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

[evdk]

 

So contrary views not welcome. Nice to see my humorous post removed.

 

Am loving the new, BSN-friendly moderation policy guys. Srsly.

All the anti BSN moderation is currently being crowdsourced.

[kenup]

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

 

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

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

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

--What, even, is romance?

 

 

I'd like to remind members that trolling with intent to derail is not looked upon with favor. Try to play nice in the sandbox.

 

So contrary views not welcome. Nice to see my humorous post removed.

 

Am loving the new, BSN-friendly moderation policy guys. Srsly.

Of course they are not welcome. You are a really bad person if you got a different educated opinion. Nudity, porn, options of GTFO! :wheresThatSmileyWithAGunWhenYouNeedIt

 

 

 

That being said, I don't think LadyCrimson meant it like that.

Edited October 18, 2012 by kenup

[Sylrissa]

Oh dear... I wouldn't want be in Obsidian's shoes when deciding whether to include "romances" or not. Someone is going to be upset anyway. I trust in Obsidian but I hope there's some kind of flirting (or more) going on because in my opinion that's how people work and immersion is good for you.

 

Agreed, regardless of my personal thoughts on the issue, Obsidian does seem to be damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Valinthor]

True. They have to do any emotion properly. Not just romance. I will let them choose if romance is an important enough emotion to have in the game. All I know is if I am the Lord of my Stronghold, I would like to have a Lady or an option to choose one. Makes it more believeable. Again though, it has to be done with class and attention. Lets keep the nudity and stuff to the Witchers and Dragon Ages out there.

[FlintlockJazz]

Yeah...Obsidian still seems to be in the "deciding phase". Avelone took some care to neither confirm nor deny romances (His answer with "a variety of mature relationships" is most telling, imo).

 

...however I think this is the exact reason why the discussions about this topic are so heated. Many want them in, many want them definitely out and everyone is afraid Obsidian might listen to the other side. Errouneously imo -I don't think Obsidian will be swayed either way by forumites, on a topic like this.

 

Fixed!

 

Honestly, I neither side knows whose got 'most' and I'd argue that there's probably more than two, most people probably aren't in a 'side'.

[Mrakvampire]

If there are enough resources to develop romances then great, but only after the NPCs interactions and relationship with PC and other NPCs has been developed so that you get interaction on all playthroughs and not just on the "bone them" playthrough. This especially true considering that romance needs to be done right or not at all, and the resources required to do it right makes me question the value of it when compared to the characterisation we risk losing.

 

From my perspective if we are short on resources then we should drop this Arcanum-style 'Low-Int' dialogues. It really nearly doubles work for dialogues, and for what??? Ok, you like low int guys. And I like low Charisma guys, maybe I should request special dialogues for Low-Cha characters?

 

So, if you are worried on effort model here, think about effort that is used to create Low-Int interactions. If I will be asked - drop one - "good romance or Low-Int interactions" I would definitely drop Low-Int.

[Forlorn Hope]

Since I already touched on some of these in my posts in the previous thread I'll try not to ramble too much.

 

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

Honestly I think in this diversity is the best option. People all prefer different things but variety makes the path you DO like that much more special by comparison rather than having all the romance plots end up in the same place. I personally really enjoyed the Planescape Torment romances despite them being tragic and Morrigans romance from DA:O because she didnt give up on her goals (albeit powerhungry/evil ones) because of falling in love with the warden.

 

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

While I'm all for romances I'd have to say no to cutscenes. I think trying to show making out or sex detracts from these relationships more than it helps in most cases. I also think that any sort of 'approval meter' like in the dragon age series is a mistake. Hopefully you can tell how a character feels about you through dialogue without need for it to be so cut and dry.

 

Quests are nice - personally I think all party members should have quests that help you earn/lose their trust regardless of romance being involved. Though perhaps you should have to get them to trust you enough to even ask for your help in the matter. That said I don't think quests for the romance itself are needed. I'd gladly play through them where appropriate but I don't think the players who dislike presueing romances should feel like they're missing out on quests. Some people are complitionist and still don't want to romance somebody.

 

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

As mentioned earlier I think Morrigan in DA: O was an interesting romance. Viconia in BG2 was also interesting in that in order to successfully have a romance with her you had to do more than just be polite to her. Jaheria in BG2 was also interesting in that she started out married in BG1 and you had to help her get over that and in doing so you develope feelings for each other. Pointing out these isn't to say that their isn't a place for the sweet and nice romances, they just shouldn't be the only type around.

 

--What, even, is romance?

