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

[bobobo878]

Chances are if people want to really want to exploit some innocent whiny Elf girl (Aerie), manipulate a griveing widow (Jaheira), bed a loose skank (Viconia)

Is the sl*t shaming really necessary bud? : /

Edited October 19, 2012 by bobobo878

[Jasede]

Are you seriously defending sluts?

Edit: Not sure if you're talking about Viconia or the player lol!

Edited October 19, 2012 by Jasede

[Sykid]

Wait, exploiting naive girls and manipulating grieving widows is ok, but calling someone a skank is crossing the line?

Edited October 19, 2012 by Sykid

[HereticSaint]

Personally, I like romances in a game - as long as they are not as heavy-handed as the Bioware ones. A well written romance can and does enhance a game considerably, and I don't think the whole sex scene thing is necessary. My single caveat though, is that both hetro and homosexual relationships SHOULD be catered for - fair is fair, after all.

 

This is a big reason why romances do not work. Equity. Soon, all npcs must be bangable because the player must have equitable choices. Frankly, I hope OE avoids this pitfall entirely. If not, the entire slate of npcs will be little more than contestants on some fantasy dating game show.

 

No, this is fallacious and I'm kind of sick of seeing this argument. It's like saying, "You can recruit this character, but you can't recruit this one? You need to be able to recruit everyone!" Or..." You have low Int/Cha dialogue here? It should be an option as a response in literally every statement made my the PC." No, you don't have to have every Half-Elven/Half-Human with purple eyes and white hair fantasy that people want for NPC's that can be romanced. That isn't a good reason to leave romance out, stop using it. In fact, the very same thing could even be said about friendships if you want to go down that route.

Edited October 19, 2012 by HereticSaint

[bobobo878]

Wait, exploiting naive girls and manipulating grieving widows is ok, but calling someone a skank is crossing the line?

I think you may want to reread my post. Neither I nor the guy I quoted were advocating those first two things.

[Savvy30039]

Are you seriously defending sluts?

Edit: Not sure if you're talking about Viconia or the player lol!

 

And suddenly I see where the mindset against romances is coming from.

[Shevek]

No, this is fallacious and I'm kind of sick of seeing this argument. It's like saying, "You can recruit this character, but you can't recruit this one? You need to be able to recruit everyone!"

 

You are mixing issues. No one is arguing for or against character recruitment and the analogy you make is deeply flawed.

 

1) My argument is such: Games with romancable NPCs typically must have more than one romancable npcs to react to player sex choice and sexual reference choice (the one exception to this is games where they make the PC for you - like Torment). This leads to a significant perspective shift into how the player then views the party. The player soon makes a mental note of npcs as "sexable" and "nonsexable." This has little to do with people crying over why you couldn't recruit Drizzt.

 

2) If anything, NPC availability is reflective of developer intent to accomodate PC creation. In other words, devs tend to make enough npcs of varying classes to accomodate player's of any class. If romances are included, then the same philosophy leads to the issue described above.

 

Or..." You have low Int/Cha dialogue here? It should be an option as a response in literally every statement made my the PC."

 

Umm, I don't quite know what you are saying there. But, Cain said thats how he wants low int to work EXTENSIVELY so...

 

No, you don't have to have every Half-Elven/Half-Human with purple eyes and white hair fantasy that people want for NPC's that can be romanced. That isn't a good reason to leave romance out, stop using it.

 

 

Give me a real argument and I might.

 

In fact, the very same thing could even be said about friendships if you want to go down that route.

 

Actually, no. Building friendships and rivalries is NOT the same as trying to find your next hot date. One could argue that one would NEED to build trust between party members to triumph. One cannot argue that you must attempt to bed every female in your party in order to defeat the dragon in the next room.

[Gorth]

Actually, no. Building friendships and rivalries is NOT the same as trying to find your next hot date. One could argue that one would NEED to build trust between party members to triumph. One cannot argue that you must attempt to bed every female in your party in order to defeat the dragon in the next room.

I just need my companions to acknowledge me as alpha male and jump when I say "jump". Of course, it's not particularly romantic.

