Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt. 3

[jarpie]

There's nothing about single-player games that necessarily precludes that sort of character design. I routinely create detailed personalities for my PCs in single-player games.

The difference between jarpie's characters and yours is that yours are completely disconnected from the game. If neither the gameworld or other players/npcs react to your PC's actions/traits/etc they might as well not exist.

 

Any bits of story that are implied, any character reactions or backstory or events not shown on the screen are all in your head. Your imagination is what makes games and stories work. As Scott McCloud would tell you, the gutter is the most important part of sequential storytelling.

 

And this is what makes cRPGs so compelling to those of us who DO role-play our characters and prefer LESS game reactivity to our characters. The more the game is coded to give reactions, the more limited your choices as a player are. But if you imagine what is happening in the gutters, then the story truly becomes yours.

 

The skilled story-teller (or cRPG designer) is the one who knows what is best left to the imagination and what is important to concretely show.

 

Chris Avellone understands this well. Look at him go into detail designing ONE character for Wasteland. ONE. http://forums.obsidi...l-set-symphony/ The game is NOT written to provide scripted responses to his character design. It's not even going to give him a "biography" box to type some of that in.

 

Why must this "might as well not exist"? Why can't the stuff in your head be just as much fund as the stuff on the screen?

 

The gutter is the most important part.

 

So let me get this straight... you want (or prefer) a RPG which has minimal amount of reactivity, choices & consequences and ways of game to react for your decisions, which is basicly opposite of what Obsidian has always been doing?

 

Are you sure you're in the correct forum since reactivity/reacting to the players choices, C&C and your decisions actually making a difference are Obsidian's forte? If what you say is true then you should just love Bethesda's games because they have very minimal amount of reactivity and you are free to "roleplay" character you yourself create.

 

Isn't the whole point in roleplaying a character to see how the world and others around react on what you do and why you choose your actions, then they react to your actions as their characters would and then in turn you react how your character would and so on, and that's why people roleplay when playing PNP or in multiplayer games like MMO or NWN where you can see the reactions in other characters?

 

What if game gives different motivation to your actions in later dialogue than what you have imagined in your head to the character, do you disregard your own imagined motivation, or do you take what the game and the writer has given?

Edited October 25, 2012 by jarpie

[Merin]

So let me get this straight... you want (or prefer) a RPG which has minimal amount of reactivity, choices & consequences and ways of game to react for your decisions, which is basicly opposite of what Obsidian has always been doing?

 

Not exactly. This part of what I said is important - "what is best left to the imagination and what is important to concretely show" Some parts of the game's story need to be shown a specific way. Important scenes, important reactions from NPCs.... when something vital to the theme or plot of the game happens, the player needs to make a choice (if a choice is offered, but we are talking role-playing here and not cut-scene exposition I assume) and the game needs to react to that choice.

 

But what reaction should be shown? Another part of this point on "gutter" or "left to the imagination" is that the game design shouldn't force decisions on the player's character or force reactions on the player's character. Dragon Age 2 is a horribly bad example of this done wrong - with all the auto-dialog and paraphrasing. Ostensibly Hawke is supposed to be your character, but there are many instances where Hawke is prescripted to react certain ways no matter what you've done in the game up to that point. This is bad.

 

The reactions should be on the NPC's (characters outside the players control for personality, background and backstory, etc.) but not from the PC. The world should react to what you do, NPCs (including companions you didn't design) should react to you... but the game shouldn't prescript your reactions.

 

Now, before you mention it, yes, there will be a limited number of dialog options to choose from. And maybe none of them fit exactly your character you thought of when you created the character at the start... but that's the limitation of a cRPG, and you still get to choose what best fits. It's not a script with some optional versions of what you can say or how you say it (ugh, unless, again, it's Dragon Age 2.)

 

Sometimes what happens after you make a decision needs to be shown to you. But sometimes it is better to have a vague reference and let your mind concoct the full ramifications to suit your views of the story. The more the game can be made the player's own, the more the player tends to be immersed and tends to enjoy it more.

 

But its not about the game, or the story, not reacting at all. It CAN be, as I have tons of fun with games where the story and NPCs really don't change based on your actions (Gold Box games, Bard's Tales series, etc.) Choice and consequence are nice, I like them, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be in a cRPG. But they aren't essential.

 

I don't think you are trying to use reactivity as a red herring, but for the point of creating your own character, it is one.

 

What if game gives different motivation to your actions in later dialogue than what you have imagined in your head to the character, do you disregard your own imagined motivation, or do you take what the game and the writer has given?

 

Here's where I start to diverge from Sylvius on things... I adapt my character to the game I'm playing and accept the limitations of the cRPG format. He is much deeper into his character, his way, and the game can be wrong.

 

But, going off of what I said earlier, the game should NOT give motivation to your actions unless it solicits you, the player, for what your motivation is.

 

Reasoning for what choices your character makes? Often best left to the player's imagination.

 

It's far too late for me to start looking for this kind of thing, but I know several Obsidian devs have commented on "creating and playing your own character" and given very similar (if not to the detail and focus on the "gutter" point) as to what I'm saying. The cRPG game that lets you make your own character should let you play you own character - this is a big reason many players prefer silent protagonists. Not everyone, but many.

 

Almost all Obsidian games (and Black Isle Studios games) play very well this way. The biggest exceptions are Alpha Protocol and possibly Planescape: Torment. Especially games like the Icewind Dales, the Fallouts, and Storm of Zehir.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Merin

[Shadenuat]

Choice and consequence are nice, I like them, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be in a cRPG. But they aren't essential.

If you're using a game as your deliverer of story, you should know your tools of trade and make the best out of them. I think *that* is a sign of good story-teller.

 

Reasoning for what choices your character makes? Often best left to the player's imagination.

Lot of people grown up and can't come up with a story using only two sticks and a cardboard box, you know. That's why Bethesda-style reactivity does't work for me, for example.

[Game_Exile]

***Edit***--- Merin ends up saying some things that are completely different in a later post on this page, but the my responses to the quoted post on p.5 are still good for illustrating my opinions, so I'm leaving it as is. I'd like to add one important comment about "reactivity", though. That is, "reactivity", or the collection of effects (however small or elaborate) that are scripted for certain player actions, when done well, helps to give the illusion of a cohesive "world", i.e. they make the game more immersive. But if the effects aren't "believable", they actually make the game less immersive. That's why it is a bad idea to overdo it with things like cut scenes and dialogue/text. You have to take into account all the elements of your game and how they will work as a whole.

