Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2

[Morality Games]

There's been a lot of focus with companion mechanics in terms of like "how do I romance this person?" I'd like to think that there are other types of relationships that you can have with a companion, whether it's friendship, rivalry, hatred, or revenge. Romances end up being an easy target, but I think there's a lot more you can do with companion relationships. Also, I think a lot of games have fallen into the hole of the evil choice is always a psychotic option. There's a whole spectrum of other stuff you can do in conversation that I'm looking forward to doing. Sometimes depending on the franchise it does make sense that you have these really extreme morality bars, because that's the nature of the franchise.

 

With this world I think it's going to be a little bit more subtle. The whole premise of the lore and the magic system is that souls get inherited, and then when you pass away the souls wait for a time and then come back to another body. The question is how much of your own behavior is being governed by your own free will or the influence of the soul inside you and all of its history? I think that can raise some interesting questions for both the player character and the companions.

 

This was in the very recent interview with Chris Avellone - Does that look like they're gonna put romances in?

 

It sounds like its going to be ambiguous and more about spiritual attraction, like every Avellone romance.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Morality Games

[Malcador]

Sounds like they might put a couple in, just for completeness sake but his real excitement is at exploring other types of relationships. Then I guess these people can get their emotional fulfillment from it (and be smug about it, I suppose).

 

Sadly, it is not enough to put a bullet in this topic.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Malcador

[Living One]

spiritual attraction, like every Avellone romance.

Annah was truly spiritual.Oh wait.

[Rink]

@jarpie I already answered that question of yours #484 and you even quoted it

 

It doesn't sound like he wants to exclude romances. Actually it sounds exactly like what I and others wanted in this topic. :D Thanks, I am happy now.

[Morality Games]

spiritual attraction, like every Avellone romance.

Annah was truly spiritual.Oh wait.

 

Depends on how fine of detail you look at it. She did resist physical advances, was motivated more loneliness, and feared fate.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Morality Games

[Amentep]

Low-intelligence dialogue has been asked by a lot of people and devs actually -loves- to write low-intelligence dialogue, so would you want to force devs to drop something out of the game what they love to write just because you selfishly want romances romances in?

 

I think we need a bit more reality here.

 

Where did romances and low intelligence dialogues become mutually exclusive again?

 

They aren't. I think the comparison is being made because both are dialog focused additions to the game that not every player will access. There are players who don't want to have romance in the game, for whatever reason. There are players who never play low intelligence characters, either. So both of those are relatively similar examples of text-only parts of a game that are for a limited percentage of the audience...

 

so from that comes the jump that one could lead to the elimination of the other, if it comes down to limited writing resources.

 

That's the range of the debate, at least as I see it.

 

There are no limited writing resources. They could have had both romances and low intelligence dialogue at 1.1 million.

 

The entire idea is a myth.

 

Or they could have neither.

 

It takes time to do anything in a game, so by the nature of game development, time is a limited resource. Therefore there is a limited resource - time - allotted for the writing of all dialogues, I'd think. Thus comes the "if they had time to do low int dialogue or romance dialogue but not both, what would you want them to do?" question.

[jarpie]

@jarpie I already answered that question of yours #484 and you even quoted it

 

It doesn't sound like he wants to exclude romances. Actually it sounds exactly like what I and others wanted in this topic. :D Thanks, I am happy now.

 

You didn't answer if YOU WOULD WANT TO FORCE DEVS TO REMOVE LOW-INT DIALOGUE WHAT THEY LOVE TO WRITE FOR THE ROMANCES WHAT THEY DISLIKE TO WRITE JUST BECAUSE YOU SELFISHLY WANT ROMANCES IN.

[Uomoz]

spiritual attraction, like every Avellone romance.

Annah was truly spiritual.Oh wait.

 

Depends on how fine of detail you look at it. She did resist physical advances, was motivated more loneliness, and feared fate.

 

QFT. I liked Annah relationship with TNO.

