Gryzor Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I played Bioware RPGs up to the point that they started making them into Japanese dating games. Do not want.
HereticSaint Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) I played Bioware RPGs up to the point that they started making them into Japanese dating games. Do not want. Good, neither do I. Now if we are done with being unnecessarily redundant with that statement. Edited October 18, 2012 by HereticSaint
Krios Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Yes to romance. I want to explore the relationships the player character will have with his or her companions. Relationships is not about sex, the more significant aspects are the emotions, how NPCs react and interact with the player, and through them will bring the player through small stories, providing further insight on the NPC. Also relationships are an excellent hook to introduce the player to side quests. Romances which prove to be fruitful and those that end in failure or even tragedy, a romance provides a rich backdrop to add more value to the player. And oh all that can be set up outside of the main quest, so the player can avoid getting into any of it if he or she so desires.
bobobo878 Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I played Bioware RPGs up to the point that they started making them into Japanese dating games. Do not want. What's wrong with that? If Bioware wants to add the option to hook up with a few pigeons in Dragon Age III, I say have at it! One recent survey by a Washington-based researcher concluded that Americans were far more willing to participate in cannibalism then they have in the past hundred years. America is a nation that will not suffer abominations lightly.
Ieo Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I'll bite. But it's way past my bedtime so this may not make a whit of sense, and if that's the case, I plead innocence and deny it ever happened, though most likely that just means I'll forget by tomorrow morning that I posted at all. I don't understand why people keep segregating "romance" out like it was some kind of different species of the human psyche. Feeling attraction (and the opposite) to people you spend a lot of time with is not a form of lycantropy. I can understand that "feelings" make some people queasy and uncomfortable, but pretending that they don't play a role in communities (and I consider an adventuring party a mini community) is like pretending the Earth is flat (lalalalala I can't see the horizon). Fear, loathing, attraction, lust, obsession, hate etc. all make for interesting tensions and relations in such a mini community. Why single one particular facet of the spectrum out and keep telling "Don't go there!"? Yes, I'm genuinely curious by nature As I explained elsewhere, I believe that "romance," unlike the more straightforward feelings "lust" or "hate," represents a full entertainment/literary genre that encompasses social and cultural expectations far beyond those simpler emotions, because romance is supposed to lead into specific physical intimacy and idealized forms of long-term union. I guess I'm talking about the classical chivalric notion at this point. This isn't to say that romance in itself is more valuable or interesting than any of the other elements of the human psyche you listed, but rather its application is forked and invariably leads to complex issues parallel to the above: sexuality alongside relationship expectations. Both are messy in practice--no, not that kind of messy. Here's a fascinating fact about the romance genre in particular, and I'm speaking very broadly now and not limited to game applications: Unlike any other genre, it has a tendency to simplify the social relationship for purposes of dramatic storytelling. Interestingly, this also leads to particular sociocultural ramifications as the audience who watches and enjoys this type of simplified dramatic presentation inherit and then expect these idealized and typically quite unrealistic elements of "romance"--from their partners or fictional future partners. Typically, men may feel resentful when the target audience* of the romance genre, women, are expecting things of them that aren't reasonable ("If you're my true soul mate, you'll know how I feel and what I want without me telling you"). Likewise, if the romances in the gaming industry is traditionally for males (uh, not anymore with Bioware, I guess), then certain subtle hopes or expectations may be placed there too. That's not to say that people cannot separate fact from fiction, but it's rather surprising how malleable human expectations of "ideal forms" really are. So... I think romance as a genre often elicits polarizing views by the specific social divide it tends to produce or exacerbate in real life practice. http://www.cios.org/...17/3/01735.HTML http://www.tandfonli...926189108250854 http://onlinelibrary...2543.x/abstract *I don't really blame the women, though; a lot of the romance genre throughout history were created by men. I'm sure there's an anthropological view on that, but that's for another day. **There was another point I wanted to make, but it swam away with the goldfish. 2 The KS Collector's Edition does not include the Collector's Book. Which game hook brought you to Project Eternity and interests you the most? PE will not have co-op/multiplayer, console, or tablet support (sources): [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Write your own romance mods because there won't be any in PE. "But what is an evil? Is it like water or like a hedgehog or night or lumpy?" -(Digger) "Most o' you wanderers are but a quarter moon away from lunacy at the best o' times." -Alvanhendar (Baldur's Gate 1)
