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

[jarpie]

Who said things have to go the player's way?

 

All romances ends with "black widow" and game deletes all saves when the romanceable NPC kills the player?

[nikolokolus]

Nik likey!!

[SophosTheWise]

Somehow I don't care wether or not romances are in the game, except it would really contribute to the gameplay and of course contentwise. But since personal buddy quests are going to be in the game anyway, I don't think there will be any real value to romances. If people want romances - sure, give it to them. No problem. I was never interested in-game romances or sex for that matter. Not to be condescending, but I prefer my romance and my sex to be real, I gain nothing out of virtual things which are not realistic. Romance and sex are about physicality and a deep connection that simply cannot be matched with a virtual counterpart in my opinion.

[Grotesque]

kill this thread with fire!

[evdk]

If a love interest is a central part of the narrative then I'm fine with it, it's the romance-as-mini-game that I detest.

 

You... you've... changed. *sobs*

 

I'm thinking Dionarra from Torment, anything else and I say burn it with fire.

But she romanced the other guy...

But he didn't really like the romance...

This Sunday 8 p.m. on Lifetime.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Somehow I don't care wether or not romances are in the game, except it would really contribute to the gameplay and of course contentwise. But since personal buddy quests are going to be in the game anyway, I don't think there will be any real value to romances. If people want romances - sure, give it to them. No problem. I was never interested in-game romances or sex for that matter. Not to be condescending, but I prefer my romance and my sex to be real, I gain nothing out of virtual things which are not realistic. Romance and sex are about physicality and a deep connection that simply cannot be matched with a virtual counterpart in my opinion.

 

This is where I think that things get a bit muddy. I never consider the PC in a RPG to be me, so I don't view their romance and friendships to be my own. I think this makes the whole romance debate difficult because not every player sees their PCs the same way I do.

 

I think that romances should be included if

1. Obsidian wants to do them
   
2. They focus character development/reaction rather than fanservice/ego stroking
   
3. Every "romanceable" character can also be a good friend or other type of relationship
   

[SophosTheWise]

Somehow I don't care wether or not romances are in the game, except it would really contribute to the gameplay and of course contentwise. But since personal buddy quests are going to be in the game anyway, I don't think there will be any real value to romances. If people want romances - sure, give it to them. No problem. I was never interested in-game romances or sex for that matter. Not to be condescending, but I prefer my romance and my sex to be real, I gain nothing out of virtual things which are not realistic. Romance and sex are about physicality and a deep connection that simply cannot be matched with a virtual counterpart in my opinion.

 

This is where I think that things get a bit muddy. I never consider the PC in a RPG to be me, so I don't view their romance and friendships to be my own. I think this makes the whole romance debate difficult because not every player sees their PCs the same way I do.

 

I think that romances should be included if

1. Obsidian wants to do them
    
   
2. They focus character development/reaction rather than fanservice/ego stroking
    
   
3. Every "romanceable" character can also be a good friend or other type of relationship
   

 

Absolutely! The whole thing with identfication with a character is actually difficult. I remember a debate on gog.com about Inquistior (a really cool albeit really dark 2D-iso-RPG where you could actually torture people to get information), where some people were disgusted with torturing as they "would never do that themselves" while other people didn't relate to the player-character at all but created a character in their mind (BURN HERETICS! included). Same goes with playing evil or good, that's an extremely difficult thing to manage depending on your style of identification.

 

If romances really provide development or content that's completely okay - but as you've said - not for ego-stroking.

[l3loodangel]

Is has the best story of all the IE games (and the best villain EVER).

 

You have got to be kidding me. PST had the best story of all time and I liked TTO much more than I did ever like Irenicus.

[l3loodangel]

It had combat that was actually challenging and fun to play, and good encounter design. It's not a visual novel, c&c is a nice addition not a requirement for game to be good. Just like romances by the way.

 

Encounters were good, but that's it. C&C is the most important part of any RPG, as not having it makes it a visual cry me a river novel...

[Cryticus]

I do not like romances, not because of the concept I like relationship between diffrent characters and love , friendship , rivaly is one of them, It is just the fact, that all romances are pointed not to expand on character but rather so one fictional character could bone another fictional character, pure fanservice.

What I want from obsidian is that they will concertrate on other aspects of relationship .