 

 

 

 

Any bits of story that are implied, any character reactions or backstory or events not shown on the screen are all in your head. Your imagination is what makes games and stories work. As Scott McCloud would tell you, the gutter is the most important part of sequential storytelling.

 

And this is what makes cRPGs so compelling to those of us who DO role-play our characters and prefer LESS game reactivity to our characters. The more the game is coded to give reactions, the more limited your choices as a player are. But if you imagine what is happening in the gutters, then the story truly becomes yours.

What you are saying, unfortunately, is that you have the habit of using your imagination to make up for the shortcomings in a game's story/presentation/setting/etc. You like to imagine that you are playing a better game than you really are. I mean, wouldn't you rather be playing with action figures instead? If you get some nice customizable action figures and mini stage props, along with some stirring background music, wouldn't the resulting experience suit you better than the videogames you have played?

 

 

The skilled story-teller (or cRPG designer) is the one who knows what is best left to the imagination and what is important to concretely show.

I hate how this idea has always been worded: "what is best left to the imagination". What it actually means is "best left to SPECULATION". As in speculating about a mystery. It doesn't mean seeing an image or whatever and fantasizing like a delusional that all kinds of stuff that could appear somewhere, actually does appear there, when, in fact, it does not appear there.

 

 

Chris Avellone understands this well. Look at him go into detail designing ONE character for Wasteland. ONE. http://forums.obsidi...l-set-symphony/ The game is NOT written to provide scripted responses to his character design. It's not even going to give him a "biography" box to type some of that in.

That article is BS. When you have great high fidelity visuals, great music, and, more elaborate scripting, some points you put in worthless character stats at the beginning of the game mean nothing. These things were significant in Wasteland becuase there was very little in the way of visuals, dialogue, story content in that game. OK Avellone, Wasteland was so barebones compared to more modern games, that something as pathetically meager as points in useless character stats actually mattered significantly to Wasteland's style. So what? When you have more and better detail in parts of your CRPGs (visual or otherwise), 1)much less can be left to the imagination, and 2) the demands for matching detail everywhere else (including more elaborate scripting) become exponentially greater. The stuff Avellone was talking about really only applies to ridiculously primitive CRPGs, Wasteland being a shining example of games that are too far outdated by now.

 

If you want to tell a good story, then you simply have to design your quest system elegantly so that everything the player does, including "side quests", are meaningfully connected to the "central" story, the game's story, i.e. it is a part of the story and in certain parts more intimately or more tenuously connected with whatever central themes/concepts the story revolves around. But either way, everything has to be part of a whole. Witness this quote from the kickstarter page:

Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment. [emphasis added]

Yes, you need to "tie it all together", meaning you have to design it. ------ Now an aside, WTF is this about "mature thematic exploration"? Torment had grandiose concepts, good scripting, and cohesive setting and style, not "mature thematic exploration". Stop with that BS, it's embarrassing. "What is the measure of a man?" lol. Has everyone forgotten what Torment was really like?

 

Now since I've mentioned it, I want to emphasize again how important it is to have a cohesive style in your setting. And let me be clear about what I now mean by "setting". Setting is not just background art. As pertains to story, setting is practically everything, all of the contents, except the "movement". You do whatever works, whatever gives the strongest experience. That is, if you are making a game, and not some design ethic. And also, if you're going to have an optional 15 ****ing level mega dungeon with epic monsters and gear, the "option" to do it or not NEEDS to have some (major) impact on the story, unless you want your story to be **** for everyone who doesn't want to pretend that it's not there.

 

 

Why can't the stuff in your head be just as much fund as the stuff on the screen?

It can be fun, but then why are you looking at the screen? To help you imagine stuff that's more interesting than what's represented on the screen? For ****'s sake.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Game_Exile

[kenup]

-snip-

No, you can't roleplay anything. And I'm sure Bioware fits your desire to roleplay more, since their characters are bricks and let you do the thinking roleplaying. And I never mentioned it was my teacher(nor that it was in english), that said that thing; I just cited a source. That as it may, I'm pretty sure a guy that has studied the thing has a better knowledge than an or fanfiction writer like you. MacGuffins are things that are only used as plot devices; not all plot devices are Macguffins. Most things in good stories are moving the plot or otherwise affect the plot; or the characters involved in that plot. You just learned the name of a trope and throw it around. You are still a Bhaalspawn raised in Candlekeep and Imoen's half sibling, you are still the Exile, you are still Revan, you are still the Knight Commander, you are still the Vault Dweller, you are still the Chosen One etc. You don't create a role, you customize that role, within the limits of the plot. The writer's job is to put everything necessary in there, not yours, not mine.

 

And yes stats are important in a roleplaying game, the story is the icing on the cake as Monte said. Not to mention that stats should be taken into account by the narrative, that's why things like low intelligence dialogue options are a good thing to have. Your beloved bioware doesn't do that, outside of one scene at most. That's when gameplay and story Segretion occurs, which is at least one inconsistency in the world.

 

I'm not saying it should be a novel, but some basic rules have to be followed. And try for once to say something worthwhile, not your own biased opinion.

 

Edit: Let me just add that if you want reactivity and consequences, you can't expect to be able to roleplay anything.

Edited October 25, 2012 by kenup

[jarpie]

So let me get this straight... you want (or prefer) a RPG which has minimal amount of reactivity, choices & consequences and ways of game to react for your decisions, which is basicly opposite of what Obsidian has always been doing?

 

Not exactly. This part of what I said is important - "what is best left to the imagination and what is important to concretely show" Some parts of the game's story need to be shown a specific way. Important scenes, important reactions from NPCs.... when something vital to the theme or plot of the game happens, the player needs to make a choice (if a choice is offered, but we are talking role-playing here and not cut-scene exposition I assume) and the game needs to react to that choice.

 

But what reaction should be shown? Another part of this point on "gutter" or "left to the imagination" is that the game design shouldn't force decisions on the player's character or force reactions on the player's character. Dragon Age 2 is a horribly bad example of this done wrong - with all the auto-dialog and paraphrasing. Ostensibly Hawke is supposed to be your character, but there are many instances where Hawke is prescripted to react certain ways no matter what you've done in the game up to that point. This is bad.