 

I still see it as a particular "flavour" of companion relationship together with those you listed (and a number of other kinds). For example, I don't see any "romances" in PS:T. Deionarra was manipulated, abused and discarded by the player when he had no need of her anymore, Annah felt lonely (and didn't join you willingly, Pharod ordered her to), FFG was fascinated by the tragedy that was You, Dakkon was your slave, Morte felt guilty for having betrayed you in a past life, Ignus and Vhailor both hated you and would eventually try to kill you. Nordom had nowhere to go, being an exile so he just tagged along for the ride. No "romance" anywhere, yet you still had an interesting vignette of characters, who had an interest in your person and you could decide to either care about them or take an entirely utilitarian approach to the relationships.

[Morality Games]

Personally, I like romances in a game - as long as they are not as heavy-handed as the Bioware ones. A well written romance can and does enhance a game considerably, and I don't think the whole sex scene thing is necessary. My single caveat though, is that both hetro and homosexual relationships SHOULD be catered for - fair is fair, after all.

 

This is a big reason why romances do not work. Equity. Soon, all npcs must be bangable because the player must have equitable choices. Frankly, I hope OE avoids this pitfall entirely. If not, the entire slate of npcs will be little more than contestants on some fantasy dating game show.

 

If equity is the issue, then Dragon Age: Origins has the right concept. Two straight pairings (Morrigan and Alistair) and two wild cards (Leliana and Zevran). Not quite fair, but reasonable given the demographics.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Morality Games

[Shevek]

Personally, I like romances in a game - as long as they are not as heavy-handed as the Bioware ones. A well written romance can and does enhance a game considerably, and I don't think the whole sex scene thing is necessary. My single caveat though, is that both hetro and homosexual relationships SHOULD be catered for - fair is fair, after all.

 

This is a big reason why romances do not work. Equity. Soon, all npcs must be bangable because the player must have equitable choices. Frankly, I hope OE avoids this pitfall entirely. If not, the entire slate of npcs will be little more than contestants on some fantasy dating game show.

 

If equity is the issue, then Dragon Age: Origins has the right concept. Two straight pairings and two wild cards. Not quite fair, but reasonable given the demographics.

 

Well, need I say more? Romances = bad.

[kenup]

Personally, I like romances in a game - as long as they are not as heavy-handed as the Bioware ones. A well written romance can and does enhance a game considerably, and I don't think the whole sex scene thing is necessary. My single caveat though, is that both hetro and homosexual relationships SHOULD be catered for - fair is fair, after all.

 

This is a big reason why romances do not work. Equity. Soon, all npcs must be bangable because the player must have equitable choices. Frankly, I hope OE avoids this pitfall entirely. If not, the entire slate of npcs will be little more than contestants on some fantasy dating game show.

 

If equity is the issue, then Dragon Age: Origins has the right concept. Two straight pairings (Morrigan and Alistair) and two wild cards (Leliana and Zevran). Not quite fair, but reasonable given the demographics.

Yeah but you see that's the point. Trying to appease to every demographic doesn't make anything more mature or deeper. It takes a feeling like romantic love and turns it into choose your own adventure minigame. Imagine if every movie had alternatives about every romantic relationship in them. NO matter how good or bad they might be on other accounts, the subject would change to "go and see your favourite x movie OTP doing it" or "see your OTP having a Happy ever after", even if the author never wanted this as the primary attraction.

Edited October 19, 2012 by kenup

[Pshaw]

Personally, I like romances in a game - as long as they are not as heavy-handed as the Bioware ones. A well written romance can and does enhance a game considerably, and I don't think the whole sex scene thing is necessary. My single caveat though, is that both hetro and homosexual relationships SHOULD be catered for - fair is fair, after all.

 

This is a big reason why romances do not work. Equity. Soon, all npcs must be bangable because the player must have equitable choices. Frankly, I hope OE avoids this pitfall entirely. If not, the entire slate of npcs will be little more than contestants on some fantasy dating game show.

 

If equity is the issue, then Dragon Age: Origins has the right concept. Two straight pairings and two wild cards. Not quite fair, but reasonable given the demographics.

 

Well, need I say more? Romances = bad.

 

Yes you need to say more :-p

 

Even if you think the romances in DA:O were bad (which is simply a matter of personal taste) pointing out 1 bad example of romances in games doesn't mean they're all bad. It would be like pointing to a poorly written fantasy book and saying that the whole genre is bad and shouldn't be attempted. If we can trust OE to make us a great RPG in every other aspect I don't see why we can't trust them to implement romances in an above average way.

