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

[qloher]

They should listen to whoever brings up the most constructive arguments(if they sit on the fence,that is).

Wich is clearly not the case of the post you made(and neither the case of most pro-romance arguments).

Well, I think you are wrong here. My word vs. yours.

[jarpie]

You want multiple pc-npc romances for all sexual orientations and turn ons, may I ask why? Besides fan service, I don't see any reason for that.

You want them as extras, when what you don't understand is that we are talking about a story not a simulator. There can be good stories with romance, but romance to whatever extent is used as a literary and plot device. They are not DLC content and they are not there to please every sexuality. Gay or Straight, a good story doesn't have to try and please everyone, for them to like it.

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have.

More like you don't understand that it's a designer to decide what options to role-play you get because a game will obviously have limitations since it has to be finished and then released.

And since games are always limited obvious that some content will get in and some other won't.

Now,how do we decide wich gets in and wich doesn't?

Player demand for fanservice or artistic considerations?

 

It really isn't so hard to understand.

 

Also lol,to quote myself(and from this same page too!!!):

 

Furthermore their 'I'll bring up this point and if someone brings up a good counter argument I'll just drop the ball for a bit and when enough posts have buried that discussion I'll repeat it again instead of trying to have a constructive discussion' tactic isn't particularly positive don't you think?

The point you were trying to bring up has already been criticized several times in this and others threads,yet you brought it up regardless without bothering to bring up additional arguments to support your stance.

 

Nice try but, again,you'll have to wait to try again.Maybe 5-6 pages should do it.

 

Has anyone here ever worked on an elaborate, narrative-driven RPG? The notion that romances absorb excessive time and effort from the developers is speculative at best.

 

If it takes Avellone to write one companion two-three months at least, I'd say it's pretty damn excessive time and effort. Have YOU ever worked on writing elaborate, narrative-driven RPG?

 

An elaborate, narrative-driven RPG? No. That's why I said "has anyone" (including) and "speculative" -- if I knew for certain, I would just tell you, instead of asking a rhetorical question.

 

As for the other question: does "writing a companion takes two-three months at least," even make sense in a game where dialogue and narrative blend together with an open persistent world that is being worked on until the last second? Is Avellone writing those companions concurrently with other stretches of the game?

 

If two-three months were spent on writing companions to the exclusion of all else, then based on the number of projected companions, Avellone wouldn't be able to write anything else for any other part of the game before it is released.

 

Feargus has said that it takes him at least 2-3 months to write a single companion. I would bet that he writes the story, plot and companions all concurrently but they still have to calculate and budget on how many fricking hours he can spend on writing any given thing and how much of what he is writing.

[Living One]

You want multiple pc-npc romances for all sexual orientations and turn ons, may I ask why? Besides fan service, I don't see any reason for that.

You want them as extras, when what you don't understand is that we are talking about a story not a simulator. There can be good stories with romance, but romance to whatever extent is used as a literary and plot device. They are not DLC content and they are not there to please every sexuality. Gay or Straight, a good story doesn't have to try and please everyone, for them to like it.

You are missing the point. RPGs are not only about a story, they are also about role-playing, that is about doing what you want to do, behaving the way you want to behave, having priorities you have chosen to have.

More like you don't understand that it's a designer to decide what options to role-play you get because a game will obviously have limitations since it has to be finished and then released.

And since games are always limited obvious that some content will get in and some other won't.

Now,how do we decide wich gets in and wich doesn't?

Player demand for fanservice or artistic considerations?

 

It really isn't so hard to understand.

 

Also lol,to quote myself(and from this same page too!!!):

 

Furthermore their 'I'll bring up this point and if someone brings up a good counter argument I'll just drop the ball for a bit and when enough posts have buried that discussion I'll repeat it again instead of trying to have a constructive discussion' tactic isn't particularly positive don't you think?

The point you were trying to bring up has already been criticized several times in this and others threads,yet you brought it up regardless without bothering to bring up additional arguments to support your stance.

 

Nice try but, again,you'll have to wait to try again.Maybe 5-6 pages should do it.

 

Has anyone here ever worked on an elaborate, narrative-driven RPG? The notion that romances absorb excessive time and effort from the developers is speculative at best.

 

If it takes Avellone to write one companion two-three months at least, I'd say it's pretty damn excessive time and effort. Have YOU ever worked on writing elaborate, narrative-driven RPG?

Indeed.The 'it's just speculation' argument is another thing they just won't drop despite even having developer quotes.