 

That part of Avellone interview actually semi-confirmed my point of view. Avellone-style companion interactions are going to be in (and that was obvious), no hot steamy sex (luckily), possible "romance" with 1-2 (few but well defined) characters. Like PST.

 

EDIT: oplease, caps-lock was cool 5-6 years ago.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Uomoz

[Loranc]

@Loranc I share your view about low intelligence writing, because usually you have to forfeit too much if you want to play such a character and then have to search the changes, because often it isn't the whole dialogue that is changed but only bits and pieces.

I still think romances can be handled well and I would consider the P:T-"romances" (if you want to call them that) to be exactly that Also since many will not really call them romances at all, maybe there is a place for something similar in the game, who knows :D

 

any sources where was said what you quoted here, anyone?

...As I'm sure I read somewhere that he hates romances.

It's also been stated that it won't fit the main pc, not the vision that Chris has of him anyway.

 

Because I am sure someone would have rubbed that in my face pages ago :D

 

@Jarpie

No I did say if you take your "ressources"-argument seriously, then you would shoot against other features than romances, like for example the low-int-dialogues.

 

My diagram would look like this, so for me both reactions are with emotions to what you did. For me romances can be exactly that.

 

Minsc:

Hamster in microwave yes --> Friendship reaction angry --> dialogue accordingly

Hamster in microwave no --> Friendship reaction happy --> dialogue accordingly

 

NPC2:

Comfort when sad yes --> Friendship reaction affection --> dialogue accordingly (possible romance much later)

Comfort when sad no --> Friendship reaction distant --> dialogue accordingly

 

I know I read it... and I will find it, it may take me a while but i'm looking. Though i'm unsure now as to if it was Avellone or Sawyer who stated that the romance wouldn't fit the main character. Avellone also tried to get the romance removed from other games such as Alpha Protocol. Which tells me he is not in favor of them. But, let me try and find that quote, I'll find it eventually.

[Morality Games]

@jarpie I already answered that question of yours #484 and you even quoted it

 

It doesn't sound like he wants to exclude romances. Actually it sounds exactly like what I and others wanted in this topic. :D Thanks, I am happy now.

 

You didn't answer if YOU WOULD WANT TO FORCE DEVS TO REMOVE LOW-INT DIALOGUE WHAT THEY LOVE TO WRITE FOR THE ROMANCES WHAT THEY DISLIKE TO WRITE JUST BECAUSE YOU SELFISHLY WANT ROMANCES IN.

@jarpie I already answered that question of yours #484 and you even quoted it

 

It doesn't sound like he wants to exclude romances. Actually it sounds exactly like what I and others wanted in this topic. :D Thanks, I am happy now.

 

You didn't answer if YOU WOULD WANT TO FORCE DEVS TO REMOVE LOW-INT DIALOGUE WHAT THEY LOVE TO WRITE FOR THE ROMANCES WHAT THEY DISLIKE TO WRITE JUST BECAUSE YOU SELFISHLY WANT ROMANCES IN.

 

Truth be told, I tend to agree with the argument that low intelligence dialogues patterned after the speech of mentally handicapped persons are offensive. The whole thing started decades ago around tabletop role-playing as a way to punish players who min/maxed and ended up with low intelligence, for the general amusement of everyone around the table. That might be funny privately, among friends, but as a public statement it does border on tasteless. I would exclude them for that reason.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Morality Games

[Living One]

spiritual attraction, like every Avellone romance.

Annah was truly spiritual.Oh wait.

 

Depends on how fine of detail you look at it. She did resist physical advances, was motivated more loneliness, and feared fate.

You could say similar things about plenty of Bioware romances.They still wouldn't have any depth.She falls in love for TNO merely due to a juvenile crush.She might have been afraid for her fate but how does she deal with it?By throwing herself at some random dude's arms?Please.That might even give feminazis something to talk about.

 

Let's face it:Avellone is a good writer but romances aren't his forte(not that I blame him:the chances of doing something right are small when it's pretty much always been done poorly).

