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

[Ruka]

Here is my two cents on this foolishness.

 

Moreover, adding a romance story arc does not improve a story or a game. This is not a "feature." It is a plot device.

 

That's completely subjective. Romance arcs could go either way depending if it was written well or not. If it's some two bit romance like Mass Effect's Kelly then it doesn't improve anything. But if it's like FFX Tidus and Yuna then yes, it vastly improved the story.

[BrutaleBent]

--what type of romance plot do you enjoy (tragic, happy ending, marriage/family)?

I'm definitely the kind who ultimately likes a happy end, though, if it fits the general theme, I’m not gonna reject a tragic or bittersweet ending. Though, I much prefer happy ends, because I love to be the god damn hero who kicks evils butt for goodness (Yes, I am just about Minsc, and can never get myself to play the/a bad guy, sadly). Marriage, and family more so, is something that should most likely belong in an epilogue, BG2:ToB style, for me.

 

--are there particular game mechanics that you like to see when romances are included (complex questlines, cutscenes?)?

Well, not gonna say no to a questline, but preferably it should have something to do with the main story, or feel important and just not a “Ohh, you travelled to my grandmothers ogre infested house to get her necklace, while we are on an hasty quest to save the world!” It has to make sense. . Cutscenes are nice if done right. By done right, I mean animations, lack of censor ship if so needed. Think The Witcher 2 had it right in that regard, it’s time we, the world, got past the “omg nudity is bad in games, think of the kiiids”, but that’s another topic completely.

 

Knowing that this game will never go that way, I’m much in favor of how it was handled in BG2 + ToB, and KOTOR1. No visible “meter”, only variables in the background (meters makes for lousy romance/friendship RPG elements imo). Also, if animations are lackluster, BG2 style with just pop-up screens and text + good voice acting is fine for me.

 

--what romances or relationship plots from other games did you enjoy that can serve as examples?

Again, I really liked BG2 and KOTOR. What’s needed for romances, or even pure friendship/RPG in general, to work is that it feels natural, has depth, makes you feel something, like when watching a good movie and empathize with characters, be they NPC or your own. BG2 and KOTOR did that for me. KOTOR mainly because that game was made for exactly my type of character… Dual wielding lightsaber buttkicking mary sue getting the girl and saving the galaxy… Yeah yeah, sue me. :b And BG2 due it felt so “natural”, more or less.

Dragon Age 2 romances felt very forced. There were some decent elements in them, but they were usually a little over the top for me either with how strong they came on or how the character was made; emo elf boy, childlike in spirit and body elf chick, powerful gay wizard coming on to you the first dialogue option more or less… It just came on too strong or characters felt so very cliché. Liked Isabella to some degree though (bye bye credibility). However, the NPC gem for me was Bethany – we got along well and I cared for her.

 

--What, even, is romance?

Love! Be it the kind spurred by the irrationality of being “in love”/attraction, or love made by taking it the slow way of friendship -> attraction -> couple. I prefer the latter, though the first is not to be ignored either! Though, romances (or love if you will) can play out in a huge variety of ways, sooo, it’s all in the hands of the creator, as it can lead to good and bad things alike.

[Nonek]

There is only one romance I shall pursue:

 

This is my arquebus. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Her name is Ermintrude.

My arquebus is my one true love, it is my life. I must master it as I must master my own soul.

My arquebus, without me, is useless. Without my arquebus, I am useless.

I must fire my arquebus true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me.

I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...

My arquebus and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make.

We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...

My arquebus is human, even as I, because it is my life.

Thus, I will learn it as a lover. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel.

I will keep my arquebus clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...

By my soul, I swear this creed. My arquebus and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is ours and there is no enemy, but peace!

 

All other loves are pathetic and transitory.

[cprodrigues]

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 ?

 

I will sign a thread like this.

[Chrząszczyrzewoszyczanin]

I made an "Official" thread here: http://forums.obsidi...romance-thread/

 

No crying allowed.

 

Post before it gets closed.

From that thread:

In W1 you could get STDs.

I'm pretty sure witchers immune system makes it impossible for them to get STD.

[Crusty]

I'm just going to copy-paste my thoughts in the other thread. I need to regen my stamina before I'm comfortable with re-engaging in a romance thread.