 

The reactions should be on the NPC's (characters outside the players control for personality, background and backstory, etc.) but not from the PC. The world should react to what you do, NPCs (including companions you didn't design) should react to you... but the game shouldn't prescript your reactions.

 

Now, before you mention it, yes, there will be a limited number of dialog options to choose from. And maybe none of them fit exactly your character you thought of when you created the character at the start... but that's the limitation of a cRPG, and you still get to choose what best fits. It's not a script with some optional versions of what you can say or how you say it (ugh, unless, again, it's Dragon Age 2.)

 

Sometimes what happens after you make a decision needs to be shown to you. But sometimes it is better to have a vague reference and let your mind concoct the full ramifications to suit your views of the story. The more the game can be made the player's own, the more the player tends to be immersed and tends to enjoy it more.

 

But its not about the game, or the story, not reacting at all. It CAN be, as I have tons of fun with games where the story and NPCs really don't change based on your actions (Gold Box games, Bard's Tales series, etc.) Choice and consequence are nice, I like them, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be in a cRPG. But they aren't essential.

 

I don't think you are trying to use reactivity as a red herring, but for the point of creating your own character, it is one.

 

What if game gives different motivation to your actions in later dialogue than what you have imagined in your head to the character, do you disregard your own imagined motivation, or do you take what the game and the writer has given?

 

Here's where I start to diverge from Sylvius on things... I adapt my character to the game I'm playing and accept the limitations of the cRPG format. He is much deeper into his character, his way, and the game can be wrong.

 

But, going off of what I said earlier, the game should NOT give motivation to your actions unless it solicits you, the player, for what your motivation is.

 

Reasoning for what choices your character makes? Often best left to the player's imagination.

 

It's far too late for me to start looking for this kind of thing, but I know several Obsidian devs have commented on "creating and playing your own character" and given very similar (if not to the detail and focus on the "gutter" point) as to what I'm saying. The cRPG game that lets you make your own character should let you play you own character - this is a big reason many players prefer silent protagonists. Not everyone, but many.

 

Almost all Obsidian games (and Black Isle Studios games) play very well this way. The biggest exceptions are Alpha Protocol and possibly Planescape: Torment. Especially games like the Icewind Dales, the Fallouts, and Storm of Zehir.

 

How can the developers write meaningful alternate routes, choices & consequences or options if game wouldn't solicit responses and reactions from the player, and make player to react to what happens in the game world and show the effects on the player character and his dialogue to what happens in the game? And what about gameworld and NPCs reacting on what you do, just the actions? Don't you think that if they write the dialogues where you can choose motivation behind your actions, they can then branch it out on NPCs and the gameworld that how they react both the action and the motivation?

 

Since you want deep relationships so badly to the game, tell me this; how can they write any meaningful relationships with the NPCs unless they show player character having potential motivations and reacting on what the NPCs say, or NPCs reacting to the motivations player character has? Don't you think that player choosing from potential motivations makes the interactions with the NPCs much more deeper than with just very little of motivation shown or none at all?

 

I'll give you an example; You choose to do something to the Companion A, later Companion B pulls you to the side and asks why did you do it and game gives you several options for the motivation, and depending on what you choose, it affects your relationship with the Companion B but also potentially Companion B's relationship with Companion A. See now?

 

What about the writer wanting to show several potential motivations for the player character to choose from and building up the character they have written or do you think you are better coming up with them than MCA for his character, for example?

 

Also as I talk below, how they could deal with any themes concerning for example, friendships or how the souls affect the behaviour unless they write player character reacting to the other characters and what happens in the gameworld, also if they wouldn't give player any motivations to choose from how they can deal with the soul possibly influencing the choices you make?

 

If for example they write that player character makes choices on what the motivations are for what he does, and then they show player character remembering the soul's past lives, wouldn't the motivations be important in dealing with that and not just the actions since they are dealing with the themes that does soul and its history influence the player characters behaviour?

 

More places/options there are for choosing potential motivations, the more in detail (in depth) they can deal with the theme of having souls influencing player characters and NPCs choices, actions and motivations - also with how the soul possibly influences your potential motivations for actions toward the companions.

 

Edit and addendum: Now, this is important - they have to show the motivations in the context of the gameworld how it (the world itself, characters etc) react to the motivations of the player character or otherwise dealing with the whole theme is moot because there would not be points of reference to which compare player character's motivations and actions vs. the gameworld how the writers want.

 

If they would make a game like you want then the player is basicly just playing puppeteer, which is completely against on what CRPG should be - and how PE seems to be shaping the themes for PE.

 

The less there are shown player character reacting what happens in the game world the more game becomes like Bethesda's games where rest of the gameworld is just there for the player to play puppeteer and becomes completely superfluous and bland instead of giving impression that player character is part of the small world, instead of world being there for the player character to toy with.

 

If the developers wouldn't write reactions and motivations for the player character to the game, how it can then possibly deal with any themes I talked above? For player to deal with these themes we have to see how they affect our character in the gameworld to get a proper view of the themes.

 

If they won't ask and show any reactions from the player to show in the game (dialogue, text descriptions etc), then the player character is just a very blank state who is completely disconnected from rest of the game, game world and other characters.

 

Choices & Consequences with the real consequences like in Alpha Protocol or Fallout: New Vegas are essential in a good CRPG since otherwise there wouldn't be real reasons for doing alternate routes/paths and replaying to see how it affects rest of the game, your character and the NPCs if you choose differently.

Edited October 25, 2012 by jarpie

[Amentep]

That's where you are wrong. The player shouldn't have to do the writer's job. You are taking upon a role, you don't make your own. You are a lead actor, who has some choices on how the story progresses.

 

Which raises the question, how do you make the choices on how the story progresses? Is it based on what you the player would do? Or what you think your character would do? Because if the later I'd argue you are role playing within the constraints set out by the game. In essence you're the lead actor and you're method acting as best you can.

 

If its the later well...either you're playing yourself or the PC/story isn't that important to you perhaps (which is completely valid since with video games I still think gameplay is the important thing)? I'm not sure.