mikemcdonald Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 My favorite romance-able companion was always Viconia from Baldur's Gate II. She was exotic, super hot, and emotionally complex. She would run hot and cold (just like some of the women I've dated ) and had a really intriguing personality. Some of my most memorable moments came when my companions decided to talk to ME. In so many RPGs, you tend to forget that you're supposed to be adventuring with real people. Real people don't just sit there waiting for you to click on them. 3
Gorth Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Thanks, you learn something new every day I'll check out the links when I get home from work “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
Valinthor Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Most of the naysayers grew up on Bioware romance and not romance like it used to be in PS:T or BG. I don't want romance to be shoved down my throat. I choose to persue it or not should be up to me. Folks saying they should spend the resouces on other forms of interaction need to understand that any meaningful dialogue between characters will require thoughtful writing. Be it romance, hate, revenge, etc etc. So stop taking digs at romance just xuz you got molested by a succubus
mya79 Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 For me, I would like romance mature and with happy end but it's important the romance will be just optional in the game. I prefer a good scenario with quest and good quality than make fanbase and I am honest I like the romance than BDG2 or Dragon age 1 but it's not the very important in the game. The romance it's just an optional for the gamers don't want romances. And I think for create romance with the compagnions it's important the devs writing a good quality of scenario, I don't want romance same as Skyrim or Dragon age 2 please.
Mrakvampire Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Real people don't just sit there waiting for you to click on them. Absolutely right! Some people here, on Obsidian forums, complained something like "Oh, those banters, I hate them! I kicked Imoen cause she participated in a lot of NPC talks. From my point of view - the more banters, that more NPC-initiated dialogue we have, the better 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.
FlintlockJazz Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Let me sum up where I stand: they have already stated that writing up characters is quite intensive, something like three months for Mr Avellone to write one, and they gave up on their idea of one companion per class as they reached the max number they were comfortable with. This means that they are at max load already and everything they choose to do with characters means cutting something else they could do with characters. In this regard I would prefer that they focus on friendship tracks that can be experienced by all characters without cutting them out of experiencing interactions with other characters like romances do. Romance is a very selfish form of relationship that commandeers attention. It cuts off the possibility of romance with others. I suspect that its popularity is due to the lack of exploration with other forms of relationships, and so when people clamour for romance they are actually asking for interaction with the companions, they just don't realise there are other forms of interaction possible because it hasn't been done. 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. 1 "That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail "Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams
FlintlockJazz Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Most of the naysayers grew up on Bioware romance and not romance like it used to be in PS:T or BG. I don't want romance to be shoved down my throat. I choose to persue it or not should be up to me. Folks saying they should spend the resouces on other forms of interaction need to understand that any meaningful dialogue between characters will require thoughtful writing. Be it romance, hate, revenge, etc etc. So stop taking digs at romance just xuz you got molested by a succubus False dichotomy there mate. I 'grew up' on BG and PST, as did many others questioning romance, if you want it fine but don't attempt to dismiss those with differing opinions with such bull, present your argument without declaring unfounded statements please. 1 "That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail "Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams
iceferret Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 @FlintlockJazz I agree, I would love to explore bromances... I don't recall it ever being done properly in an RPG 1
Valinthor Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Hardly. I would love meaningful interactions be it romance or anythin else for that matter.The whole "it takes too much resource to create romance" like you said is bull. It takes resources to create any kind of meaningful dialogue. Even the deep friendship you speak of. 1
FlintlockJazz Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 @FlintlockJazz I agree, I would love to explore bromances... I don't recall it ever being done properly in an RPG Exactly! And I'd like to see bromances form between all party members, not just the PC! Or even rivalry and fighting between certain companions! "That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail "Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams
ComMcNeil Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Real people don't just sit there waiting for you to click on them. Absolutely right! Some people here, on Obsidian forums, complained something like "Oh, those banters, I hate them! I kicked Imoen cause she participated in a lot of NPC talks. From my point of view - the more banters, that more NPC-initiated dialogue we have, the better I agree and I think that was one thing that made BG2 really stand out amongs other RPGs. Even mass effect, which is arguably a very character and dialogue driven RPG, does not have this direct interaction with the party members, as BG2 did.