 

-------------

 

The kind of love and romance we've seen guys like Avellone and Ziets provide in games like PS:T, KotOR 2 and Mask of the Betrayer seem adequate to me. There is love in there, just not in typical video game romance fashion. Kreia's love for the Exile, for example. I like Avellone's stance in that everything regarding characters and writing ought to have some sort of narrative or thematic drive and purpose. If love or friendship is apart of that, then fine.

 

But the notion that we ought to be having romances for the sake of having them, or that it makes characters "deeper" is the same kind of mindset that gets us BioWare romances. I'm not saying that romances in games always end up in the sexual wish fulfillment direction theirs do. They don't. But the motives for having romances is critical in how they are implemented into the game. In the case of "I like romances and they should be in because it means deeper character interaction", we're arguing for romances as a game feature, not as a narrative or thematic hook.

 

That encourages the kind of stuff we see in BioWare games where the ability to romance a variety of characters becomes more important than the character themselves. Romances as game feature. Romances as sexual wish fulfillment.

 

Let's not even get into the "game has limited resources and Obsidian's "15 person team" is going to be in full crunch mode for ~18 months to get this done as it is" argument.

[el pinko grande]

Okay. So, if there's going to be romances, which I would like, I do think they need to involve some roleplaying. Don't just make it a single track that leads inevitably to the same place- let players make choices. My personal favorite romances are probably Viconia in BG2 and Jack in ME2. I dig the redemption angle, especially because redemption isn't the only possible path for those characters. On the flip side, I'm willing to bet players who are into playing evil characters would like the opportunity to corrupt otherwise good NPCs, as well.

 

And even if you're not effecting huge changes in the NPCs character, I still think the romances should have multiple paths. Hell, I think relationships with every companion NPC should have multiple paths, romantic or not. It adds depth to the companions, and its a great opportunity for the player to make decisions that define who their character actually is.

 

Oh, and please don't make it so that the good path leads to the happy ending and the evil path leads to the unhappy ending. I don't think that's something that Obsidian would actually do, but still. Good intentions shouldn't necessarily lead to good outcomes. I mean, they certainly can if its organic to the story being told, but I don't want it to be an automatic outcome.

[evdk]

I made an "Official" thread here: http://forums.obsidi...romance-thread/

 

No crying allowed.

 

Post before it gets closed.

From that thread:

In W1 you could get STDs.

I'm pretty sure witchers immune system makes it impossible for them to get STD.

Wasteland 1. It's from the 80's.

[Living One]

I'll just copy-paste an old post:

 

 

1-the "but love and sex are parts of life and should be represented!" argument from pro-romancers isn't a sufficient reason to have an actual romance for the PC.Like at all.At most it's an argument to have stuff like NPCs that are married(not in a"big deal way" like many would seem to like:just something like "the blacksmith you are buying stuff from has a wife that runs the shop at different hours,etc.")or some occasional flirty lines(like FNV with Cass)or something minor like that.If it was really a sufficient reason then every story would have the protagonist fall in love with someone.Wich just isn't the case.

2-the fact that RPGs have side stories(in the form of quests)isn't a justification for romances either:the main quest and side quests that are thematically relevant to the main one(think New Vegas) should come first expecially since time and resources are limited.In other words:side quests shouldn't be a justification to randomly throw in whatever storyline you want.

3-The argument "but if they put effort I'm sure they'll do it right".I don't think it's possible but let's admit it's a possibility for a moment:if they put so much effort doesn't that gets in opposition to point 2?

[Shevek]

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).

 

Again. Nope. Romances are a story telling device they are not THE story telling device. There can be rivalries, friendships, relatives, and so on. These are all story telling devices NOT features. Perhaps to relationship dynamic that should be explored more is, oh I dunno, fellow adventurers. Instead of playing a game of blind date with your party maybe they should explore the dynamics of a group of people struggling to survive against insumountable odds not of people struggling to fight insurmountable hormones.

 

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.

 

Maybe its just me in my playthrough, but I didn't see tons of oppurtunities to have hot loving with Ignus or get kinky with Morte. Again, I am talking about party romances.

 

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.

 

I disagree. Frankly, if you guys are out killing things and bathing in blood and sweat that does not necessarily lead to candlelit dinners and long walks on the beach.