 

That's also why actions by the player need to be recognized by the world. They don't all have to be world changing, but if the world and people(again not everyone is required to) living in that world don't recognize them, the story fails, the immersion fails, the suspension of disbelief has been broken. Your character and their choices are disconnected from the world. And that's why "romances", that are there just to satisfy every sexual wish fulfilment ever, are not good. They don't work with the plot, they don't give the main character any character progression, other than what goes in on your head. And there is where the narrative fails, they cost time and resources and they don't add anything.

 

Okay, first off romance /= sex and vice versa. We're back to the "romance-derps want to get their jollies off and that's the only reason they'd want romances in a game" argument.

 

Second...if the game had a romance in it that the world, people and story could recognize...then doesn't that mean by what you're defining here that it does work with the plot and narrative?

 

I understand the argument that resources are limited, and have said often that if its not the in the scope of the game, the character and stories or just not worth it from a time-investment standpoint on limited resources that's okay. I (and consequently I believe others although not necessarily all) are not arguing that there MUST be romance, only supporting romance as a possible PC-NPC relationship amid all the other possibilities.

 

One of the first things I learned in ****ing middle school, is that authors don't write something big, like a romantic relationship in this case, without using it as a plot device. Romance in stories, for the hundredth time, should not there for fan-service.

 

Who is asking for "romance as fan service" though? Again this seems to come back to flawed logic IMO that romance in a character and story driven game only can exist if its part of some sort of sexual gratification thing.

 

It's a false analogy --- a game is not a novel, and might be no more than it's sum of parts.

 

There is some overlap, I think, with RPGs and written works. A novel is character, plot and setting. An RPG is (or can be at least) all of that with an added gameplay component on top.

 

A game is a failure if the gameplay sucks and the nature of "choice and consequences" alters the inter-reaction between character, plot and setting. I'd argue this alteration makes video-game RPGs more modularized (which may be why I have no problem with large human emotions - revenge, romance, friendship, enemity, etc - being handled in a more modular fashion and not tightly interwoven within the main quest fabric)

 

The fact is MCA is talking about making deep characters with different personalities and motivations and when you make characters romanceable you have to sacrifice that in favor of giving the character the option to romance or not romance that character. That character becomes shallow and serves only to stroke the player's obsession with roleplaying romances.

 

Why can't a deep character NPCs with different personalities and motivations not - under specific circumstances - be romanceable IF it fits the character (and PC), story, etc. I'm not sure I understand why NON ROMANCE = deep character with personality and ROMANCE = shallow character with no personality by necessity (not saying that games don't end up this way, but I'm not convinced this is at the feat of romance vs. creators not being able to realize a romance in an interesting way)?

 

You also can't make the romance a strong part of the story because then it will offend the opposite sex or people who are gay because they can't be apart of a romance for them.

 

And that's why if you think about it for more than 5 seconds you realize it's a terrible idea to ask for or demand romances in a RPG while talking about how bad Bioware's are and how you don't want those. Bioware does them that way because that's the only way they can to appeal to everyone. The romance crowd is essentially asking for Bioware romances and they are in denial about it. And the side effect of that is shallow characters that all want to sleep with the main character to stroke the shallow RPG players' egos. It's quite an odd anomaly.

 

I'd disagree with this, but then I'm of the opinion that NPC design should dictate the appropriateness of a romance. I disagree with making NPCs for the sole reason to make sure there is equality in romances. I'm not entirely sold on the idea that there should BE equality in romance with NPCs (and I certainly don't think THERE MUST BE ROMANCES). Again to me the litmus test should be based on whether it makes sense for the NPC to have a romantic interest in the PC? Does it make sense with the story being told?

 

Shockingly I also think romances should be able to fail for reasons other than the PC decides to fail it. I'd disagree with a design that always allowed success of a romantic relationship (however you want to define success - I certainly wouldn't define it as "having sex in a cut scene") since part of what I think is fun in RPGs is the ability to not succeed on "plot crititcal" game elements and have the game still react to that.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Amentep

[jarpie]

The fact is MCA is talking about making deep characters with different personalities and motivations and when you make characters romanceable you have to sacrifice that in favor of giving the character the option to romance or not romance that character. That character becomes shallow and serves only to stroke the player's obsession with roleplaying romances.

 

Why can't a deep character NPCs with different personalities and motivations not - under specific circumstances - be romanceable IF it fits the character (and PC), story, etc. I'm not sure I understand why NON ROMANCE = deep character with personality and ROMANCE = shallow character with no personality by necessity (not saying that games don't end up this way, but I'm not convinced this is at the feat of romance vs. creators not being able to realize a romance in an interesting way)?

 

Just replying this quickly...

 

Because they would have to write completely separate branch for both romance and non-romance route if you want it to be equally deep for both or you get what for example Aerie was in BG2 - first 2/3 of the conversations were just friendly coversations and then you choose if you want to be lovers or not, and if I remember correctly, the friendship conversations basicly ended there and then there were just couple more for romance coversations in SoA.

 

Since it's a given that they have fixed time to write companions, they would have to spend half and half writing both, and potentially having just potential dialogue cut in half for both instead of having it for non-romance route only.

 

Roughly putting it; either for example 2000 lines for just non-romance branch, or 1000 lines for non-romance branch and 1000 for romance branch.

[JohanKris]

But its not about the game, or the story, not reacting at all. It CAN be, as I have tons of fun with games where the story and NPCs really don't change based on your actions (Gold Box games, Bard's Tales series, etc.) Choice and consequence are nice, I like them, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be in a cRPG. But they aren't essential.

 

They are in fact the MOST essential part to make it a RPG. it is the basis for the interaction in a PnP RPG, but a CRPG obvisouly is limited in how it can implement it. since a CRPG only present choices, while in a PnP all choices is always avaialable.

 

This is how it is in a PnP RPG:

 

1. "GM describes place and/or situation"

2. Players present action, including saying something.

3. GM react to what they did.

4. Back to players... and so on.

 

Basically all roleplaying goes on from the worlds reaction to their actions, it is the essence of roleplaying.

 

If the player don't have a world that reacts and fantasises that, then he is just indulging himself. With no reaction there was no choice.

 

I think what you more is thinking about is how brief descriptions make your fantasy create something from it or how you will speculate about anything vague. but as in telling a story or making meaningful reaction, it simply don't. at all. Nothing wrong with that, I do that myself about most things I ingest.