[ddillon]

I posted the following yesterday but deleted it (by editing the post) because I decided it best not to get involved in this thread. Also, I tend towards preferring that romances *not* be included in PE. However, this thread is *still* raging, so I'll offer the suggestion again:

 

Would companion questlines that accommodate both friendship and romance suffice? If the player initiates a romance by flirting, further romance options could be offered during the course of the story (flirting, kiss, invitation to tent/room, etc), and dialogue could differ when appropriate, but the events and content (major conversations, quests, etc) of each path would otherwise be the same whether the PC is a close friend or a romantic partner. Perhaps after the completion of the character's questline, the PC could have repeatable basic romance options (flirt, kiss, invite to tent/room, etc) when speaking to the character if romance was chosen. The idea here is to minimize resources spent on romances and maximize access to companion content.

[Morality Games]

Personally, I like romances in a game - as long as they are not as heavy-handed as the Bioware ones. A well written romance can and does enhance a game considerably, and I don't think the whole sex scene thing is necessary. My single caveat though, is that both hetro and homosexual relationships SHOULD be catered for - fair is fair, after all.

 

This is a big reason why romances do not work. Equity. Soon, all npcs must be bangable because the player must have equitable choices. Frankly, I hope OE avoids this pitfall entirely. If not, the entire slate of npcs will be little more than contestants on some fantasy dating game show.

 

If equity is the issue, then Dragon Age: Origins has the right concept. Two straight pairings (Morrigan and Alistair) and two wild cards (Leliana and Zevran). Not quite fair, but reasonable given the demographics.

Yeah but you see that's the point. Trying to appease to every demographic doesn't make anything more mature or deeper. It takes a feeling like romantic love and turns it into choose your own adventure minigame. Imagine if every movie had alternatives about every romantic relationship in them. NO matter how good or bad they might be on other accounts, the subject would change to "go and see your favourite x movie OTP doing it" or "see your OTP having a Happy ever after", even if the author never wanted this as the primary attraction.

 

Admittedly, the masculinity of the Nameless One probably figured heavily into how Annah and Fall-From-Grace perceived and responded him. In that context, either equity should be abandoned or there should be one pairing a piece. Although it may be hard to swallow when the female elf is only interested in women, perhaps that is for the best.

 

Alternatively, they can try harder to add depth in other ways to make up for it. Even in Kotor II, if the Exile was female, Visas Marr would still find them compelling regardless of romantic indifference.

 

Would companion questlines that accommodate both friendship and romance suffice? If the player initiates a romance by flirting, further romance options could be offered during the course of the story (flirting, kiss, invitation to tent/room, etc), and dialogue could differ when appropriate, but the events and content (major conversations, quests, etc) of each path would otherwise be the same whether the PC is a close friend or a romantic partner. Perhaps after the completion of the character's questline, the PC could have repeatable basic romance options (flirt, kiss, invite to tent/room, etc) when speaking to the character if romance was chosen. The idea here is to minimize resources spent on romances and maximize access to companion content.

 

I'm not opposed to conservation of content in principle, but it has been over used in Bioware's most recent games.

 

Ultimately, we'll just have to trust Obsidian to implement such features in ways that engage the players.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Morality Games

[Jarmo]

Yeah but you see that's the point. Trying to appease to every demographic doesn't make anything more mature or deeper. It takes a feeling like romantic love and turns it into choose your own adventure minigame. Imagine if every movie had alternatives about every romantic relationship in them.

 

But an rpg is not a movie. It is essentially a "chooce your own adventure" and if you want to break apart aspects of it, they're essentially minigames.

Exploration minigame, puzzle minigame, combat minigame, discussion minigame, stronghold minigame, romance minigame.

 

I don't want an rpg where this glorious auteur has thought up the awesome plot you take upon, your romantic love story and the choices you make,

and then railroads you all the way down until the most awesome ending.

 

That can work just fine in a shooter or semi-rpg like titan quest or IWD. But if it's an RPG I want to play a role and make the choices.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Jarmo

[Valinthor]

I wonder if this rampant hate against romance in PE would have been possible if Bioware had not royally messed up in Dragon Age? Do you think BG2 would have been a better game without the romance options it had?