[Rink]

@Jarpie I think alone that fact that nobody said that they hate writing romances makes your question a bit biased. But if you want me to answer a biased question with a yes or no: no, I wouldn't force them because I am a buyer of their product and I have no way of forcing anything on anybody.

But maybe you misunderstand me: I do not want romances just for the sake of having them in the game. I want interactivity with companions and thus not having all romantic aspects (and other emotions) artificially removed when they make sense..

 

@Loranc, thanks I am very curious now. Maybe he will add a romance with the monk at least just to shut us up now though :D

Edited October 22, 2012 by Rink

[Merin]

Rink, I asked from you:

Low-intelligence dialogue has been asked by a lot of people and devs actually -loves- to write low-intelligence dialogue, so would you want to force devs to drop something out of the game what they love to write just because you selfishly want romances romances in?

 

So, would you want to force devs do that?

 

I'm not rink, but here goes.

 

No.

 

If they want to do A and don't want to do B, then they should do A.

 

Your question is, as someone else pointed out, a false dichotomy... but I answered the spirit of what you are asking anyway.

 

Next question.

[jarpie]

@jarpie I already answered that question of yours #484 and you even quoted it

 

It doesn't sound like he wants to exclude romances. Actually it sounds exactly like what I and others wanted in this topic. :D Thanks, I am happy now.

 

You didn't answer if YOU WOULD WANT TO FORCE DEVS TO REMOVE LOW-INT DIALOGUE WHAT THEY LOVE TO WRITE FOR THE ROMANCES WHAT THEY DISLIKE TO WRITE JUST BECAUSE YOU SELFISHLY WANT ROMANCES IN.

@jarpie I already answered that question of yours #484 and you even quoted it

 

It doesn't sound like he wants to exclude romances. Actually it sounds exactly like what I and others wanted in this topic. :D Thanks, I am happy now.

 

You didn't answer if YOU WOULD WANT TO FORCE DEVS TO REMOVE LOW-INT DIALOGUE WHAT THEY LOVE TO WRITE FOR THE ROMANCES WHAT THEY DISLIKE TO WRITE JUST BECAUSE YOU SELFISHLY WANT ROMANCES IN.

 

Truth be told, I tend to agree with the argument that low intelligence dialogues patterned after the speech of mentally handicapped persons are offensive. The whole thing started decades ago around tabletop role-playing as a way to punish players who min/maxed and ended up with low intelligence, for the general amusement of everyone around the table. That might be funny privately, among friends, but as a public statement it does border on tasteless. I would exclude them for that reason.

 

Obvious troll is obvious, reported. Nice going with low-int = handicapped people and implying that Avellone would write them as such.

[Morality Games]

spiritual attraction, like every Avellone romance.

Annah was truly spiritual.Oh wait.

 

Depends on how fine of detail you look at it. She did resist physical advances, was motivated more loneliness, and feared fate.

You could say similar things about plenty of Bioware romances.They still wouldn't have any depth.She falls in love for TNO merely due to a juvenile crush.She might have been afraid for her fate but how does she deal with it?By throwing herself at some random dude's arms?Please.That might even give feminazis something to talk about.

 

Let's face it:Avellone is a good writer but romances aren't his forte(not that I blame him:the chances of doing something right are small when it's pretty much always been done poorly).

 

Even if I agreed Annah was the weak link (which I do in a limited sense), I wouldn't say Avellone is a weak romance writer. Fall-from-Grace, Brianna, and Visas Marr all met specifications.

 

Annah was basically a precursor to Morrigan. Morrigan enjoyed somewhat more depth because in additional to her contradictory impulses concerning friendship, family, and romance, she had esoteric goals and commitments that superseded them (the Old God and what it symbolized for the changing of times and her personal philosophy).

 

I think that saying Annah was motivated by a crush is a little extreme. Her surroundings and way of life were dangerous in any case. The Nameless One just brought some sense of purpose to the chaos.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Morality Games

[jarpie]

Rink, I asked from you:

Low-intelligence dialogue has been asked by a lot of people and devs actually -loves- to write low-intelligence dialogue, so would you want to force devs to drop something out of the game what they love to write just because you selfishly want romances romances in?