 

the games you mentioned was mostly just combat games. story was presented in non-interactive text.

Edited October 25, 2012 by JohanKris

[Amentep]

Just replying this quickly...

 

Because they would have to write completely separate branch for both romance and non-romance route if you want it to be equally deep for both or you get what for example Aerie was in BG2 - first 2/3 of the conversations were just friendly coversations and then you choose if you want to be lovers or not, and if I remember correctly, the friendship conversations basicly ended there and then there were just couple more for romance coversations in SoA.

 

Since it's a given that they have fixed time to write companions, they would have to spend half and half writing both, and potentially having just potential dialogue cut in half for both instead of having it for non-romance route only.

 

Roughly putting it; either for example 2000 lines for just non-romance branch, or 1000 lines for non-romance branch and 1000 for romance branch.

 

Okay, thanks. So really its less that "ROMANCE = Shallow character and no personality" but more that you don't believe the resource outlay for this game (with very limited time and resources) would be worth it to "do right" compared to what wouldn't get done because those resources were used this way and that if they can't do it right they shouldn't do it?

 

Personally I'm for not including romances if Obsidian doesn't have the resources to do it right as well. It just seems some arguments - to me at least - have come from a 'romances will always be "bad" in games even wtih unlimited time and resources to design them'.

 

EDIT: To clarify, what I mean is that it seems like that the argument is that romances will always be bad and never justify the time/resources spent on them - that might be a better way of putting that. I'm not sure I agree because, again, I think the creators should be free to define the NPCs and that might validly include a romance.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Amentep

[JohanKris]

Roughly putting it; either for example 2000 lines for just non-romance branch, or 1000 lines for non-romance branch and 1000 for romance branch.

 

But Jarpie, in how many games has it really been like this? I would say that the clear "romance branch" part of the companions in the Bioware games is clearly less than 50% (and they are almost the only ones doing romance). I played most their games and the bulk of all companion dialogue is aside from any romance. It is just a few sentences, which is why they suck to begin with.

 

I don't see why it really hurts, even if I would prefer to only have this if it is really well written and well-done.

[jarpie]

Roughly putting it; either for example 2000 lines for just non-romance branch, or 1000 lines for non-romance branch and 1000 for romance branch.

 

But Jarpie, in how many games has it really been like this? I would say that the clear "romance branch" part of the companions in the Bioware games is clearly less than 50% (and they are almost the only ones doing romance). I played most their games and the bulk of all companion dialogue is aside from any romance. It is just a few sentences, which is why they suck to begin with.

 

I don't see why it really hurts, even if I would prefer to only have this if it is really well written and well-done.

 

Then the romance would be as pointless and shallow as in Bioware games and several in here have said that they don't want Bioware romances.

[kenup]

Which raises the question, how do you make the choices on how the story progresses? Is it based on what you the player would do? Or what you think your character would do? Because if the later I'd argue you are role playing within the constraints set out by the game. In essence you're the lead actor and you're method acting as best you can.

 

If its the later well...either you're playing yourself or the PC/story isn't that important to you perhaps (which is completely valid since with video games I still think gameplay is the important thing)? I'm not sure.

 

Okay, first off romance /= sex and vice versa. We're back to the "romance-derps want to get their jollies off and that's the only reason they'd want romances in a game" argument.

 

Second...if the game had a romance in it that the world, people and story could recognize...then doesn't that mean by what you're defining here that it does work with the plot and narrative?

 

I understand the argument that resources are limited, and have said often that if its not the in the scope of the game, the character and stories or just not worth it from a time-investment standpoint on limited resources that's okay. I (and consequently I believe others although not necessarily all) are not arguing that there MUST be romance, only supporting romance as a possible PC-NPC relationship amid all the other possibilities.

 

Who is asking for "romance as fan service" though? Again this seems to come back to flawed logic IMO that romance in a character and story driven game only can exist if its part of some sort of sexual gratification thing.

How much you customize your character, is determined by how customizable they are. It doesn't matter how much of your own personality you place in the character or not. The point is you can't just make any character and personality randomly, the choices are determined by the narrative.

 

And romance does not equal sex. But having romances to satisfy every/any player's sexuality does shift it, from being something that will develop the characters and be used in the narrative, to something that's there for wish fullfillment. Triss's relationship with Geralt is important and works with the narrative, the characters involved and the plot. There aren't too many options there, but the relationship is used.

 

And lastly you still don't get the fanservice thing. Multiple romances are options for the sake of options. They are not there because they are meaningful. They exist simply to get every player's attention and interest in characters, based on sexuality; instead of getting that interest in spite of sexual preferences. They are not affecting anything beyond the few dialogues and cutscenes. They don't add depth, beyond the one conceived in a player's mind. They cost time and resources and those could go to something more meaningful, whether that's the plot, the gameplay, better characters and other stuff.

[Monte Carlo]

Geralt and Triss make sense because it's a game where you play a defined character. Again, not my cup of tea but given the game is predicated on Geralt's life then it's palatable.

 

My problem here is that I find romances in games creepy on a *visceral* level. Can't help it.

[Amentep]

How much you customize your character, is determined by how customizable they are. It doesn't matter how much of your own personality you place in the character or not. The point is you can't just make any character and personality randomly, the choices are determined by the narrative.

 

Well yeah. But within those bounds, there's still room to make choices when the game gives choices to you, so my question was how do you make that choice as a player - on how you as a person would make the choice, how the character you've defined should make the choice, which one seems the funniest at the time?

 

And romance does not equal sex. But having romances to satisfy every/any player's sexuality does shift it, from being something that will develop the characters and be used in the narrative, to something that's there for wish fullfillment. Triss's relationship with Geralt is important and works with the narrative, the characters involved and the plot. There aren't too many options there, but the relationship is used.

 

Right, I'd agree; to me having romances created simply for the sake of equality of relationships is moving into the developers metagaming; they're not creating a situation out of the who the NPCs are, but they're forming (or forcing) the NPCs to conform to a situation they want to have happen. I'd argue this isn't the proper way to form NPCs.

 

And lastly you still don't get the fanservice thing. Multiple romances are options for the sake of options. They are not there because they are meaningful. They exist simply to get every player's attention and interest in characters, based on sexuality; instead of getting that interest in spite of sexual preferences. They are not affecting anything beyond the few dialogues and cutscenes. They don't add depth, beyond the one conceived in a player's mind. They cost time and resources and those could go to something more meaningful, whether that's the plot, the gameplay, better characters and other stuff.

