and it's telling is maybe a 50-50 split between the story and what the player decides the story is.

Of it's a good rpg story, I don't see it as DM's (or developers) job to tell the story, but to lay the groundwork for the player to choose it.

In crpg it's impossible to allow the full freedom of tabletop, but it should be the goal, and the goal shouldn't be to emulate a movie with action scenes.

 

So was PST a story of how nameless one was in search of his name, did this and that with a help of a bunch of people and then found his destiny?

Was BG2 a story of how the protagonist seeks out the antagonist while overcoming many difficulties with a help of a bunch of people?

 

Or were the stories about the bunch of people overcoming the said difficulties, the main plot being merely the background for it?

 

If you see the main story as being central, party interaction being an added extra to liven things up, I'd guess you'll more easily object to the romances.

And if you see the story being about the people in the story, the main plot being there to give background and motivation, you'd accept romances more easily.

 

I'm not opposed to companions being unromanceable, if they are that, but I'm opposed to not giving my character a chance to try if that'd be what he'd want to do.

And I'd like a good reason for "no", if the party leader, being smartest, most powerful, most charismatic and most important person they know is interested in them.

 

I'm also opposed to adding companions to meet the "romanceable black, furry female" slot. Or making everybody bend every which way.

They should have characters and standards, and if you don't meet them, it's probably no go.

 

And it shouldn't be "a goal" set by the game to try and achieve. If you manage to booze up and seduce the maiden priestess,

I wouldn't expect her to get combat bonuses for it. Maybe she'd break up inside and be less effective, deciding to leave the group before long.

Maybe if you'd become her trusted companion instead, she'd draw strength from your friendship and then get the said combat bonuses.

 

--

scheissers, long post

Edited October 18, 2012 by Jarmo

[bobobo878]

I was there for Dragon Age: Origins, and stayed pseud-active due to making friends there.

Hell, that's half the reason anyone goes there anymore.

[amalgam]

i would prefer bg2 style romances, along with friendship path.

 

that would mean- 30+ talks that give TIME for any relationship to have actual depth. no mostly plot-related talks, or only-in-camp comments. i loved how npc's slowly developed over time, throuh many talks and additional mini plots. of course, i assume a more mature handling of the matter, above 12yo mark (no sex being the point of it all, no constant psychotherapy for companions etc.). on the similar note, i would prefer if romance would not be important for any bigger event, only showing few minor consequences, like bg2.

people love flaming romance threads, but like it or not sex (desire) and love (emotional connection) are integral feelings for any average human being, and since this is RPG, such matters are not beneath inclusion in videogame, quite contrary.

 

i cannot imagine adventuring through hells and world shattering experience with a set of companions, without any need to at least find temporary comfort in situation where you don't know if next fight will leave you dead. emotions tend to run high at times like that and people tend to connect because of similar experience and interests. i'm not saying it's impossible not having sex or romantic relationship, but that's why you decline it.

 

it makes no sense to me to remove the option to have romanceable companion if people want it, because some don't care for it. if obsidian decides to include such content, i hope they show some balls- no excessive carefull approaching the player, highlighted romance options and similar bull****. in real world you also dont have the luxury to direct others emotions, you only react to them. so if NPC's start talking, perhaps showing their attentions clearly or perhaps just getting to know you better, before revealing their feelings. at that point you get to decide if you shut them up, remain friends or develop relatonship. just like you can make the same choice of fihting or not, siding with one faction or the other.

 

edit- i noticed it is being talked about bisexuality. i support bisexual and gay content fully. romance is good or bad because of writing not because of "unrealistic game flag that decide if NPC is gay or bisexual based on PC gender", as seen already in DA2. romances there were bad because of lazy and sleazy writing, and nothing else.

Edited October 18, 2012 by amalgam

[evdk]

I actually avoid most of the game forums, and have since a little after Dragon Age 2 released... and almost never visited the Mass Effect forums, to be honest. I was there for Dragon Age: Origins, and stayed pseud-active due to making friends there.

 

But I recognize your forum name and avatar, so there's that.

So he's not trolling? That's arguably even worse.

[Ruka]

 

Sometimes, romance is rough

[bobobo878]

I actually avoid most of the game forums, and have since a little after Dragon Age 2 released... and almost never visited the Mass Effect forums, to be honest. I was there for Dragon Age: Origins, and stayed pseud-active due to making friends there.

But I recognize your forum name and avatar, so there's that.

So he's not trolling? That's arguably even worse.

Of course not, I mean every word I ever say.