 

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, DISAGREE. Romances do not ADD. They are a story telling choice . You can add to the relationship the player has with his party in other ways. I would argue that ensuring the player has sufficient intercourse options actually DETRACTS from suspension of disbelief and takes away from immersiveness.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Shevek

[Azarkon]

On the subject of romances as a specific sort of relationship in CRPGs, a couple of observations about ways to use it -

 

Romance as Plot: in a lot of the older CRPGs and JRPGs with predefined characters, romance in the game is a plot feature. Background romance between NPCs, and between the PC and NPC, generates the game's motivations and carries the plot. This form of romance does not generally involve the player's decisions, even when the player is party to it - rather, the player is simply told that a romance exists between his / her character and a NPC; whether he / she accepts it is irrelevant. This does not limit the player's ability to enjoy the romance as an observer, the same way one enjoys a romance in a movie. In certain cases, the player is able to decide what one character says to his / her romantic partner, which adds a personal dimension to the relationship, but still keeps it 'at a safe distance.'

 

Romance as Character Content: when the player does carry on a romance of his / her choice with a NPC, in a lot of the cases it is simply a device for additional character content. The basic principle behind such a design is that a player romances a character not because he / she is personally / physically attracted to said character, but because they want to know the character's back story / how a deeper relationship with said character plays out. In game rewards are also an option. Curiosity - and the desire for whatever in game rewards are available - is therefore the primary drive for this sort of romance, and the outcome is a better understanding of the character, the satisfaction of having 'overcome' certain issues the character had in the same way one solves a quest chain, and in game material rewards. Physical attraction between player and NPC is not necessary, as the experience is cerebral / theme / goal driven.

 

Romance as Romance: a final design for romance in games is to treat romance as romance - that is to say, a relationship grounded in physical and personal attraction. This is the bread and butter of date sims and, to an extent, Bioware games. To accomplish this feat, you first have to find a receptive audience, as not everyone is comfortable with being physically and personally attracted to characters in a game. It is safe to say, however, that this audience exists. For example: http://simpleek.word...game-character/ Having found an audience, you then have to design a character that is physically and personally appealing to the demographic - a problem of art design, voice acting, and background story writing. There are various archetypes people have developed for this. As an example, Bioware falls back on an 'aggressive femme fatale' type and an 'innocent maiden' type for male gamers. The better games, however, employ unique artistic touches necessary for today's jaded gamers. Presentation is very important for this type of romance, because you want the player to be physically attracted - ergo, the NPC has to be physically attractive.

 

When thinking about what structure the romance ought to have, it is important to first determine which type of romance it is. The first type is conducive to a 'classic romantic' story, full of pathos and dramatic moments, because the designer is in full control of the involved parties and does not have to explain, to the player, why the PC acts in the way that he / she does. Freed from the constraints of having to give the player options / choices, the designer is then allowed to do whatever makes the story richer.

 

The second type ought to be used sparingly. Requiring the player to romance characters in order to appreciate / understand said characters is gimmicky. There are plenty of relationships players are able to have with a character and it is unnecessary that every 'deep' relationship has to involve a romantic bond. When it is used, the second type benefits from having a thematic purpose - ie is the relationship played for laughs? Is it designed to convey a theme? Is it an in-depth study of the affected character? The player is looking for a novel experience in these sorts of romances, and it is up to the developer to create one.

 

The third type is, in a lot of ways, the hardest to handle. When the player's personal emotions are involved, however superficially, poor judgment on how the relationship unfolds is a sure way to ruin the player's enjoyment of the game. But this does not = the romance always has to end 'happily ever after' and be warm and fuzzy. Tragic / unfulfilled romances are at their best when the player is personally affected by them, because it is during those moments that the in game experience is able to 'break out' to become a tangible, memorable experience. It is important, in a 'romance as romance' scenario, that the character never lapses into 'obvious algorithm' mode, which instantly breaks the immersion and the personal connection players feel. In CRPGs, this requires interactions to be carefully handled and preferably NPC driven, so that the player doesn't get the opportunity to 'unravel the algorithm.' I've seen this done well only a few times, but when it is done well, you're able to actually get the player to carry feelings for a character for weeks after the game ends, and to be a fanboy / fangirl of said game for life.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Azarkon

[Merin]

Copy and pasting my contribution from a few threads ago -

 

I'd, personally, prefer the romance to not be between the PC and the companions. If there is romance, it should be outside that dynamic. Some flirting, mutual attraction, whatever - if it is included, that's fine. But I'd rather see the romance in the background, at best, as part of the story you interact with, or between the PC and a few potential, non-companion, NPCs in the world.