 

I guess when I see fanservice, I'm thinking more of "everyone gets a sex scene with semi-nudity for their jollies" since most of the time when I see fanservice its about some vaguely skeevy sexual element in something.

 

I'm - and I believe others - are not demanding romances in the game, I'm not demaning romances for every type of interest. I do like PC-NPC interaction and I'd like to see more of that (I also like NPC-NPC interaction as well). I want these interactions to go beyond a few dialogues and to have some meaning within the party / characters / reactivity with people around - whether its friendship, rivalry, love, hate, indifference, brothers-in-arms, or whatever. I'd like the decision for what kind of relationships the PC might have the the NPCs to be decided in NPC design so that it makes sense with the character created, and I agree that in a limited time and resources situation, longer developed inter-party relationships - which I think would have to have time / resources to develop properly - might not be in the scope of design.

[kenup]

Geralt and Triss make sense because it's a game where you play a defined character. Again, not my cup of tea but given the game is predicated on Geralt's life then it's palatable.

 

My problem here is that I find romances in games creepy on a *visceral* level. Can't help it.

That's a different thing. We still have some definition of our character in a single player cRPG. We can't just be any guy in the wasteland in Fallout for example. And character relationship should help define them within the story, and through logical choices given by the writer, not our head.

 

Uncanny valley certainly is a difficult thing to overcome as well. Though I think MotB got up pretty far from the chasm. The choose your own OTP thing, throws relationships in games down in the valley again.

[BruceVC]

Geralt and Triss make sense because it's a game where you play a defined character. Again, not my cup of tea but given the game is predicated on Geralt's life then it's palatable.

 

My problem here is that I find romances in games creepy on a *visceral* level. Can't help it.

 

But you are fine with casting spells, killing dragons, annihilating goblins and exploring old temples to stop fallen gods or demons from being resurrected?

I never get this "visceral" logic and argument

 

Sorry Monte Carlo

Edited October 25, 2012 by BruceVC

[kenup]

Well yeah. But within those bounds, there's still room to make choices when the game gives choices to you, so my question was how do you make that choice as a player - on how you as a person would make the choice, how the character you've defined should make the choice, which one seems the funniest at the time?

 

Right, I'd agree; to me having romances created simply for the sake of equality of relationships is moving into the developers metagaming; they're not creating a situation out of the who the NPCs are, but they're forming (or forcing) the NPCs to conform to a situation they want to have happen. I'd argue this isn't the proper way to form NPCs.

 

Well, of course one can make a choice just from a metagaming perspective. The writer can't stop that. You want to make a character have your own personality, that's no problem, you project your own personality in the character. But those choices, should still be reflected by the narrative. For example why help that evil witch at the beginning but then kill that other one you find later on? Don't answer that. The point is, the narrative should give the reason. Either through a dialogue choice, or any other mean that makes sense within the narrative. And sooner or later affect the plot and/or sub-plot in some meaningful way.

 

Romance in the same way should be used by the narrative and be meaningful in some way. When it becomes a "choose your own adventure" game, it loses its meaning.

Edited October 25, 2012 by kenup

[JohanKris]

Roughly putting it; either for example 2000 lines for just non-romance branch, or 1000 lines for non-romance branch and 1000 for romance branch.

 

But Jarpie, in how many games has it really been like this? I would say that the clear "romance branch" part of the companions in the Bioware games is clearly less than 50% (and they are almost the only ones doing romance). I played most their games and the bulk of all companion dialogue is aside from any romance. It is just a few sentences, which is why they suck to begin with.

 

I don't see why it really hurts, even if I would prefer to only have this if it is really well written and well-done.

 

Then the romance would be as pointless and shallow as in Bioware games and several in here have said that they don't want Bioware romances.

 

Then you have nothing to worry about my friend, unless you expect the writers here to suddenly go all in on that. more likely some will have to worry about the romance just being a part-bit 1-5 choice thing as that sounds more like the scope of this game. Unless they choose to make ONE really good romance and then you can just hope for a ability to kill that companion

[Grimlorn]

Why can't a deep character NPCs with different personalities and motivations not - under specific circumstances - be romanceable IF it fits the character (and PC), story, etc. I'm not sure I understand why NON ROMANCE = deep character with personality and ROMANCE = shallow character with no personality by necessity (not saying that games don't end up this way, but I'm not convinced this is at the feat of romance vs. creators not being able to realize a romance in an interesting way)?

Because the technology doesn't exist to realistically put the kind of romances into the game people are asking for without taking away the deep and unique characters. You're talking about branching in a way that can't be realistically done. Writing characters that have not only personalities but will also be attracted to the player no matter what. Giving different branching options for friendship and romance. Can't be done without making it a social/romance simulator that is completely focused on it.

 

The characters have to be open ended/shallow so they appeal to a large amount of people in the romance department. If you create a romance that's apart of the plot, drives the story, and is the only one possible (so it can be "deeper") then it becomes something the player is forced into against their will. Meaning it takes away from the freedom of the player to roleplay the way they want because they're forced into a relationship with a NPC they may not like and ruins the gaming experience for them. Think about the freedom to choose male or female characters. If there is a male player romancing female NPC apart of the story, how will that work with female players? Should they be forced to play males? Should they have to romance a female NPC in the game and be gay? Should they miss out on an important part of the story because it revolves around a male/female romance?

 

 

I'd disagree with this, but then I'm of the opinion that NPC design should dictate the appropriateness of a romance. I disagree with making NPCs for the sole reason to make sure there is equality in romances. I'm not entirely sold on the idea that there should BE equality in romance with NPCs (and I certainly don't think THERE MUST BE ROMANCES). Again to me the litmus test should be based on whether it makes sense for the NPC to have a romantic interest in the PC? Does it make sense with the story being told?

 

Shockingly I also think romances should be able to fail for reasons other than the PC decides to fail it. I'd disagree with a design that always allowed success of a romantic relationship (however you want to define success - I certainly wouldn't define it as "having sex in a cut scene") since part of what I think is fun in RPGs is the ability to not succeed on "plot crititcal" game elements and have the game still react to that.