[grotbag]

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.

 

I might get some of these wrong but: pretty much all of Beckett. Definitely some of Borges. Kafka. Moby-****. Tristram Shandy. Arguably Joyce? A Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich. If you're into that sort of thing, Blood Meridian. Life A User's Manual. Fernando Pessoa. Robinson Crusoe. The Old Man And The Sea. To Kill A Mockingbird doesn't include any significant functioning romantic relationships as far as I can remember. If On A Winter's Night A Traveller...

 

...no, there's tons, (and, sure, plenty more that do concern itself with the mechanics of love in painstaking detail) but I think this tangent misses the point. Even in a very soppy romantic story in other media, let's say Jane Austen, a highly-talented artist creates two fully-formed fictional characters who display such empathy and humanity and who seem to mesh so well together even in their flaws, so perfectly as individuals, that the reader sincerely hopes they'll find happiness with one another.

 

In an in-game romance, the artist isn't creating these two characters. They're creating one character who needs, at certain pre-set points if the player chooses the correct options, to pretend to be overwhelmed by the affection and charms of a total blank slate, and the audience is not invested in the tension of whether or not these two stars-aligned perfectly-matched individuals will find happiness together because one of the individuals is a puppet under their total control and because that NPC will always put out for anyone who chooses dialogue options ABBC and gives her a flower or rescues her once she's been kidnapped by the blue dragon, you can check it on GameFAQs. This sort of thing is never going to result in a genuinely, objectively great love story, because by the very token of being an interactive experience it has to be a (usually-dialogue based) predetermined challenge in which emotional attachment and even sex are presented as rewards for the correct forms of play. The paradigm's just inherently bust.

 

...okay, that was my last rant on the subject. Promise. Sorry.

[Orogun01]

23 pages in a day

Seriously, you people must be starved for love.

[evdk]

"VILLAGE IDIOT"

Somebody had an unfriendly encounter with the Codex, I see.

[Amentep]

In an in-game romance, the artist isn't creating these two characters. They're creating one character who needs, at certain pre-set points if the player chooses the correct options, to pretend to be overwhelmed by the affection and charms of a total blank slate, and the audience is not invested in the tension of whether or not these two stars-aligned perfectly-matched individuals will find happiness together because one of the individuals is a puppet under their total control and because that NPC will always put out for anyone who chooses dialogue options ABBC and gives her a flower or rescues her once she's been kidnapped by the blue dragon, you can check it on GameFAQs. This sort of thing is never going to result in a genuinely, objectively great love story, because by the very token of being an interactive experience it has to be a (usually-dialogue based) predetermined challenge in which emotional attachment and even sex are presented as rewards for the correct forms of play. The paradigm's just inherently bust.

 

I'd disagree to some extent. First that the idea that romance = sex (which seems to be a common thought in this thread); while sex could be an option in a relationship (and not even a romantic relationship, to be honest), I'd think it just as likely to not end in sex and still be completely satisfying as a character story arc.

 

Second, I'm personally not fond of the idea that the NPC characters shouldn't have a higher threshold for romance than "get the dialogue chain 'right'" (which is what I refer to as romances only failing if the PC chooses to fail it). That's not an NPC, then, they're an appendage of the PC and I disagree with that entirely. I see no problem with putting restrictions on what might even trigger an interest from the NPC - age, gender, traits like INT, WIS, CHR; the need for the PC to have a certain PERception to recognize that there might be interest. Again for romance to work (and move beyond the perception people have it of an automatic semi-nudity dialogue chain) then the NPC has to be a well realized character with specific interests which may or may not ever involve romancing the PC (or other NPCs in the party). Because that's the way of making good character, IMO, and good character supports good story (and vice-versa).

 

Now you may argue that that's a lot of work - and I agree, which is why it should only be used if it fits the game and character(s) involved. And since I think that it is possible to create story/characters where romance makes no sense I'd only want them in the game if it made sense to do so.

[grotbag]

I'd disagree to some extent. First that the idea that romance = sex (which seems to be a common thought in this thread); while sex could be an option in a relationship (and not even a romantic relationship, to be honest), I'd think it just as likely to not end in sex and still be completely satisfying as a character story arc.

 

Sure. I didn't mean to indelibly associate the two. By 'emotional attachment and even sex' I meant 'emotional attachment or even sex', but honestly, I find the 'emotional attachment' bit even more of a concern.

