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

[Tale]

Don't really care about romances in games. When they are in, I am trying to avoid them, and this is bad when they are almost forced on you like it was in Mass Effect (or maybe it was so because of the notorious dialogue wheel, I hate that thing). The only problem with romances is that they will take a lot of developer's time, which is better to spend on other things like writing more not-romance related dialogue.

 

That's an argument of 'what I like/want is more important than what they want' type of argument... and is, basically, a selfish type of claim. What you want is perfectly valid... but so is someone who wants a well-written(and I stress that, people... and have in every post I've made tyvm) interaction with companions that can include romance and rivalry. We are trusting the writers to know their characters well enough to be able to write a good story, be that with or without rivalry and romance. That people would like to have that option does not make it inherently wrong, or that they want to dumb down any other part of the game, either. Because we're not doing VO, motion-capture, movie-esque cut scenes but depending on the simple writing... it isn't NEARLY as much 'taking time from what *I* want' as people seem to think it will be, either.

 

No, that's an argument of preference. He would simply prefer the effort expended elsewhere. I don't see his statement making a claim to the validity of your opinion.

 

A number of people do prefer to see the required resources, whether you perceive them to be great or small, allocated to the aspects they desire. Yes, that is selfish. But so what? Requesting resource allocation in self-interest is a-okay. You do it, I do it, we all do it.

[RushAndAPush]

I'm sure people will be able to just make a mod for it.

Edited October 17, 2012 by RushAndAPush

[jarpie]

Tell me what other RPGs there are? Project Eternity is basicly first proper fantasy rpg in almost ten years and romance-crowd wants to turn it into Bioware game.

 

That's sticking a whole lot of words in a whole lot of people's mouths that have not, actually, been said. Just FYI.

 

Lot of people wants romances like in BG2 which were basicly proto-ME/DAO-romances and they share lot of similarities with those later ones. Remind me again who made BG2?

[Ruka]

Tell me what other RPGs there are? Project Eternity is basicly first proper fantasy rpg in almost ten years and romance-crowd wants to turn it into Bioware game.

 

That's sticking a whole lot of words in a whole lot of people's mouths that have not, actually, been said. Just FYI.

 

Lot of people wants romances like in BG2 which were basicly proto-ME/DAO-romances and they share lot of similarities with those later ones. Remind me again who made BG2?

 

A studio that lost most of its writers since then

Edited October 17, 2012 by Ruka

[mr.Ermac]

Remind me again who made BG2?

Canadians.

[skelleton]

I wouldn't mind romances if they are well written and not too over the top. Something along the lines of Planescape Torment. The dialogue there was very well written, but it left most everything up to ones imagination.

On the other hand if it is going to be like: "Hey i have a Shower. Lets ****" then i would not miss them.

[Jasede]

Edit: doublepost

Edited October 17, 2012 by Jasede

[Kymriana]

I agree, Tale, but the point I was making was that saying 'I don't want them to do romance because it will take away from what I want' is a 'selfish' statement because you are stating that you want to ignore what people want completely, not considering a balance, because you feel what you want is more important/better. I wasn't saying 'you are selfish and a bad person and you should feel bad!' I stated 'that argument can be considered a 'selfish' type of claim for why you don't want a particular resource'.

 

jarpie: You stated that the 'romance-crowd' as a generalization to everyone who has commented that they would like to see some form of romance at all. Now it is 'a lot of people'... and then it goes to 'some'. If you say 'Some of those wanting romances want to take a bioware style on it, and I don't like that' then it would be fine. But you can't just paint everyone with the same brush and expect those who are not on that particular band-wagon not to go 'hey, wait a second...'

[Jasede]

A studio that lost most of it's writers since then

If I saw my workplace go down the drain and I was being forced to write soppy "always end in sex" romances I'd have left too.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Jasede

[StupidFahk]

I just want to say I would not like to see romance in the game. Didn't care for it in any of the Bioware games and don't care for it now.

So why you wouldn't like it to be in the game if you didn't care about it? Does it prevent you from playing the game however you want? *Sigh* I just don't understand some of you people...