Romance, for me at least, in a game means having a more invested relationship between the main character and a party member/npc. This does generally involve some sort of commitment between the 2 characters. It does not need to include sex or marriage though.

 

Also seperately I believe that characters should have strong friendships that while not 'romantic' signify the bond and respect they've developed with your main character. Despite everybody bagging on Bioware (I guess it's just the cool thing to do) I believe that Garrus, Tali, and Wrex all had that sort of relationship with Shepard. Garrus was clearly pretty much outcast and alone but confided in and trusted Shepard more than anybody. Wrex grudingly came to respect Shepard as a warrior then as a friend and in the end considered you to be a hero to his entire race. Tali went from just being teenager who tagged along to get information that would help her people to a mature character who would trust you enough to serve along side a geth crew member and even assist you in stopping her own people from wiping out the geth race because you've changed how she saw things. Those were deep friendships built on trust and it made the games better for their inclusion. On the other hand if you didn't presue those friendships Wrex could die on a beach or be betrayed and killed by shepard. Tali could be exiled from her people or commit suicide or leave your crew entirely. I think these sorts of relationships are every bit as important as romance options.

 

The way I see it, this is the most sensible way to go. Romantics will get their fair share but non-romantics won't be missing out on anything (except romances )

[FlintlockJazz]

True. They have to do any emotion properly. Not just romance. I will let them choose if romance is an important enough emotion to have in the game. All I know is if I am the Lord of my Stronghold, I would like to have a Lady or an option to choose one. Makes it more believeable. Again though, it has to be done with class and attention. Lets keep the nudity and stuff to the Witchers and Dragon Ages out there.

 

Aye and they'd probably do best just ignoring the whole lot of us and doing what the hell they please! :D

[FlintlockJazz]

If there are enough resources to develop romances then great, but only after the NPCs interactions and relationship with PC and other NPCs has been developed so that you get interaction on all playthroughs and not just on the "bone them" playthrough. This especially true considering that romance needs to be done right or not at all, and the resources required to do it right makes me question the value of it when compared to the characterisation we risk losing.

 

From my perspective if we are short on resources then we should drop this Arcanum-style 'Low-Int' dialogues. It really nearly doubles work for dialogues, and for what??? Ok, you like low int guys. And I like low Charisma guys, maybe I should request special dialogues for Low-Cha characters?

 

So, if you are worried on effort model here, think about effort that is used to create Low-Int interactions. If I will be asked - drop one - "good romance or Low-Int interactions" I would definitely drop Low-Int.

 

I'd argue that having low-stat dialogue does alot for RP, it lets people roleplay a more diverse character and gives a reason not to treat a stat as a dump stat if they don't want to play such a character. It helps the dialogue to reflect what kind of character you are playing and enables you to define and characterise the PC.

[Mrakvampire]

I'd argue that having romance dialogue does alot for RP, it lets people roleplay a more diverse character and gives a reason become emotionally attached to NPCs. It helps the dialogue to reflect what kind of character you are playing and enables you to define and characterise the PC.

 

Same argument here.

And btw, why only Int? What about Cha?

[Mrakvampire]

And another thing to consider. Everybody repeat and repeat 'we need real emotions, bla-bla-bla'.

Ok we had a recent game from Obsidian - Fallout: New Vegas. The *cough* RPG of a sort (or action-rpg). Does it have 'deep real emotions' that you want or not?

 

I really don't understand the 'we need deep and properly written emotions'. So you expect from Obsidian something like 'Crime and Punishment' by Fyodor Dostoevsky?

Edited October 18, 2012 by Mrakvampire

[Gorth]

Honestly, I neither side knows whose got 'most' and I'd argue that there's probably more than two, most people probably aren't in a 'side'.

Indeed. You get the feeling that the same 5-10 people on each "side" tries to make up for lack of numbers by turning up the volume

 

-I don't think Obsidian will be swayed either way by forumites, on a topic like this.

I would say that's a fairly safe assumption if I were to guess. In fact I probably take that for so granted that I regard most of these discussions as academic (and in some cases educational).

[evdk]

And another thing to consider. Everybody repeat and repeat 'we need real emotions, bla-bla-bla'.

Ok we had a recent game from Obsidian - Fallout: New Vegas. The *cough* RPG of a sort (or action-rpg). Does it have 'deep real emotions' that you want or not?

 

I really don't understand the 'we need deep and properly written emotions'. So you expect from Obsidian something like 'Crime and Punishment' by Fyodor Dostoevsky?

Why the hell should I settle for less?