 

I think the vocal minority (as far as any of these polls and threads have shown, it's a minority voting no to romance at all) have as their most salient concern the waste of writing resources on companions, and this is a very real concern that I understand and sympathize with. If there is a writer assigned to a companion, any potential romance with said companion is more for the writer to have work on and weave into non-romance parts of the dialog at times as well. For those who want nothing to do with romance, or whom just might not want to romance a given character, that character will suddenly have less content and might feel a bit shallow compared to other companions.

 

I don't think its a minority who hold that particular concern - I think most people posting in this thread want strong companions and no wasted writing.

 

In any event, due to the small size of the game and the limit funds they have to work with, I am for romance being background, window dressing, part of the story around the character and their party... not integral, or even optional, for the PC and the companions.

 

To sum up - romance should be part of the story of the game at some level, with characters you meet having their own relationships, perhaps some motivations of more important NPCs be tied up to romantic feelings, and maybe even some non-companion NPCs having the optional plot thread of a romance. But I don't want it to be a major part of the game, unless that is Obsidian's design goals, and I'd rather it not be romance with companions.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60688-romance-in-project-eternity-how-important-how-much/page__st__100?do=findComment&comment=1210297

[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.

 

That's a really good argument. Good "romance" arcs are used as plot devices, they are not there for the player to choose between this person and the other. Geralt's relationship with Triss? That's important, it affects the plot and gives opportunities for both characters to develop. While optional, Safiya, Kaylyn Okku/One of Many and WhatsHisName in MotB and the KotOR 2 companions', their relationships, whatever the kind, also serve the plot and character progression. The romance part is optional in MotB and semi-optional in kotOR 2, but the relationship, again whatever that is, is a plot device. Not some sidequest or dialogue minigame.

 

This doesn't happen with Sheppard and the characters in ME. Some make a little character progression, but the Narrative fails to show this affect the plot, or Sheppard. They are just side quests, the relationship with the characters is unimportant to the plot.

Edited October 17, 2012 by kenup

[SeekDWay]

There are many facets of the term Romance, I don't see anyone who is pro-romance pushing any sex themes, while they are prevalent in other posts.

 

To me a romance doesn't even have to involve my PC, I am just a hopeless romantic that's all.

 

BG2 had an awesome short story arc about Keldorn and his family, that's another type of romance that is totally fine and quite frankly I even prefer it.

[Ieo]

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.

 

Well, there's definitely some give and take, and ultimately it will be a matter of a sliding scale. In your proposal, a high percentage of nonromance content against the romance path would be fine to me. Others, however, may want the full romance gamut with minimal "waiting period"...

 

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.

 

I believe the "more than friends but still not romance" options are what many have advocated for, specifically the bromance/womance, but your point about romance opening specific intimacy doors is true when talking about individual differences. The bromance/etc. path would apply to your first-second statement, though.

 

I do worry about the inclusion of romances, resources notwithstanding, because I think it's fair that there be good options for the wide-ranging audience including LGBT, yet also taking into account character authenticity in terms of race/culture and individuality, on top of the fact that we only have eight companions to work with. Another reason why I advocate more for bromance/womance is that it can be applied much more reasily, IMO, across sexual and racial lines.

 

(There is platonic love and romantic love, among other things, but even though romance doesn't require sex, it is the emotive expression of that type of love that leads to sex.)

Edited October 17, 2012 by Ieo

[SunBroSolaire]

I think it would be interesting to deal with themes like infidelity. For example, one of your companions has a spouse and children ithat they haven't seen in years. Would it be justifiable to romance that character? That could introduce some interesting roleplaying elements to the relationships.

 

I definitely think that if there are romances, NPCs should be picky about what type of person the player character is. If I can once again trot out the ever-popular whipping boy for this topic, in Mass Effect, it didn't seem to matter much if you were a renegade or a paragon, whatever the player wanted they could have. I liked how your companions in New Vegas would dislike you if you did certain things, I think that was handled even better in Alpha Protocol, and I hope they have similar mechanics for ALL the companion relationships regardless of whether there are love stories.

[Lurky]

I think we're handling this the wrong way.