 

I am of the opinion that yes bioware's mess has created a lot of angst amongst gamers that believe having romances is bad. Especially if it is at the expense of better content in place of the romance and no I don't think BG2 would have been the same game it was without the dialogue it had and the characters and emotions it introduced.

 

I will stick to my stance of romance should be included if the following can be adhered to:

• Done tastefully without nude scenes (there are websites for that kinda stuff you know),
  
• Is deep and meaningful.
  
• Provides something to the story and the plot. (Lord of my Stronghold, Where is mah Lady? or the Milkmaid or the Cook ).
  
• Can be avoided if the player does not feel like it.
  

Edited October 19, 2012 by Valinthor

[Monte Carlo]

BG2 is a good model. The pros and cons of the content of those romances aside, they were easily shut down / avoided without much of a problem. I only ever tried the Viconia one. I often had Jaz in the party and her Harper quest was good, but you didn't need the romance to access that.

[Valinthor]

BG2 is a good model. The pros and cons of the content of those romances aside, they were easily shut down / avoided without much of a problem. I only ever tried the Viconia one. I often had Jaz in the party and her Harper quest was good, but you didn't need the romance to access that.

 

You are correct. I should add "can be avoided" to the list.

[qloher]

Would companion questlines that accommodate both friendship and romance suffice? If the player initiates a romance by flirting, further romance options could be offered during the course of the story (flirting, kiss, invitation to tent/room, etc), and dialogue could differ when appropriate, but the events and content (major conversations, quests, etc) of each path would otherwise be the same whether the PC is a close friend or a romantic partner. Perhaps after the completion of the character's questline, the PC could have repeatable basic romance options (flirt, kiss, invite to tent/room, etc) when speaking to the character if romance was chosen. The idea here is to minimize resources spent on romances and maximize access to companion content.

I salute you for for bringing this up. Awesome idea.

[.Leif.]

BG2 is a good model. The pros and cons of the content of those romances aside, they were easily shut down / avoided without much of a problem. I only ever tried the Viconia one. I often had Jaz in the party and her Harper quest was good, but you didn't need the romance to access that.

 

You are correct. I should add "can be avoided" to the list.

 

After skimming through this thread a bit that seems to be the best summary of what I expect from the writers, interesting dialogue/story choices that can be avoided.

[evdk]

BG2 is a good model. The pros and cons of the content of those romances aside, they were easily shut down / avoided without much of a problem. I only ever tried the Viconia one. I often had Jaz in the party and her Harper quest was good, but you didn't need the romance to access that.

 

You are correct. I should add "can be avoided" to the list.

 

Add "can be avoided while still leaving enough NPC interaction" to the list instead. With mots of the companions in BG2 when you shot down the romance there really was not much to talk about.

Edited October 19, 2012 by evdk

[jarpie]

BG2 is a good model. The pros and cons of the content of those romances aside, they were easily shut down / avoided without much of a problem. I only ever tried the Viconia one. I often had Jaz in the party and her Harper quest was good, but you didn't need the romance to access that.

 

You are correct. I should add "can be avoided" to the list.

 

Add "can be avoided while still leaving enough NPC interaction" to the list instead. With mots of the companions in BG2 when you shot down the romance there really was not much to talk about.

 

Yeah, BG2 isn't exactly good example because without romances there's very little other content for Jaheira, Viconia and Aerie when you shoot down the romances.

 

I have noticed that some people are so used to having romaces in games that they dont have imagination to imagine RPG what would be done without romances, as I said yesterday there are examples of the very mature films and books which doesn't have romances, such as Clarke's and Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (both the book and the film), or The Treasure of the Sierra Madre by John Huston, or Fritz Lang's M.

Edited October 19, 2012 by jarpie

[metacontent]

I hope there is sophisticated romance.

 

Specifically:

 

Enter a relationship with one character, but then fall in love with another and start an florid and secret love affair.

 

Inevitably the other character will discover the affair which will result in a messy break up, and them taking half my gold.

Edited October 19, 2012 by metacontent

[jarpie]

I hope there is sophisticated romance.

 

Specifically:

 

Enter a relationship with one character, but then fall in love with another and start an florid and secret love affair.

 

Inevitably the other character will discover the affair which will result in a messy break up, and them taking half my gold.

 

Edit: obvious troll is obvious

Edited October 19, 2012 by jarpie

[evdk]

 

Edit: obvious troll is obvious