 

Hey,Morality Games I have something for you too:

Furthermore their 'I'll bring up this point and if someone brings up a good counter argument I'll just drop the ball for a bit and when enough posts have buried that discussion I'll repeat it again instead of trying to have a constructive discussion' tactic isn't particularly positive don't you think?

Another 10 pages should work though.Either spam some stuff to bury it or try tomorrow.

[Merin]

You conviniently ignored Ultima-games, tell me, has any game really tackled on subjects such as becoming paragon of virtue, moral absolutism, corruption of men, racist prejudice and peaceful co-existance since then?

 

Tell me also any another crpg which does not have big bad or main antagonist other than Ultima 4?

 

And what else Ultima-games doesnt have...oh yeah, romances with your companions.

 

I don't know how convenient it was... but here goes some of my cRPG nerd cred.

 

Ultima's weren't my games.

 

I've barely touched most Ultimas, and have only played a bit of IV and VI.

 

I accept that Ultima IV was a paragon (pun intended) of cRPGs for the day. The Utlima's just never grabbed me - laser pistols and Lord British notwithstanding.

 

Also, I'd never played Might & Magic until like a year ago. Another big hole in my library of cRPG experience.

 

But you know what cRPG's from back then had romance?

 

Gold Box SSI games. In the background, like the Dragonlance games... or with the PC and companion, in Treasures of the Savage Frontier.

[Amentep]

That said I haven't seen a sign of the anti-crown being disrespected; I know Monte Carlo got some posts cut but not having seen the content I certainly can't speak to the justification of such actions.

 

What about this: http://forums.obsidi...00#entry1248851

 

The cold-hearted trolls managed to taint this topic too.

 

Why they are still claiming that there's people demanding NPCs to have sex with is beyond me.

 

I don't see that as disrespect for the anti-romance group anymore so than I see

Romances bring in weird people, just wait for the pie charts and graphs proving dev's bias against whatever.

as disrespect for the pro-romance crowd.

 

Perhaps I just have unnaturally thick skin / low ability to detect disrespect?

[ComradeGoby]

Unlike most of the other oldschool crpg fans I don't have a big problem with romances.

 

I think if it fits the charcter in a way that makes sense that's fine.

 

What I don't want is some kind of quota like we need 1 gay romance, 1 bisexual, 1 straight, 1 dionsaur, etc etc.

 

I just don't think it's that big of deal either way.

[Jasede]

Dinosaur romance? Count me in!

[evdk]

I don't see that as disrespect for the anti-romance group anymore so than I see

Romances bring in weird people, just wait for the pie charts and graphs proving dev's bias against whatever.

as disrespect for the pro-romance crowd.

 

Perhaps I just have unnaturally thick skin / low ability to detect disrespect?

Oh, disrespect was intended, at least towards certain demographics.

[kenup]

How can I not discredit their opinion when they support bad writers, but discredit good ones? They don't even know what they ask for.

 

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me.

 

Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent.

What is subjective about good writing?

 

Apparently some people like James Joyce's ULYSSES.

 

I kid. Well kind of.

 

There's a technical aspect to writing and a creative aspect. The technical aspect is I'd agree objective to a large degree (and yet writers can subvert it to effect as well, so it's not always clear cut); the creative aspect is, however entirely subjective. At least that's how I see it.

 

"Romance" minigames are like killing Sheppard at the beginning of ME2, just as justification for the time jump, but never exploring the meaning of dying and being brought back to life.

 

That's because SHEPPARDS DEATH with respect to the plot is an element of the story, not necessarily the point of the story. That said it is an element of character since being brought back by CEREBUS effects the character interactions that Sheppard has. To me a romance could serve as a good element of defining character between PC/NPC or NPC/NPC but only if it fits the context of the story and fits the characters involved and fits the developers vision for the game in general.

It just moves the time forward! And it isn't an element of sheppard's character, because he doesn't care about it, nor does anyone else. You don't just ****ing kill the protagonist, only to bring him back to life minutes later. Sheppard is a brick. We don't see what he experienced, if anything, while dead. We don't see that traumatizing, hell lethal, experience. progress him as a character. And it doesn't matter to the plot either, the time jump was not needed, sheppard's death was not needed. Same with "romance" minigames; they don't serve anything(other than fan service).

Edited October 19, 2012 by kenup

[qloher]

Ok, 2-3 months for a companion from the ground. Romance is what, like 10% of all said character interactions at best. And that makes 6-9 days to write. While also writing something else simultaneously. Doesn't look all that expensive.

At worst it's 5% of all interactions if not less, which is even cheaper.

[Living One]

Dinosaur romance? Count me in!