 

People who favour romance and people who don't usually agree on the fact that friendships and other kinds of relationships should be in the game. If that's the case, why should romances get the spotlight on the forums, with threads solely for their discussion? Why not make a thread for relationships in general? Or, to be more precise, a thread for companion interactions in general (since that's the kind of romance usually discussed). I think it would solve most of the problems these threads usually have:

 

1) Chris Avellone already said that the game would feature "a variety of mature relationships". This does not equate "we will have romances for sure", because it turns out that humans can connect with each other in ways that do not involve romantic love (such as close friendships, brothers in arms, sibling-like, mentor-student, competitive camaraderie... the list is long). By making clear in the OP that this type of thread would be for equal discussion of all kinds of relationships and interactions, we are being truer to the way the devs are approaching this topic. This means that gathering feedback could be easier and more accurate for them.

 

2) By having threads focusing on the romance, either as the only topic or as the main topic, you're giving the wrong message: it gives the impression that romances are the best form of relationship to be had between characters, that if you want a close connection with them romances are the only way to go (and many people actually show this view, when they defend romances by praising the virtues of close relationships in general). This is a big source of irritation for many people (including me): it's a fundamental disagreement with the notion that "close relationship = romance", and this is a major reason why romance threads are met with hostility. By making clear in the OP that this type of thread would be for equal discussion of all kinds of relationships and interactions, you would remove a major source of annoyance. And I think it would benefit everyone: the people who dislike romances can talk about other interactions they want to see in the game, and people who want to talk about romances can do so without feeling harassed (as long as they're not overbearing about it).

 

3) As an extension of the above point, this whole "close relationship = romance" notion is the approach used by many Bioware games, and the mere association with them is enough to annoy many people. Either because they despise what Bioware games have become lately, or because they despise the kind of fans they attract and don't want theme here, this approach is also a major reason why romance threads are met with hostility. By making clear in the OP that this type of thread would be for equal discussion of all kinds of relationships and interactions, without any particular focus on romances, you would remove another major source of annoyance. By taking a different approach, different to Bioware games and the romance threads of the Bioware fans on the BSN, I think it's likely that many people would stop making that association. Calming down the levels of worry would be helpful for everyone, in my opinion.

 

Honestly, the "screw the haters" approach hasn't worked, and the "silence the haters" approach isn't too effective either, because people won't stop feeling annoyed and will probably feel more hostile if they're told to shut up (not to mention that it takes a lot of work for the mods to mantain peace). Why not try something different? Keeping a thread for general discussion could certainly be more productive than several threads that always retread the same points over and over. Personally, I think it's worth a try.

 

Thoughts?

[Rahelron]

First of all I'd be happy if PE's romances were good stories. Stories that I would enjoy if I read them in a book, with the only difference that, since we are talking about an RPG and not about a book, the PE romances should not be railroaded experiences.

 

The player should be able to choose which NPC to approach, but the NPCs shouldn't fall in love with him just because he is the hero. The player should behave in the right way to make someone fall in love with him. With that I mean that if I was roleplaying (for example) an individualist character the altruistic NPC of my party shouldn't approach me. If the developers wanted to add some un-romanceable character that would be fine to me. Just please let the player approach that NPC and trigger a dialogue where he gets dropped. It would be good too see love stories between companions that can't be romanced by the main character.

 

Letting a high charisma main character roleplay the womanizer with non companion NPCs would be amazing, but this would be just a plus. The game doesn't need a feature like that.

 

BAD EXAMPLES OF ROMANCE STORIES (WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE IN PROJECT ETERNITY):

 

The witcher 2:

In that game the player is stripped of his freedom. The Geralt's default love interest is Triss, the player isn't allowed to choose. If he drops Triss because he doesn't like her he's forced to play the loner. If he stays with Triss he's stuck in a railroaded love story where he isn't even able to fully love her (because of Yennifer). Sex is also a major focus on the love story and is used without restrictions during the whole game. I don't need to say that Project eternity doesn't need to lure players in with the promise of soft porn cutscenes.

 

Skyrim:

In Skyrim the so called "love stories" are pretty much non-existent. Your wife is just something useful to fill your house and don't make it feel like an empty space. The NPC you marry becomes an ego-stroking puppet that gives you money and says that loves you, nothing more.

 

Dragon age 2:

In DA2 the NPCs are very detailed and well written from a tecnical point of view. I pretty much hated them all (except Varric), but it's just a personal judgement about their behaviour and what they believed in. The romance storylines are handled in an awful manner though. Everything is just reduced to a point management system: you need to bring your "affinity" with the character you want to hit above a given threshold, a threshold which is conveniently shown in that character's sheet. After you have done that you just have to hit the "flirt button" and the love story begins. Everything feels mechanical, just like a dating symulator, as someone said in other topics. The romance dialogues are very well written, but everything gets screwed by the mechanic that let you trigger those dialogues.