[Sylrissa]

And another thing to consider. Everybody repeat and repeat 'we need real emotions, bla-bla-bla'.

Ok we had a recent game from Obsidian - Fallout: New Vegas. The *cough* RPG of a sort (or action-rpg). Does it have 'deep real emotions' that you want or not?

 

New Vegas was one of the few Obsidian games I actually didn't enjoy, but I imagine my general dislike of the post-apocalyptic theme added to that, I own the old fallout games, and did enjoy them, just not as much as other games obsidian made *Goes into hiding from the pitchforks*

Edited October 18, 2012 by Sylrissa

[FlintlockJazz]

I'd argue that having romance dialogue does alot for RP, it lets people roleplay a more diverse character and gives a reason become emotionally attached to NPCs. It helps the dialogue to reflect what kind of character you are playing and enables you to define and characterise the PC.

 

Same argument here.

And btw, why only Int? What about Cha?

 

I didn't say only int, ideally all stats will influence dialogue like in PST. Romance develops only that one NPC, stat-based dialogue influences interaction with all charactions, how they react to it and the challenges you are presented with it. It encourages the player to use his stats to define who his character is, not to min max and then ignore it when RPing his character in dialog.

[Monte Carlo]

^ No I'm not much of a Fallout fan either. Liked NV but my favourite FO game is Tactics.

 

My scars from flaming with FO fans healed years ago *shrugs*

[Mrakvampire]

Why the hell should I settle for less?

 

Hm... I don't know... Maybe because writers at the Obsidian with all do respect for their talent can't be compared to Dostoevsky?

[Sylrissa]

Honestly, I neither side knows whose got 'most' and I'd argue that there's probably more than two, most people probably aren't in a 'side'.

Indeed. You get the feeling that the same 5-10 people on each "side" tries to make up for lack of numbers by turning up the volume

 

 

That's the feeling I get as well, that the same people are shouting from the roof-tops to get their stance across, when Obsidian will make the call and the game will turn out, however it turns out.

 

Which will no doubt be incredible regardless.

[Mrakvampire]

Romance develops only that one NPC, stat-based dialogue influences interaction with all charactions, how they react to it and the challenges you are presented with it. It encourages the player to use his stats to define who his character is, not to min max and then ignore it when RPing his character in dialog.

 

You are wrong. Romance doesn't develop only one NPC - it has a potential to develop all NPCs as the interaction between NPCs will change.

And btw. Romance in this situation greatly increases replayability of this game and it increases it more drastically than low-int dialogues.

[Monte Carlo]

Let's get something straight - although I despise CRPG romances, I can live with one or two unobtrusive ones if they can be utterly avoided.

 

What I'm more concerned about is romancers / BSN weenies starting to gather on the forum like a hormone-fuelled horde of emo-locusts.

[Mrakvampire]

What I'm more concerned about is romancers / BSN weenies starting to gather on the forum like a hormone-fuelled horde of emo-locusts.

 

Is it necessary to abuse people every time that you don't like their opinion?

[Monte Carlo]

What I'm more concerned about is romancers / BSN weenies starting to gather on the forum like a hormone-fuelled horde of emo-locusts.

 

Is it necessary to abuse people every time that you don't like their opinion?

 

Are you saying it doesn't exist? Wow, thin-skins are another feature of the internet I can't abide.

[Sylrissa]

Let's get something straight - although I despise CRPG romances, I can live with one or two unobtrusive ones if they can be utterly avoided.

 

What I'm more concerned about is romancers / BSN weenies starting to gather on the forum like a hormone-fuelled horde of emo-locusts.

 

Naturally I can only speak for myself, but I like to hope that most of the people that want to see romance make it into the game, want BG/2, PS:T etc. style romances, and not the BSN kind that has made some people have an aversion to the very idea of romance in a modern RPG.

 

Edit: Personally I don't hate on people who like BSN romances, to each their own and all, I just think obsidian could do better with this game.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Sylrissa

[Crusty]

No to experimentation!

No to fixing that is not broken!

No to changes for the sake of change!

Do not forget basis of Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape Torment. Just put all your effort to story, fine-tuning and quality control.

 

Then why are you arguing for a game feature not present in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment?

 

(I'm being just a little facetious since he obviously means BG + BG 2, not just BG. BG 2 had romance, but essentially 4 out of 5 IE games did not feature a player interactive romantic subplot focused on wish fulfillment with companions out of the box)

Edited October 18, 2012 by Crusty

[Mrakvampire]

Then why are you arguing for a game feature not present in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment?

 

Are you absolutely sure that PS:T and BG2 had no romances? Okay.