 

And if we need to make romances than make them orginal, how about there is romance that happens but not between our hero and a companion, but between two companions and we serve as machmaker for them, hey it is romance

[jarpie]

I do not like romances, not because of the concept I like relationship between diffrent characters and love , friendship , rivaly is one of them, It is just the fact, that all romances are pointed not to expand on character but rather so one fictional character could bone another fictional character, pure fanservice.

What I want from obsidian is that they will concertrate on other aspects of relationship .

 

And if we need to make romances than make them orginal, how about there is romance that happens but not between our hero and a companion, but between two companions and we serve as machmaker for them, hey it is romance

 

What about my idea that all romances ends with "black widow" and game deletes all saves when the romanceable NPC kills the player? that at least would be something what haven't been done.

[evdk]

[Malcador]

Sadly Kryptmann is not a forum moderator.

[Amentep]

To use my FONV example (because I'm tired and don't want to think of another), when Vulpes tells me to kill him if I feel strongly against what they've done to Nipton, the fact that I can pull out a gun and shoot him in the face is part of the games design. They could have made him unkillable, or scripted Vulpes and crew to leave Nipton without the PC reacting. That they didn't allows me to choose that reaction (and subsequently the world will react to that action).

But killing Vulpes can be part of ordinary gameplay. When the conversation ends, you can pull out a gun and shoot him.

 

There's no need to make that an explicit option in conversation, and there's no need to make killing Vulpes impossible if you don't happen to choose that explicit option in conversation.

 

They should give us the freedom to act as we see fit within the game's mechanics, rather than writing out specific actions for us and having us choose from a list.

 

Killing Vulpes isn't a dialogue option, what I'm saying is that there is a dialogue option with Vulpes that could explain the PC's motivation but the game can only react to killing Vulpes, not to why I killed Vulpes even if my character gets that dialogue option. Ceaser doesn't care why I did it, only that I did it and must be killed on sight. Maybe the PC did it because of the stated reason in the dialogue. Maybe it wasn't that reason. But what the game does react to is my "choice" to kill Vulpes not the line of thought that got me to the action.

 

This is why many video game RPGs circle on "choice and consequences" not "motivation, action and consequences". Because the game can't assume motive, it can only react to what you "do" in the game - the choice.

[Amentep]

I was perusing the Shadowrun Returns forums and found this..

 

http://www.shadowrun...ind-love-in-srr

 

Man, whats next? Must every cRPG be a dating game too? Why are so many gamers intent on finding digital love on the cRPG battlefield?

 

Is Project Eternity a combat sim? Will the only thing you can do is fight? Will we be fighting in tunnels and sewers and never leaving them, never resting at an inn, never gathering intel at a bar, never traveling multiple days overland? Because only a group of psychopaths would never talk to one another while traveling multiple days overland, I think, and I think if the characters can find the time to talk when not slaying monsters they can find the time to start up relationships.

 

 

Personally, I blame Bioware (as others do on this thread). They have ruined so much. Now a bunch of PC gamers feel that if they can't woo and have sex with a bunch of their party members, then it's not full on ROLEPLAYING. Its like they saw a porno version of Lord of the Rings and now they think if Frodo doesn't bang 20 whores on the way to Mordor then its not true Tolkien.

 

Frodo had Sam though - why'd he need the whores?

 

(I kid, I kid)

 

Also again there's the romance = sex correlation. I'd have no problem - again IF romances are to be included in any game - for a romance not to culminate in sex. Because not everyone falls into bed just because they started a romance.

 

My god, just go play Persona and leave the real RPGs alone. These are meant to be games where you go off on an adventure with a party of adventurers. Instead, people want a porno where you can have sex with all of them and/or feel like a great big pimp because you are so good at wooing your ideal mate. The roleplay focus here is NOT meant to be sexual or even sensual. The focus is the adventure. Anything that takes the focus off that (like some dimwit wingless Wing Elf telling you she is preggo in the middle of fight with a dragon) is a BAD thing. (As a side note, how many recruited Aerie just so Korgan could get rid of her?)

 

Okay so, to summarize people who have adventures never have romances or sex. Also Aerie = bad.

 

Actually I agree elf-baby inventory item was bad.

 

Please, stop trying to get the devs to waste development time on dialogues meant to make you feel like you are good with the ladies. They can pander to your ego by making you feel like a great warrior or possibly even a good party leader. However, as soon as the game turns to focus to making you feel like a good ladies man, developmennt resouces are spent on something that turns the focus AWAY from the adventure what this game should be about.