I insist there should also be a sack of potatoes romance option.

 

_{Twitchers need their love too,no?}

[Morality Games]

How can I not discredit their opinion when they support bad writers, but discredit good ones? They don't even know what they ask for.

 

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me.

 

Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent.

What is subjective about good writing?

 

Apparently some people like James Joyce's ULYSSES.

 

I kid. Well kind of.

 

There's a technical aspect to writing and a creative aspect. The technical aspect is I'd agree objective to a large degree (and yet writers can subvert it to effect as well, so it's not always clear cut); the creative aspect is, however entirely subjective. At least that's how I see it.

 

"Romance" minigames are like killing Sheppard at the beginning of ME2, just as justification for the time jump, but never exploring the meaning of dying and being brought back to life.

 

That's because SHEPPARDS DEATH with respect to the plot is an element of the story, not necessarily the point of the story. That said it is an element of character since being brought back by CEREBUS effects the character interactions that Sheppard has. To me a romance could serve as a good element of defining character between PC/NPC or NPC/NPC but only if it fits the context of the story and fits the characters involved and fits the developers vision for the game in general.

It just moves the time forward! And it isn't an element of sheppard's character, because he doesn't care about it, nor does anyone else. You don't just ****ing kill the protagonist, only to bring him back to life minutes later. Sheppard is a brick. We don't see what he experienced, if anything, while dead. We don't see that traumatizing, hell lethal, experience. progress him as a character. And it doesn't matter to the plot either, the time jump was not needed, sheppard's death was not needed. Same with "romance" minigames; they don't serve anything.

 

'Anything' is extreme. They don't serve the main narrative.

 

Neither do side missions or the mega-dungeon.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Morality Games

[The Mist Devil]

My personnal opinion is: If it's done well and it suits the characters, it's a fun challenge sometimes. Like turning Viconia into a TN character was something interesting in BG2, you really had to be careful of what you did and when you did it. I found some other romances into other games to be too much like a psychanalysis of the other part. No need to have some frail partner or some emotive wreak needing your strong support. Stronger bounds of comraderie that evolve into something more, why not?

 

Like ComradeGoby said, we don't need quotas as well, nor is it a necessity to have something too deep.

 

Plus, I don't like the comments about people seeing this as online dating. Emotional attachment (in a sane and healthy way) with a story, to see it evolve, change and progress is something that just makes it different than a big dungeon crawl (like IWD2 who did a great job at it). I believe that -if- they can put good stories behind it and that it does not delay the rest of the scripts, nor force some kind of remastering of the story to include said romances, why not?

 

You don't like romances and they implemant one? The first time something "romantic" starts, just say the usual last choice sentence: Not interested, lets continue the adventure.

Edited October 19, 2012 by The Mist Devil

[Jasede]

Ok, 2-3 months for a companion from the ground. Romance is what, like 10% of all said character interactions at best. And that makes 6-9 days to write. While also writing something else simultaneously. Doesn't look all that expensive.

At worst it's 5% of all interactions if not less, which is even cheaper.

 

No. A romance would change/color the entire interaction with the character. It'd be a red thread running through everything if it's to be done with any measure of quality. Let MCA and Ziets use their own discretion. FFS.

[GrueWithNoLight]

Wait, didn't even LotR have a few romances in it?

 

Samwise and Frodo at least...

 

I kid, I kid...

 

You kid? You mean it's not an epic saga of two men's love for one another transcending the world they live in and sailing off into the sunset together?

 

Not an epic saga, more a short story

[Living One]

They should listen to whoever brings up the most constructive arguments(if they sit on the fence,that is).

Wich is clearly not the case of the post you made(and neither the case of most pro-romance arguments).

Well, I think you are wrong here. My word vs. yours.

My word does have arguments.Yours,not so much.

Ok, 2-3 months for a companion from the ground. Romance is what, like 10% of all said character interactions at best. And that makes 6-9 days to write. While also writing something else simultaneously. Doesn't look all that expensive.

At worst it's 5% of all interactions if not less, which is even cheaper.

Denial stage,I see.No romance has ever been that dry in terms of quantity,now THIS is wild speculation.And if that's going to be the case with PE why would you want it?

[Morality Games]

Ok, 2-3 months for a companion from the ground. Romance is what, like 10% of all said character interactions at best. And that makes 6-9 days to write. While also writing something else simultaneously. Doesn't look all that expensive.

At worst it's 5% of all interactions if not less, which is even cheaper.