[Tale]

I agree, Tale, but the point I was making was that saying 'I don't want them to do romance because it will take away from what I want' is a 'selfish' statement because you are stating that you want to ignore what people want completely, not considering a balance, because you feel what you want is more important/better. I wasn't saying 'you are selfish and a bad person and you should feel bad!' I stated 'that argument can be considered a 'selfish' type of claim for why you don't want a particular resource'.

What's wrong with a few elements ignoring the desires of a few people completely? You can't make everyone happy.

 

For me, there are several elements of the proposed design that ignore my interests. But there are other elements that make it up in the balance. I should hope exclusion of romances aren't the tipping point for too many people.

[jarpie]

I agree, Tale, but the point I was making was that saying 'I don't want them to do romance because it will take away from what I want' is a 'selfish' statement because you are stating that you want to ignore what people want completely, not considering a balance, because you feel what you want is more important/better. I wasn't saying 'you are selfish and a bad person and you should feel bad!' I stated 'that argument can be considered a 'selfish' type of claim for why you don't want a particular resource'.

 

jarpie: You stated that the 'romance-crowd' as a generalization to everyone who has commented that they would like to see some form of romance at all. Now it is 'a lot of people'... and then it goes to 'some'. If you say 'Some of those wanting romances want to take a bioware style on it, and I don't like that' then it would be fine. But you can't just paint everyone with the same brush and expect those who are not on that particular band-wagon not to go 'hey, wait a second...'

 

Yes I can, I just take a brush and paint them over...*brush brush* Easy!

 

But more seriously, there are many who have said that they want romances like in BG2 which are basicly like romances in the later Bioware games, are you denying that? Sure some have said they'd like to see romances like in PS:T and I could live with that.

 

Fortunately I trust Obsidian not to do romances like that if they decide to do them at all.

[Lysen]

No, that's an argument of preference. He would simply prefer the effort expended elsewhere. I don't see his statement making a claim to the validity of your opinion.

 

Exactly. I prefer PE not to have romances (like many other people). Last I checked, BioWare didn't stop making games. There are Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2, they both have romances, and Dragon Age 3 will be released in a year or two. There are a lot of games with romances that you can play. But did DA2 for example has a lot of dialogue options with companions that were not romance-related? No, at least I don't remember. Of course this is just my preference, but I rather play a rich RPG with a lot of dialogue and without romances. Do I have many options these days? No. Except for Fallout: New Vegas, and it was, unsurprisingly, made by Obsidian. So I hope that PE will also follow this path.

[D_F]

This thread is for all the romantics out there to continue discussions on the possibility of there being romances/relationships in Project Eternity.

So where's the thread for the anti-romantics ?

[oldmanpaco]

I made an "Official" thread here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61683-the-official-pe-relationshipromance-thread/

 

No crying allowed.

 

Post before it gets closed.

[oldmanpaco]

heh to late.

[Kymriana]

Jarpie: I would not argue that some who prefer a particular game have expressed a desire for this game to take a similar route. They're allowed to and this thread is there to let them express that. Just as both you and I are allowed to express our desire in that area and why. And I, too, trust that Obsidian will handle it well in whatever way the writers are comfortable with. They don't have to answer to a AAA publisher/tyrant-company with artificial deadlines and forced milestones that pushes them to pander. As someone who is a voracious reader, I know that the rise and fall of emotions in characters is important to both drawing readers in and making them care about what will happen. This is an old school game, not a 'play along movie'... so I expect the writing to be far and away better... which means that I also can see where romance and rivalry can be done well.

 

We all will wait and see what they do. And, like you, I trust them to do it well.

[Shevek]

Here is my two cents on this foolishness.

 

1. Romance story arcs are not required in all stories. Moreover, adding a romance story arc does not improve a story or a game. This is not a "feature." It is a plot device.

 

2. Having romancable party npcs has some significant downsides. Having romancable party members tends to degenerate into the player looking at every party member as a potential sexual conquest. So, we have 8 npcs and the player approaches conversations with his 8 cohorts attempting to find out who he can get naked. Hmm, does that monk dig elves? How about the wizard? Does he swing both ways? Hey, maybe if I make eyes at the dwarf, she'll bend over and show me some skin. Man, instead of an adventure, what do you get? Video game porno.