 

I dunno, I'm not convinced - as you seem to be - that adventuring couldn't support romance (while not every P&P Role playing game I played had it - some did; depended on the characters in situation). So ultimately that's all I've been advocating for - IF they're going to have NPCs with their own personalities and IF it makes sense for those NPCs and IF it fits the scope of the game and the story then why would I be against it?

 

I know that there are some practical / resource concerns and I'm not for Romances where it isn't practical to include them or so resource intensive that the development of the game would be hampered.

 

Romance threads are the Ouroboros of the Internet, which kind of makes me glad that they aren't a hydra.

 

And Ouroboros was the first symbol from Project Eternity. Coincidence...or conspiracy? You decide.

 

I do not like romances, not because of the concept I like relationship between diffrent characters and love , friendship , rivaly is one of them, It is just the fact, that all romances are pointed not to expand on character but rather so one fictional character could bone another fictional character, pure fanservice.

What I want from obsidian is that they will concertrate on other aspects of relationship .

 

And if we need to make romances than make them orginal, how about there is romance that happens but not between our hero and a companion, but between two companions and we serve as machmaker for them, hey it is romance

 

I'd love for their to be NPC-NPC relationships for interparty characters (like Mazzy and Korgan or Mazzy and Valgyar).

 

I'm also against romance as only failable by PC choice; I think creating an NPC you could flirt with but who'd never seriously consider romancing the PC to be just as valid as an NPC who would romance you - or an NPC who'd stab you in the back the minute you gave them an opening.

 

If I have to complain about romances as they are typically done in games its that they oftentimes don't really take the NPC as a character into account. And I think that's why many see them as fanservice because characterization goes out the window for the NPC to fall under the thrall of the PC losing any sense of their own personality along the way.

 

What about my idea that all romances ends with "black widow" and game deletes all saves when the romanceable NPC kills the player? that at least would be something what haven't been done.

 

I'm not a fan of deleting save games (unless in some kind of hardcore mode) but romance ending with PC death is what Bioware did for Mass Effect 2 with Morinth...

[BasaltineBadger]

If romances were included in the game it would be better if they were the evolution of Fallout and Vampire system than Bioware system that Obsidian also used in the past. In the first model you become romantically involved with an NPC it makes you do some semi-quest and you get various profits from the relationship. You sleep with Bishop's daughter and can rob him, you make the girl a ghoul and she search items for you. The whole thing is really ambiguous as it's not clear if PC is really interested in an NPC or just using him/her. In Bioware/Obsidian model you almost always romance with party members who bug you from time to time and if you chose the right answer they like you more which leads to some sort of finale (sometimes including blue alien asses). The first way is more natural, makes more sense and is more integrated in the game that's why I think it's better.

[-Zin-]

If romances were included in the game it would be better if they were the evolution of Fallout and Vampire system than Bioware system that Obsidian also used in the past. In the first model you become romantically involved with an NPC it makes you do some semi-quest and you get various profits from the relationship. You sleep with Bishop's daughter and can rob him, you make the girl a ghoul and she search items for you. The whole thing is really ambiguous as it's not clear if PC is really interested in an NPC or just using him/her. In Bioware/Obsidian model you almost always romance with party members who bug you from time to time and if you chose the right answer they like you more which leads to some sort of finale (sometimes including blue alien asses). The first way is more natural, makes more sense and is more integrated in the game that's why I think it's better.

 

Um, dude. Girls in real life often *bug* you if they have a crush on you. I'm constantly annoyed and aroused in real life I'm kidding a bit, but yeah.. Sometimes girls just say weird things to you just to have something to talk about. It's fine. I happen to like girls anyway and it's not a big deal. I happen to have my unsuave moments too where I'm not the brighest bulb in the haystack.

 

But seriously, romances done the way you first mentioned makes a lot of sense. Obsidian/Bioware focus MAINLY on the characters who are around you the most because those characters are written to have the most personality. They like their own characters, and they want us to like them too, but if we don't, it's okay. However, I think there should be a middle road to your arguement. I would like to see romances/casual fling/using people outside the party be just as strongly written. The more thought into this subject the better.