 

Second, I'm personally not fond of the idea that the NPC characters shouldn't have a higher threshold for romance than "get the dialogue chain 'right'" (which is what I refer to as romances only failing if the PC chooses to fail it). That's not an NPC, then, they're an appendage of the PC and I disagree with that entirely. I see no problem with putting restrictions on what might even trigger an interest from the NPC - age, gender, traits like INT, WIS, CHR; the need for the PC to have a certain PERception to recognize that there might be interest. Again for romance to work (and move beyond the perception people have it of an automatic semi-nudity dialogue chain) then the NPC has to be a well realized character with specific interests which may or may not ever involve romancing the PC (or other NPCs in the party). Because that's the way of making good character, IMO, and good character supports good story (and vice-versa).

 

Well, I don't think your plan can do anything more than obfuscate the fact that this so-called 'love story' is a reward-based game by making it a more complicated and therefore naturalistic reward-based game. So player characters have to be brunette or gnomish or under the age of 24 for the romance to trigger - it doesn't change anything significant. The player is still involved in a challenge in which the aim is to successfully win the fake affections of a fictional character through a proxy. That's not going to become less deeply problematic or Lars-And-The-Real-Girl-ish just because there are more specific conditionals required to win; it's just chipping away at Pygmalion's statue to make it more life-like.

[TheMufflon]

 

I might get some of these wrong but: pretty much all of Beckett. Definitely some of Borges. Kafka. Moby-****[sic]. Tristram Shandy. Arguably Joyce?

 

[Emphasis mine]

 

I'm sorry but if two men sharing a bed, spending their nights whispering secrets and giving each other Eskimo kisses isn't romance I don't know what is.

[grotbag]

I'm sorry but if two men sharing a bed, spending their nights whispering secrets and giving each other Eskimo kisses isn't romance I don't know what is.

 

Look, if you're going to start reading something into a perfectly innocent story about a group of sailors hunting for sperm on the high seas I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this.

Edited October 18, 2012 by grotbag

[Kymriana]

I'm sorry but if two men sharing a bed, spending their nights whispering secrets and giving each other Eskimo kisses isn't romance I don't know what is.

 

Look, if you're going to start reading something into a perfectly innocent story about a group of sailors hunting for sperm on the high seas I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this.

 

[Amentep]

Well, I don't think your plan can do anything more than obfuscate the fact that this so-called 'love story' is a reward-based game by making it a more complicated and therefore naturalistic reward-based game. So player characters have to be brunette or gnomish or under the age of 24 for the romance to trigger - it doesn't change anything significant. The player is still involved in a challenge in which the aim is to successfully win the fake affections of a fictional character through a proxy. That's not going to become less deeply problematic or Lars-And-The-Real-Girl-ish just because there are more specific conditionals required to win; it's just chipping away at Pygmalion's statue to make it more life-like.

 

Not really what I meant, but I can see how you got there. I'd argue that the highlighted sentence is a bit problematic, though. Aren't RPGs essentially always a case of "the player is involved in a challenge in which the aim is to successfully [complete action] within [fictional context]?" In other words a PC trying to save the world involves the player in a situation where the aim is to successfully save the fake world; a PC bartering is aiming to successfully win a fake negotiation with a fictional character through a proxy; a PC fighting an orc is aiming to successfully win a fake fight with a fictional character; a PC trying to camp is aiming to successfully fake sleep through a fake night via a proxy.

 

There is to me a logical disconnect as to why romances are singled out as somehow being "bad" because they're fictional - the game is fictional; but this brings us back to the argument (or perception) that I get from many of the anti-romance crowd that they believe the pro-romance crowd are fetishists who only want romance because it gives them real-life pleasure (thus the reason of contrasting this with the "fictional" and "fake" elements of the world).

 

Anyhow, (and to try and clarify what I was saying) because we're talking PC/NPC (as opposed to NPC/NPC relationship) there has to be elements (IMO) for the relationship to not start or to fail that are innately part of the game and not dialogue choices. Part of that is who the PC is (innate characteristic); part of it should be what the PC does. The second I mean beyond the lines of dialogues that are directly involving the PC and NPC but involve what the NPC "sees" the PC doing and interacting with the world an whether that NPC would support / be against those actions. This may include not protecting them in combat and things like that if reactivity could be included in such a way.

 

Maybe I'm wrong and it'll always devolve into some weird "minigame" in games. I just don't think it has to be and I hate to think one of the major types of human relationship to never be capable of being explored in RPGS (again unless it makes sense in the game for it to be devoid of same) or to exist in RPGs only as "press the right button combo for sexxor"

Edited October 18, 2012 by Amentep