 

3. You can have romance OUTSIDE of party npcs that players can be free to explore or ignore and have it never come up in party dialogue or ruin someone's play experience.

 

4. Obsidian is not Bioware and should not be expected to have gratutious sex scenes or ridiculous dating sim mechanics. I know many IE folks love their romances (there was even an incestual Imoen romance that was quite popular if memory serves) but that does not mean that all of us want to be able to get every elf, halfling or whatever into the sack.

[kenup]

Here is my two cents on this foolishness.

 

1. Romance story arcs are not required in all stories. Moreover, adding a romance story arc does not improve a story or a game. This is not a "feature." It is a plot device.

 

2. Having romancable party npcs has some significant downsides. Having romancable party members tends to degenerate into the player looking at every party member as a potential sexual conquest. So, we have 8 npcs and the player approaches conversations with his 8 cohorts attempting to find out who he can get naked. Hmm, does that monk dig elves? How about the wizard? Does he swing both ways? Hey, maybe if I make eyes at the dwarf, she'll bend over and show me some skin. Man, instead of an adventure, what do you get? Video game porno.

 

3. You can have romance OUTSIDE of party npcs that players can be free to explore or ignore and have it never come up in party dialogue or ruin someone's play experience.

 

4. Obsidian is not Bioware and should not be expected to have gratutious sex scenes or ridiculous dating sim mechanics. I know many IE folks love their romances (there was even an incestual Imoen romance that was quite popular if memory serves) but that does not mean that all of us want to be able to get every elf, halfling or whatever into the sack.

Best Post so far.

[Fluffle]

Honestly, I would prefer the developers decide on where they want to put their effort.

 

Can we agree that we will not agree on everything concerning romances?

In my eyes there is no way to please everyone.

 

In my eyes, a video game is a piece of art, just like a book, too.

And we should respect the author's/artist's/developer's decision

to create his/her piece of art s/he wants.

 

I do not need certain romances to be included to meet quotas.

I want romances to be included because the artist has decided

that it fits in his book/video game.

 

The point: "But romances are optional, you do not have to use them!"

is met with the point "But if there were less or none romances at all the developers could spend time on other things"

 

(And btw, will people agree on which these other things should be? Most likely not I fear)

 

And if the developers do not wish to spend time on something else?

What if they want to spend time on including romances, because

they believe it enriches their piece of art?

[Gurkog]

I wouldn't mind romances like that creepy stalker elf chick in NWN2. That was good stuff and even better since I find elves annoying and repuslive. If there are any relationships developed, they should be implied. I don't want the game to shove it in my face because it assumes players can't notice subtlety (Any of Bioware's work after being acquired by the evil EA overlords).

[LadyCrimson]

1. Romance story arcs are not required in all stories. Moreover, adding a romance story arc does not improve a story or a game. This is not a "feature." It is a plot device.

From my personal perspective, I would largely agree with this. Romance stories don't improve a game for me. They might for someone else, however.

 

I prefer relationships of player character/NPC's to be more subtle and subject to interpretation/my own imagination rather than spelled out. However, I don't mind if they're a part of the game ... as long as it's optional and I can choose to ignore the fact an NPC may have a crush on that NPC or whatever. eg, it's not essential to complete relationship quests to finish the main plot of the game and/or there are other alternative paths to take.

[Ieo]

There are compromises available for the mere inclusion of romance paths. The only question is how much manpower (linear development time) is required to implement them.

 

(1) Majority non-romance content for any romanceable character, where the romance path doesn't take more than maybe a quarter or something of total character content. Anything close to 50/50 for a character's content split is just too much of a sacrifice, IMO, since we don't have many companions to pick from.

 

(2) Full parallel development paths that are mutually exclusive: If there are 40 banters and 3 quests down the romance path, then there are 40 different banters and maybe the same 3 quests down the nonromance best friend path.

 

(3) One pansexual option. (........That was actually a friend's suggestion. I'm... I'm not even sure how I feel about that.)

 

 

Then that leaves additional problems for players wanting variety: M/F, F/M, M/M, F/F. Which I won't worry about because I'm more concerned with overall general good character content regardless of romance.

[Amentep]

I don't really care, to be honest.