jarpie Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) I don't think most people here gets why "no romance"-crowd are arguing. It's not just because we dislike romacnes in games, it's not because we're cold-hearted like Rahelron insulted us, it's not because we're nasty trolls (we're not), it's because you presume and act like romances are in by-default even though devs have not said that are they in or not. They have said that there will be different kind of mature relationships, and there are lot of different kind of mature relationships and does not mean necessarely romances. Lurky wrote a great post about possible relationships and how the topic should be handled. so again: it's because you presume and act like romances are in by-default even though devs have not said that are they in or not. Edit: link to Lurky's post Edited October 18, 2012 by jarpie 3
FlintlockJazz Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Hardly. I would love meaningful interactions be it romance or anythin else for that matter.The whole "it takes too much resource to create romance" like you said is bull. It takes resources to create any kind of meaningful dialogue. Even the deep friendship you speak of. Its bull is it? Please provide your reasoning as to why like I did. And as to all interactions costing resources: yes thats the point. I'm arguing that the non romance relationships should be given priority for the reasons I stated in my post. "That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail "Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams
Valinthor Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) lol why? why should they be given preference? Just because you said so? Choice is good. I will let Obsidian be the judge of what will make it and what wont. You or I saying one emotion should be given precedence over the other has no bearing whatsoever. Non Romance in your case, non hate, non revenge, non friendship. etc etc etc. in someone else's. Purely subjective. Edited October 18, 2012 by Valinthor 1
evdk Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Real people don't just sit there waiting for you to click on them. Absolutely right! Some people here, on Obsidian forums, complained something like "Oh, those banters, I hate them! I kicked Imoen cause she participated in a lot of NPC talks. From my point of view - the more banters, that more NPC-initiated dialogue we have, the better I agree and I think that was one thing that made BG2 really stand out amongs other RPGs. Even mass effect, which is arguably a very character and dialogue driven RPG, does not have this direct interaction with the party members, as BG2 did. Mass Effect is an RPG? Dialogue driven even? The things you learn every day... Say no to popamole!
Sylrissa Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) "Present your argument without declaring unfounded statements please" While I agree with this part 100%, I have seen people both for and against romance, guilty of such comments with purely unfounded statements. Edited October 18, 2012 by Sylrissa
Monte Carlo Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 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. 2
FlintlockJazz Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 lol why? why should they be given preference? Just because you said so? Choice is good. I will let Obsidian be the judge of what will make it and what wont. You or I saying one emotion should be given precedence over the other has no bearing whatsoever. Non Romance in your case, non hate, non revenge, non friendship. etc etc etc. in someone else's. Purely subjective. As I said, I gave my reasoning in my first post and am not writing it out again on my phone, and as I stated if they can do both without affecting the quality of the other then great. They have already stated how long it takes Avellone to write one character, the time he has can only be spent on so many things and they can only throw so many quality writers at something. I was expressing an opinion on the matter, what this thread is for and what you yourself have been doing, backing up my posts with the reasons why I think the way I do. "That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail "Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams
Forlorn Hope Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) 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. Edited October 18, 2012 by Forlorn Hope "Maybe your grandiose vocabulary is a pathetic compensation for an insufficiency in the nether regions of your anatomy."
BSoda Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I don't think most people here gets why "no romance"-crowd are arguing. It's not just because we dislike romacnes in games, it's not because we're cold-hearted like Rahelron insulted us, it's not because we're nasty trolls (we're not), it's because you presume and act like romances are in by-default even though devs have not said that are they in or not. They have said that there will be different kind of mature relationships, and there are lot of different kind of mature relationships and does not mean necessarely romances. Lurky wrote a great post about possible relationships and how the topic should be handled. so again: it's because you presume and act like romances are in by-default even though devs have not said that are they in or not. Edit: link to Lurky's post 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. Most 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.
Recommended Posts