 

So, would you want to force devs do that?

 

I'm not rink, but here goes.

 

No.

 

If they want to do A and don't want to do B, then they should do A.

 

Your question is, as someone else pointed out, a false dichotomy... but I answered the spirit of what you are asking anyway.

 

Next question.

 

So you want a new round after the film-game debate? If you want serious debate with me like in film-game debate, sure - you need to be taken back to the ground from your high tower. I'll get you those three questions tomorrow when I'm not tired (it's almost past midnight here).

 

I actually love to debate - I haven't even began, boy.

Edited October 22, 2012 by jarpie

[Merin]

This was in the very recent interview with Chris Avellone - Does that look like they're gonna put romances in?

 

I have spoken on this before, but one more time -

 

the "romance" relevant part of that quote is this

 

There's been a lot of focus with companion mechanics in terms of like "how do I romance this person?" I'd like to think that there are other types of relationships that you can have with a companion, whether it's friendship, rivalry, hatred, or revenge. Romances end up being an easy target, but I think there's a lot more you can do with companion relationships.

 

Again, all that says is that he believes there is so much more you can do with a companion relationships in these games than "just romance."

 

It reads that there will be more to relationships with companions than romance. Or, even more exact, that he believes there is much more you can do.

 

It only says "romance is an easy target" and "there are more options."

 

You read more into that at your leisure, but it neither confirms nor denies romance in the game.

[Jasede]

Never gonna read that wall of text

You people are unbelievable.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Jasede

[Merin]

So you want a new round after the film-game debate? If you want serious debate with me like in film-game debate, sure - you need to be taken back to the ground from your high tower. I'll get you those three questions tomorrow when I'm not tired (it's almost past midnight here).

 

I actually love to debate - I haven't even began, boy.

 

The "film-game" thread wasn't a debate. The fact that a thread is allowed to exist that was just you wanting to have a public "private" discussion with me is quite strange - that should be a PM thing. And it began to be wall of text answering wall of text about something that, seriously, I can't imagine too many people will stay up at night wondering about "Geez, is the movie industry better at not just doing big AAA blockbusters than the game industry, the same, or worse?!?"

 

I still don't know what your point of making a thread for it was.

 

...

 

"High tower." Isn't that a mixed metaphor? Don't you mean I'm on a high horse, or an ivory tower?

 

....

 

I'd agree that you haven't begun to debate. Common ground.

 

....

 

"Boy." Am I supposed to be black or young? I'm not sure exactly how I'm meant to take this condescension. Help me so I can be properly flustered and outraged.

 

[Uomoz]

Never gonna read that wall of text

You people are unbelievable.

 

No, you people!

[Lurky]

You know, it worries me the reaction the forumites will have when (if?) we have confirmation one way or another on the inclusion/exclusion of player romances. It worries me because the radicals of the winning faction are going to feel validated by the authors and rub it in every time they can on the faces of the losing side, which will throw accusations of pandering and caving in to the pressure. That's the way it usually goes, anyway.

 

This never ends well. The losing section of fans will be angry and resentful for the duration of the game, which will put a damper on many, many discussions; it's going to be a long 18 months here. The behaviour of the winning section of fans will probably depend on what Obsidian ultimately decides, but I doubt it will lead to calm, reasoned stances. If no romances are included, the more militant anti-romancers might direct their energies to crusading against other topics (but they'll probably keep doing that anyway), and if romances are in, then the more militant pro-romancers might become overenthusiastic and start asking for the sun and the moon in terms of impact of the romances in the game, and growing to have overblown expectations just by entering a feedback loop between each other.

 

Or at least, that's what usually happens, in my experience. Just look at the Bioware forums: the romance requests have increasingly become bigger in scope. It's likely that this could happen here, too.