You can disagree all you want, but I'm still right. It's not realistic to do what you're asking and if it's done it's going to be the way Bioware does them with a few conversations and then them being in love with you. I hate that kind of shallow ego stroking. And when you make romanceable companions they have to be shallow characters so they appeal to the shallow player's ego that's interested in romance. They are there for the player. If you make them fail-able through factors the player can't control, then romancers will be upset they can't romance who they want and "roleplay" the way they want. Edited October 25, 2012 by Grimlorn

[jezz555]

There don't need to be romancable companions, just give me a well stocked brothel like Madam Lil's in Arcanum and I'll be good.

[Amentep]

Because the technology doesn't exist to realistically put the kind of romances into the game people are asking for without taking away the deep and unique characters. You're talking about branching in a way that can't be realistically done. Writing characters that have not only personalities but will also be attracted to the player no matter what. Giving different branching options for friendship and romance. Can't be done without making it a social/romance simulator that is completely focused on it.

 

Okay fair enough; I understand you don't believe its technically possible. I'm not convinced it is/isn't (we seem to be okay with non-romance relationships but that may also be because some non-romance relationships are inherently shallow so depth is less of an issue?) but have always accepted that it might be. Or even that it might be technically possible but so resource intensive to "do right" that its not worth it.

 

So again I'm not for mandating romances, either, only including them if they "make sense".

 

The characters have to be open ended/shallow so they appeal to a large amount of people in the romance department.

 

Why do they need to appeal to a large amount of people? I don't understand the mentality that some content can't be created for a game that makes sense for the game but that the player may not ever see based on how they view/play their character.

 

If I make a choice and kill an NPC who would have given a quest later on, I've just locked myself out from that quest. That doesn't mean I think the quest should not be created, another quest giver created so I can still access the quest content or the quest giver made immortal. If I play a celibate monk, what purpose is creating a brothel in the game? Well obviously for those people who want to roleplay in other ways than as a celibate monk. Again the content is there because it makes sense (if its included) not necessarily so everyone can ring all the bells to the end.

 

In my opinion at least.

 

You can disagree all you want, but I'm still right. It's not realistic to do what you're asking and if it's done it's going to be the way Bioware does them with a few conversations and then them being in love with you. I hate that kind of shallow ego stroking. And when you make romanceable companions they have to be shallow characters so they appeal to the shallow player's ego that's interested in romance. They are there for the player. If you make them fail-able through factors the player can't control, then romancers will be upset they can't romance who they want and "roleplay" the way they want.

 

*shrug* Beyond technical limitations - which as someone who doesn't make games I've always accepted that there may be practical considerations that just make "doing it right" impossible - I'd think most of the rest of this debate is subjective rather than objective.

 

Anyhow, I'd class myself as being pro-romance in games (provided it makes sense for the plot and characters of the RPG), and I wouldn't be upset about a romance that could fail because of things outside my choice, because it was still ultimately my choice to pursue the relationship that can't work. Certainly this would alter replays (like knowing Yoshimo is going to betray you alters BG2 replays), but I'm not convinced that should be a consideration as to whether its "good" or "bad".

 

Then again I'm also for a game not having any romances if that's the way to make the best game, so...

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's nothing about single-player games that necessarily precludes that sort of character design. I routinely create detailed personalities for my PCs in single-player games.

The difference between jarpie's characters and yours is that yours are completely disconnected from the game. If neither the gameworld or other players/npcs react to your PC's actions/traits/etc they might as well not exist.

They do react. They just don't react directly. Since my PC's traits directly impact him actions, and his actions are modelled within the game such that the NPCs react to them, the NPCs are reacting to those traits. Indirectly.

That's where you are wrong. The player shouldn't have to do the writer's job.

Defining the PC's personality is unequivocally not the writer's job. If ever the writer does that, the game if fundametally broken as a roleplaying environment.

You are taking upon a role, you don't make your own.

Yes you do.

You are a lead actor, who has some choices on how the story progresses.

The very existence of the story isn't knowable from within the game. When making in-character decisions, even knowledging that there is a story requires that you break character. Any awareness of the writers' authored narrative is metagame information, and can be ignored by the roleplayer.

But that doesn't mean the narrative should fail do its job. That's what bethesda does, because they can't write a character for ****(of course that doesn't stop them from throwing the idiot ball at the player). That's also why actions by the player need to be recognized by the world. They don't all have to be world changing, but if the world and people(again not everyone is required to) living in that world don't recognize them, the story fails, the immersion fails, the suspension of disbelief has been broken. Your character and their choices are disconnected from the world. And that's why "romances", that are there just to satisfy every sexual wish fulfilment ever, are not good. They don't work with the plot, they don't give the main character any character progression, other than what goes in on your head.

Character development of the PC can only ever occur inside the player's head. Any attempt on the part of the writers to do that themselves prevents the player from making any decisions. if you don't have perfect knowledge of your character's state of mind (and if the writers are defining it, you don't), how do you them choose among the options presented to you? You can't, because you don't know what your character's motives are. You don't know whether he values justice over security, for example. You don't know if he values fairness over equality. How can you possibly make decisions for your character if you don't know everything about his mind?

One of the first things I learned in ****ing middle school, is that authors don't write something big, like a romantic relationship in this case, without using it as a plot device. Romance in stories, for the hundredth time, should not there for fan-service.

What is true for books has no relevance in CRPGs, because books aren't interactive. Books don't ask the player to make decisions on the protagonist's behalf.

[Merin]

I'll try and address as much as possible in one post - and that means not hitting most of what people are saying, as that'd be nigh impossible. I'll do my best to, *ahem*, know what to show and what to leave to the imagination.

 

Choice and consequence are nice, I like them, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be in a cRPG. But they aren't essential.

If you're using a game as your deliverer of story, you should know your tools of trade and make the best out of them. I think *that* is a sign of good story-teller.

 

How can the developers write meaningful alternate routes, choices & consequences or options if game wouldn't solicit responses and reactions from the player, and make player to react to what happens in the game world and show the effects on the player character and his dialogue to what happens in the game? And what about gameworld and NPCs reacting on what you do, just the actions? Don't you think that if they write the dialogues where you can choose motivation behind your actions, they can then branch it out on NPCs and the gameworld that how they react both the action and the motivation?

 

I think a major problem here is context, once more. "Choice and consequence" is a term for games that means something kind of specific.