 

 

CONCLUSIONS. IN PROJECT ETERNITY THE LOVE STORIES SHOULD:

1. Be beautiful stories, with great emotional impact.
   
2. Be integrated in the main plot and feel a natural part of the story progression.
   
3. Be more than one to let the player choose.
   
4. Force the player to do things right to make people fall in love with him. But to achieve this the developers shouldn't use cheap point management systems ("oh, I said that thing and I lost two affinity points with XXX, let me reload and say something else". This is wrong!)
   

I would like to be able to marry my love interest and live with her in my stronghold. But, it's not a necessity.

[LadyMuck]

Here is my greatest fear. As soon as there is any confirmation about romance; the threads are going to explode, and then the 'factions' will start up. The pro this, and the anti that. Please; no. I liked romances until it became pc. I play games partly to get away from rl politics of any 'cause.' Unless there is a difference in ideology or the npcs people are at war, in game, I'm in the no corner. Friendships I like.

[Nithy]

I have zero interest in RPG romances and I'd rather the writers not waste time and effort on them.

[kenup]

Here is my greatest fear. As soon as there is any confirmation about romance; the threads are going to explode, and then the 'factions' will start up. The pro this, and the anti that.

Let's hope this won't happen, and the mods will stop any such attempt.

[AGX-17]

It's plausible but shouldn't be a priority. I don't want the Obsidian community to become a waifu wars board like Bioware's.

[SeekDWay]

It's plausible but shouldn't be a priority. I don't want the Obsidian community to become a waifu wars board like Bioware's.

 

Green T-shirt Waifu discussion is strong on 4chan right now.

[SunBroSolaire]

Copy and pasting my contribution from a few threads ago -

 

I'd, personally, prefer the romance to not be between the PC and the companions. If there is romance, it should be outside that dynamic. Some flirting, mutual attraction, whatever - if it is included, that's fine. But I'd rather see the romance in the background, at best, as part of the story you interact with, or between the PC and a few potential, non-companion, NPCs in the world.

 

I think the vocal minority (as far as any of these polls and threads have shown, it's a minority voting no to romance at all) have as their most salient concern the waste of writing resources on companions, and this is a very real concern that I understand and sympathize with. If there is a writer assigned to a companion, any potential romance with said companion is more for the writer to have work on and weave into non-romance parts of the dialog at times as well. For those who want nothing to do with romance, or whom just might not want to romance a given character, that character will suddenly have less content and might feel a bit shallow compared to other companions.

 

I don't think its a minority who hold that particular concern - I think most people posting in this thread want strong companions and no wasted writing.

 

In any event, due to the small size of the game and the limit funds they have to work with, I am for romance being background, window dressing, part of the story around the character and their party... not integral, or even optional, for the PC and the companions.

 

To sum up - romance should be part of the story of the game at some level, with characters you meet having their own relationships, perhaps some motivations of more important NPCs be tied up to romantic feelings, and maybe even some non-companion NPCs having the optional plot thread of a romance. But I don't want it to be a major part of the game, unless that is Obsidian's design goals, and I'd rather it not be romance with companions.

 

http://forums.obsidi...00#entry1210297

 

I don't know... I think player-NPC love stories should be done well or not at all. One benefit to having romance options with companions as opposed to regular NPCs is that a lot of that content is going to be there regardless. Whether or not the player romances the character, the writers are already working on a ton of backstory and characterization for that NPC, and you'll probably see 90% the same dialogue whether or not you try to 'romance' the character or just become platonically closer. So I think Obsid would actually have less work to do creating romances within the companion group, because they'll already have strong characters and player-character relationships as a foundation for those stories.

[Shevek]

There are MANY problems with party romances. Perhaps the biggest is equity. See, you can't have just ONE romanceable NPC. You have to have AT LEAST 2. One guy. One girl. You also have to open it up to straight folks and LGBT folks. Now, what about different races? What if you make a shorty or an halforc or something? Do you have to throw in some loving for them too? Pretty soon, 4+ of the party are shaggable and the player starts to look to NPCs not as companions but as potential sexual objects. That COMPLETELY subverts the party dynamic. Soon, all the party is a den of possible conquests and the game really does feel like a fantasy porno with the player looking slyly to see who he can conquer.

 

Frankly, the further OE stays away from this foolishness the better.