 

This is not an attempt to sway the discussion in any direction. It's just that I've followed closely this phenomenon on the BSN; it didn't end well there, and it could happen here too. Just voicing my worries, because I have doubts that either side will behave when this issue is settled.

[Jasede]

Don't you see? First someone asks him to present and clarify arguments- and he does- and then one of the first replies is "wall of text"? Don't you see how frustrating that is?

[Hormalakh]

I'm not going to read all 27 pages. But I'm hoping someone mentioned Haer D'alis and Aerie from BG2. They had a romance between them. So not everything was between the PC and the companions. Similarly, I really liked Viconia's romance because it was quite difficult to achieve and nothing is sweeter than a difficult relationship

[Jasede]

You know, it worries me the reaction the forumites will have when (if?) we have confirmation one way or another on the inclusion/exclusion of player romances. It worries me because the radicals of the winning faction are going to feel validated by the authors and rub it in every time they can on the faces of the losing side, which will throw accusations of pandering and caving in to the pressure. That's the way it usually goes, anyway.

 

This never ends well. The losing section of fans will be angry and resentful for the duration of the game, which will put a damper on many, many discussions; it's going to be a long 18 months here. The behaviour of the winning section of fans will probably depend on what Obsidian ultimately decides, but I doubt it will lead to calm, reasoned stances. If no romances are included, the more militant anti-romancers might direct their energies to crusading against other topics (but they'll probably keep doing that anyway), and if romances are in, then the more militant pro-romancers might become overenthusiastic and start asking for the sun and the moon in terms of impact of the romances in the game, and growing to have overblown expectations just by entering a feedback loop between each other.

 

Or at least, that's what usually happens, in my experience. Just look at the Bioware forums: the romance requests have increasingly become bigger in scope. It's likely that this could happen here, too.

 

This is not an attempt to sway the discussion in any direction. It's just that I've followed closely this phenomenon on the BSN; it didn't end well there, and it could happen here too. Just voicing my worries, because I have doubts that either side will behave when this issue is settled.

I shouldn't worry if I were you. It's likely going to be the low-key MotB romance approach which, while still not ideal (no romance) is something most could live with. Well, except for those who are looking for some fade-to-black scene with sampled moaning.

[Morality Games]

You know, it worries me the reaction the forumites will have when (if?) we have confirmation one way or another on the inclusion/exclusion of player romances. It worries me because the radicals of the winning faction are going to feel validated by the authors and rub it in every time they can on the faces of the losing side, which will throw accusations of pandering and caving in to the pressure. That's the way it usually goes, anyway.

 

This never ends well. The losing section of fans will be angry and resentful for the duration of the game, which will put a damper on many, many discussions; it's going to be a long 18 months here. The behaviour of the winning section of fans will probably depend on what Obsidian ultimately decides, but I doubt it will lead to calm, reasoned stances. If no romances are included, the more militant anti-romancers might direct their energies to crusading against other topics (but they'll probably keep doing that anyway), and if romances are in, then the more militant pro-romancers might become overenthusiastic and start asking for the sun and the moon in terms of impact of the romances in the game, and growing to have overblown expectations just by entering a feedback loop between each other.

 

Or at least, that's what usually happens, in my experience. Just look at the Bioware forums: the romance requests have increasingly become bigger in scope. It's likely that this could happen here, too.

 

This is not an attempt to sway the discussion in any direction. It's just that I've followed closely this phenomenon on the BSN; it didn't end well there, and it could happen here too. Just voicing my worries, because I have doubts that either side will behave when this issue is settled.

 

This isn't the ending of ME3, something that hundreds of thousands of people have (or can have) a great deal of passion and commitment to. This is a few weirdoes arguing about an obscure issue behind our computers. For everyone else, a large number will find romances and enjoy them, a comparable number will be mostly indifferent and may or may not, and a smaller number will be mildly annoyed and do their best to avoid them. Alternatively, a large number will be mildly disappointed, a comparable number will be indifferent and mostly won't care, and a smaller number will be pleased.

 

The stakes are relatively minor.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Morality Games