 

Clearly any video game lets you make "choices" if you want to delve into semantics - in Space Invaders, do you move the cannon left or right, do you fire now or wait a second then fire - with consequences being do you get hit by the enemy fire or survive, and does your shot hit or miss.

 

But for role-playing games it tends to mean story and world changing choices... not just which load out of weapons you have or do you dodge left or right.

 

So, clearly, in a game you need to have reactivity to the player's actions - else you might as well watch a movie passively. But when I say "choice and consequences" (and I think when most devs talk about it) they mean "player decides to save NPC A or NPC B, or player decides to join faction A or faction B, or player gives resources to the town guard swordsmen or to the town guard archers" - the kind of "here is a list of options which will decide where the story goes next"

 

So, if we can get past the straw man of saying I'm saying the game shouldn't react to you, we can move forward.

 

When I said "choice and consequence are nice in cRPGs but aren't essential", I meant story choices and dialog choices. cRPGs existed for years before these became conventions, and even after games started experimenting with them it didn't become a norm until the late 90's You can have great cRPGs (Wizard's Crown, Knights of Legend, all the Gold Box games) without any real story choices and no dialog choices.

 

 

 

 

What you are saying, unfortunately, is that you have the habit of using your imagination to make up for the shortcomings in a game's story/presentation/setting/etc.

(...)

I hate how this idea has always been worded: "what is best left to the imagination". What it actually means is "best left to SPECULATION". As in speculating about a mystery. It doesn't mean seeing an image or whatever and fantasizing like a delusional that all kinds of stuff that could appear somewhere, actually does appear there, when, in fact, it does not appear there.

(...)

That article is BS. The stuff Avellone was talking about really only applies to ridiculously primitive CRPGs, Wasteland being a shining example of games that are too far outdated by now.

 

I was going to try and comment on what you were saying, but that last bit you've lost me. Wasteland is one of my favorite games ever, if not my favorite game period. More graphics and better sound don't make a game for me... just like expensive special effects don't make a movie better for me, just like color and glossy paper don't make a comic book better for me.

 

Sorry, we are just going to disagree on this point. The technology behind Wasteland could be improved, but the game design is stellar.

 

I also think you have no idea what the gutter is or what Scot McCloud is talking about - so I suggest your read Understanding Comics.

 

No, you can't roleplay anything.

 

Yes, I can.

 

I'm pretty sure a guy that has studied the thing has a better knowledge than an or fanfiction writer like you.

 

Your credibility, already at what I would consider rock bottom, really tries to dig to new depths with every inaccurate ad hominem you throw my way. "Fanfiction writer" - either you are just trying to insult me (manning up again, as clearly to you that means attacking others baselessly), or you have no idea what a fan-fiction writer is. I do know that you have zero grasp on my knowledge and education, but continue to cast aspersions as if you have some secret inside information on who I am.

 

This is becoming kind of fun at this point - what libel will you toss my way next? That I hate your freedoms?

 

Most things in good stories are moving the plot or otherwise affect the plot; or the characters involved in that plot.

 

And those are not called plot devices. You can come up with your own definitions if you want, but don't expect people to take you seriously. Plot devices only exist to move the story forward and are not important in and of themselves.

 

Please, go pick up a good beginners book on writing and learn about what you wish to discuss before exposing your ignorance and poor grasp of things to everyone.

 

Better yet - public service:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_device - A plot device is an object or character in a story whose sole purpose is to advance the plot of the story, or alternatively to overcome some difficulty in the plot.

A contrived or arbitrary plot device may annoy or confuse the reader, causing a loss of the suspension of disbelief. However a well-crafted plot device, or one that emerges naturally from the setting or characters of the story, may be entirely accepted, or may even be unnoticed by the audience.

 

MacGuffin, Flashing Arrow, Deus Ex Machina, Framed Storytelling - plot devices are not part of the story, though skillfully can be weaved in, and exist often when a writer needs to move the story from point A to point B but the progression isn't natural

 

The Master of Bones grabbing Morte, forcing you to go talk to him so he can give you a metric ton of exposition - that's a plot device.

 

Annah and Falls From Grace having a rivalry (largely one sided) over Nameless One's attentions is not a plot device as it doesn't move the story forward - it can happen at any point.

 

You can get overly broad, and start saying that a villain or a piece of exposition is a plot device - and, here's the tricky part, they CAN be - but if they are important parts of the story as opposed to inserted by the author to get from point A to point B, calling them plot devices is a bit of a misnomer.

 

But enough on that... if I'm going to be a teacher, I want to get paid.

 

Your beloved bioware

 

Ah, still pulling that one out. You failed to say I'm desperate for romance mini-games, too.

It's fun to attribute things to people that aren't true, right?

 

I'd expect that from a rabid Michael Bay fan. How many times have you watched Bad Boys 2?

 

 

And try for once to say something worthwhile, not your own biased opinion.

 

And now anyone's opinion that you disagree with isn't worthwhile? You're the king of the thread now?

From now on, all posts must come with Kenup's personal (and, of course, absolutely objective) seal of "worthwhileness!"

 

Edit: Let me just add that if you want reactivity and consequences, you can't expect to be able to roleplay anything.

 

Yes, I can.

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

So let me get this straight... you want (or prefer) a RPG which has minimal amount of reactivity, choices & consequences and ways of game to react for your decisions, which is basicly opposite of what Obsidian has always been doing?

 

Are you sure you're in the correct forum since reactivity/reacting to the players choices, C&C and your decisions actually making a difference are Obsidian's forte? If what you say is true then you should just love Bethesda's games because they have very minimal amount of reactivity and you are free to "roleplay" character you yourself create.

 

Isn't the whole point in roleplaying a character to see how the world and others around react on what you do and why you choose your actions, then they react to your actions as their characters would and then in turn you react how your character would and so on, and that's why people roleplay when playing PNP or in multiplayer games like MMO or NWN where you can see the reactions in other characters?

The game should react to my character's actions, yes. My character's motives, though, aren't knowable outside my character's head, so it would be unreasonable to expect the game to react to them.

What if game gives different motivation to your actions in later dialogue than what you have imagined in your head to the character, do you disregard your own imagined motivation, or do you take what the game and the writer has given?

If that ever happens, the game is broken. That simply shouldn't ever be done.