 

No. A romance would change/color the entire interaction with the character. It'd be a red thread running through everything if it's to be done with any measure of quality. Let MCA and Ziets use their own discretion. FFS.

 

The stretches that "run through everything" require editing. Eventually it will carry you into completely unique dialogues that require all new writing.

[Malcador]

Really hope Obsidian just announces they're adding in romances for you people then this can all go to bed.

[jarpie]

You conviniently ignored Ultima-games, tell me, has any game really tackled on subjects such as becoming paragon of virtue, moral absolutism, corruption of men, racist prejudice and peaceful co-existance since then?

 

Tell me also any another crpg which does not have big bad or main antagonist other than Ultima 4?

 

And what else Ultima-games doesnt have...oh yeah, romances with your companions.

 

I don't know how convenient it was... but here goes some of my cRPG nerd cred.

 

Ultima's weren't my games.

 

I've barely touched most Ultimas, and have only played a bit of IV and VI.

 

I accept that Ultima IV was a paragon (pun intended) of cRPGs for the day. The Utlima's just never grabbed me - laser pistols and Lord British notwithstanding.

 

Also, I'd never played Might & Magic until like a year ago. Another big hole in my library of cRPG experience.

 

But you know what cRPG's from back then had romance?

 

Gold Box SSI games. In the background, like the Dragonlance games... or with the PC and companion, in Treasures of the Savage Frontier.

 

Ultimas didn't have laser pistols after maybe first two or three parts. The point I was making is that one of The Most mature and serious RPGs ever made didn't have any romances, and I have been asking "Why should Project Eternity be one of the games to have romances." and only reply I've been getting is with the buzzwords "Becooz it makes dem deeper!", and I've been saying this since beginning: With very limited timetable and budget they can only do so much (or little) so they should keep the game as focused as possible.

[Amentep]

Unlike most of the other oldschool crpg fans I don't have a big problem with romances.

 

I think if it fits the charcter in a way that makes sense that's fine.

 

What I don't want is some kind of quota like we need 1 gay romance, 1 bisexual, 1 straight, 1 dionsaur, etc etc.

 

I just don't think it's that big of deal either way.

 

I think the problem with the "quota" system is that it removes the development out of the game out of what makes sense. Just like I think it is entirely possible for a good game to be completely devoid of romance because that's what makes sense for the scope of the game/story.

 

Oh, disrespect was intended, at least towards certain demographics.

 

I'm not saying it isn't disrespectful, just not to the entire group of pro-romances (since not all of them weird people with pie-charts and graphs).

 

It just moves the time forward! And it isn't an element of sheppard's character, because he doesn't care about it, nor does anyone else. You don't just ****ing kill the protagonist, only to bring him back to life minutes later. Sheppard is a brick. We don't see what he experienced, if anything, while dead. We don't see that traumatizing, hell lethal, experience. progress him as a character. And it doesn't matter to the plot either, the time jump was not needed, sheppard's death was not needed. Same with "romance" minigames; they don't serve anything.

 

Look I think the opening to ME2 is stupid and I really dislike where they took the series. But - the fact that's he's brought back to life effect the ability to influence that Cerberus lady, it changes how the marine from the first game views you when you meet, how Tali views you, how Liara views you and it comes up in dialogue. Can't remember if Shepard comments much without prodding. So it does have some effect in how the game treats Shepard with respect to the other characters.

 

Now I won't disagree with you that most of the sex scenes (never tried them all) within the modern Bioware games exist as time jumps that "finalize" the romance relationship banter, with varying degrees of success in how those play out (and few having an in-game impact outside of postgame story outside of Morrigan). But I'm not (and I think many others aren't) arguing that romances need to have a culmination in sex either.

[Morality Games]

Really hope Obsidian just announces they're adding in romances for you people then this can all go to bed.

 

Not sure if I do. What else do we have to talk about for 18 months of development?

[Monte Carlo]

Has anyone here ever worked on an elaborate, narrative-driven RPG? The notion that romances absorb excessive time and effort from the developers is speculative at best.

 

No.

 

I have however written three novels with extensive dialogue, none of which was less than 85000 words. Each one took me, on average, six months (OK, I have a day job too).

 

The idea of writing branching dialogue within an externally determined plot fills me with dread... plus you are doing it for seven other detailed NPCs and a protagonist with X amount of racial / class-based / faction sensitive variables. Double Plus, doing that while keeping the writing taut and suitable to the genre (i.e. relatively short bursts of dialogue suitable for a game) ... honestly that's spinning a lot of plates.

 

So I'd make an educated guess and say that, to do it properly, it ain't the sort of thing you write in a couple of weeks. It's proper work.