 

But, I don't see the point of telling a story that is primarily focused on telling a story and role-playing a character with joinable NPCs and not detailing the relationships that grow or fracture in the party.

 

Apologies to Shevek up front for using his post as a jump off point for my ideas -

 

Here is my two cents on this foolishness.

 

1. Romance story arcs are not required in all stories. Moreover, adding a romance story arc does not improve a story or a game. This is not a "feature." It is a plot device.

 

I agree Romance story arcs are not required in all stories. With joinable NPCs I do want personality and interaction with them and if in the case of a particular NPC that might lead to a romance scenario I'm fine with that. Does it improve the story or a game? I think it can, but again because I see romance as one possible aspect of larger character relationships (PST would be much poorer without character relationships even if nothing in it is what we typically refer to as romances). IWD has no interparty relationships and many people dislike it (it also allows you to create whatever relationship you want in your minds eye, thought).

 

2. Having romancable party npcs has some significant downsides. Having romancable party members tends to degenerate into the player looking at every party member as a potential sexual conquest. So, we have 8 npcs and the player approaches conversations with his 8 cohorts attempting to find out who he can get naked. Hmm, does that monk dig elves? How about the wizard? Does he swing both ways? Hey, maybe if I make eyes at the dwarf, she'll bend over and show me some skin. Man, instead of an adventure, what do you get? Video game porno.

 

Having prostitutes in games where paying them fades to black like BG and PST had don't make the game porno. Heck, being able to become a porn star in Fallout 2 doesn't make that game a porno.

 

3. You can have romance OUTSIDE of party npcs that players can be free to explore or ignore and have it never come up in party dialogue or ruin someone's play experience.

 

I'd agree that the PC could have a possibility of outside of party character being romanceable. Mind you most adventuring parties spend more time with each other than in a town, so again I think a joinable NPC should be a valid romance if it makes sense with the character.

 

4. Obsidian is not Bioware and should not be expected to have gratutious sex scenes or ridiculous dating sim mechanics. I know many IE folks love their romances (there was even an incestual Imoen romance that was quite popular if memory serves) but that does not mean that all of us want to be able to get every elf, halfling or whatever into the sack.

 

I think the problem with your argument is that I'd say - perhaps wrongly - that the largest section of people behind romance like it because it adds to the PC and NPCs story, not because they want to see pixilated sex with every character (Note that this is different from people wanting every character to be romanceable for "equality" purpose, which again isn't about sex every character alive but about making sure romance could be an option for their PC).

 

Again, ultimately I think romance should be down to the character and what makes sense. And if Obsidian doesn't make any romances because it doesn't fit the NPCs and their relationship with the PC - I'm okay with that. Because in the end I want the characters to be well realized and romance can be a part of that and it can also not be.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Amentep

[Pshaw]

I want to second what Kymriana has been saying. The basic problem with excluding romance options entirely is that if you enjoy that sort of thing you then need to rely solely on the mod community otherwise you will not having any of that aspect of the game to enjoy.

 

When it comes to development time everything else will already be included to some degree or another. All the party members will have dialogue and most likely quests as well that delve into their characters. The game will already have plenty of side missions and main quests. The world will already be fleshed out and fully realized. Adding romances to the game will not removed these elements of the game. All told they might lose a bit here and there but all those elements will still be present in the game for you to enjoy and experience.

 

I don't think cutting out a fairly simple to implement aspect of the game that many people clearly care about in order to have a bit more of what we'll already have tons of is in fact 'the best use of development time/resources' as some people are claiming. Granted it's just my opinion, perhaps I'm biased, but it just seems so close minded to want to have this aspect of the game cut so you have have 35 convestations with an NPC as opposed to 30 or perhaps 300 side quests instead of 280with the inclusion of romances.

 

Also quite honestly I love deep friendships in RPGs and find them important and all but even they only go so far. If you really want to know everything there is to know about a character it makes sense to me that you might need to me more than just friends in order for them to confide in you every detail of their past. I don't think it should be the case with everybody. I firmly believe that not every party member should be ready and willing to fall in love with your main character. However I do feel that in some cases it makes more sense to not delve too deeply into your party members lives without being involved romantically.