 

Edit: May I add to that... each NPC needs romance and non-romance story and dialogue arcs. Therefore each romanceable, I would imagine, is at least 25-50% more work to factor in some sort of meaningful non-romance dialogue for the people who aren't interested. I think having NPCs who are empty vessels, content-wise, if you don't romance them is pretty poor.

 

I'm not just saying this as a romance-sceptic, I'm saying it as someone who has done some writing to a reasonable submission-ready standard. And MCA ain't our bitch. Give him a break.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Monte Carlo

[jarpie]

How can I not discredit their opinion when they support bad writers, but discredit good ones? They don't even know what they ask for.

 

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me.

 

Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent.

What is subjective about good writing?

 

Apparently some people like James Joyce's ULYSSES.

 

I kid. Well kind of.

 

There's a technical aspect to writing and a creative aspect. The technical aspect is I'd agree objective to a large degree (and yet writers can subvert it to effect as well, so it's not always clear cut); the creative aspect is, however entirely subjective. At least that's how I see it.

 

"Romance" minigames are like killing Sheppard at the beginning of ME2, just as justification for the time jump, but never exploring the meaning of dying and being brought back to life.

 

That's because SHEPPARDS DEATH with respect to the plot is an element of the story, not necessarily the point of the story. That said it is an element of character since being brought back by CEREBUS effects the character interactions that Sheppard has. To me a romance could serve as a good element of defining character between PC/NPC or NPC/NPC but only if it fits the context of the story and fits the characters involved and fits the developers vision for the game in general.

It just moves the time forward! And it isn't an element of sheppard's character, because he doesn't care about it, nor does anyone else. You don't just ****ing kill the protagonist, only to bring him back to life minutes later. Sheppard is a brick. We don't see what he experienced, if anything, while dead. We don't see that traumatizing, hell lethal, experience. progress him as a character. And it doesn't matter to the plot either, the time jump was not needed, sheppard's death was not needed. Same with "romance" minigames; they don't serve anything.

 

'Anything' is extreme. They don't serve the main narrative.

 

Neither do side missions or the mega-dungeon.

 

How do you know? Do you have somekind of magical crystal ball? They will probably tie in sub-quests and mega-dungeon into the main narrative.

[Amentep]

With very limited timetable and budget they can only do so much (or little) so they should keep the game as focused as possible.

 

And I agree with you. But if it fits the story and if it fits the characters and if it fits the development time and if it fits where the creators want to take the game...I say 'why not?'

 

yes that is a lot of ifs.

 

But frankly if they had all the money in the world and all the time they wanted, I'd still argue the test is 'does it fit the game, characters and story'

Edited October 19, 2012 by Amentep

[Morality Games]

How can I not discredit their opinion when they support bad writers, but discredit good ones? They don't even know what they ask for.

 

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me.

 

Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent.

What is subjective about good writing?

 

Apparently some people like James Joyce's ULYSSES.

 

I kid. Well kind of.

 

There's a technical aspect to writing and a creative aspect. The technical aspect is I'd agree objective to a large degree (and yet writers can subvert it to effect as well, so it's not always clear cut); the creative aspect is, however entirely subjective. At least that's how I see it.

 

"Romance" minigames are like killing Sheppard at the beginning of ME2, just as justification for the time jump, but never exploring the meaning of dying and being brought back to life.

 

That's because SHEPPARDS DEATH with respect to the plot is an element of the story, not necessarily the point of the story. That said it is an element of character since being brought back by CEREBUS effects the character interactions that Sheppard has. To me a romance could serve as a good element of defining character between PC/NPC or NPC/NPC but only if it fits the context of the story and fits the characters involved and fits the developers vision for the game in general.

It just moves the time forward! And it isn't an element of sheppard's character, because he doesn't care about it, nor does anyone else. You don't just ****ing kill the protagonist, only to bring him back to life minutes later. Sheppard is a brick. We don't see what he experienced, if anything, while dead. We don't see that traumatizing, hell lethal, experience. progress him as a character. And it doesn't matter to the plot either, the time jump was not needed, sheppard's death was not needed. Same with "romance" minigames; they don't serve anything.

 

'Anything' is extreme. They don't serve the main narrative.

 

Neither do side missions or the mega-dungeon.

 

How do you know? Do you have somekind of magical crystal ball? They will probably tie in sub-quests and mega-dungeon into the main narrative.

 

Even if so, tying something into the main narrative doesn't necessarily add to the narrative -- it uses the narrative to add interest to the side mission.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Morality Games