 

And for people who don't want this in their game, here's an advice for you: Don't flirt with anyone and just be quiet about your own insecurities. Some people just want to see their character happy. Others just like thriving on drama and hurt feelings. Lord of the Rings had the Aragorn/Arawen romance. Sam had that girl at home. Romance is just icing on the cake to sweeten the deal of saving/destroying the kingdom of PE.

[BasaltineBadger]

If romances were included in the game it would be better if they were the evolution of Fallout and Vampire system than Bioware system that Obsidian also used in the past. In the first model you become romantically involved with an NPC it makes you do some semi-quest and you get various profits from the relationship. You sleep with Bishop's daughter and can rob him, you make the girl a ghoul and she search items for you. The whole thing is really ambiguous as it's not clear if PC is really interested in an NPC or just using him/her. In Bioware/Obsidian model you almost always romance with party members who bug you from time to time and if you chose the right answer they like you more which leads to some sort of finale (sometimes including blue alien asses). The first way is more natural, makes more sense and is more integrated in the game that's why I think it's better.

 

Um, dude. Girls in real life often *bug* you if they have a crush on you. I'm constantly annoyed and aroused in real life I'm kidding a bit, but yeah.. Sometimes girls just say weird things to you just to have something to talk about. It's fine. I happen to like girls anyway and it's not a big deal. I happen to have my unsuave moments too where I'm not the brighest bulb in the haystack.

 

But seriously, romances done the way you first mentioned makes a lot of sense. Obsidian/Bioware focus MAINLY on the characters who are around you the most because those characters are written to have the most personality. They like their own characters, and they want us to like them too, but if we don't, it's okay. However, I think there should be a middle road to your arguement. I would like to see romances/casual fling/using people outside the party be just as strongly written. The more thought into this subject the better.

 

And for people who don't want this in their game, here's an advice for you: Don't flirt with anyone and just be quiet about your own insecurities. Some people just want to see their character happy. Others just like thriving on drama and hurt feelings. Lord of the Rings had the Aragorn/Arawen romance. Sam had that girl at home. Romance is just icing on the cake to sweeten the deal of saving/destroying the kingdom of PE.

 

Yes, I am sadistic creep and have insecurities (lol wut) because I prefer one implementation of romance in video games to another. Brilliant logic there kiddo.

 

Oh wait, Dragon Age 2 avatar explains everything. Sorry I bothered to reply.

Edited October 29, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[-Zin-]

If romances were included in the game it would be better if they were the evolution of Fallout and Vampire system than Bioware system that Obsidian also used in the past. In the first model you become romantically involved with an NPC it makes you do some semi-quest and you get various profits from the relationship. You sleep with Bishop's daughter and can rob him, you make the girl a ghoul and she search items for you. The whole thing is really ambiguous as it's not clear if PC is really interested in an NPC or just using him/her. In Bioware/Obsidian model you almost always romance with party members who bug you from time to time and if you chose the right answer they like you more which leads to some sort of finale (sometimes including blue alien asses). The first way is more natural, makes more sense and is more integrated in the game that's why I think it's better.

 

Um, dude. Girls in real life often *bug* you if they have a crush on you. I'm constantly annoyed and aroused in real life I'm kidding a bit, but yeah.. Sometimes girls just say weird things to you just to have something to talk about. It's fine. I happen to like girls anyway and it's not a big deal. I happen to have my unsuave moments too where I'm not the brighest bulb in the haystack.

 

But seriously, romances done the way you first mentioned makes a lot of sense. Obsidian/Bioware focus MAINLY on the characters who are around you the most because those characters are written to have the most personality. They like their own characters, and they want us to like them too, but if we don't, it's okay. However, I think there should be a middle road to your arguement. I would like to see romances/casual fling/using people outside the party be just as strongly written. The more thought into this subject the better.

 

And for people who don't want this in their game, here's an advice for you: Don't flirt with anyone and just be quiet about your own insecurities. Some people just want to see their character happy. Others just like thriving on drama and hurt feelings. Lord of the Rings had the Aragorn/Arawen romance. Sam had that girl at home. Romance is just icing on the cake to sweeten the deal of saving/destroying the kingdom of PE.

 

Yes, I am sadistic creep and have insecurities (lol wut) because I prefer one implementation of romance in video games to another. Brilliant logic there kiddo.

 

Oh wait, Dragon Age 2 avatar explains everything. Sorry I bothered to reply.

 

Yeah, it's an insecurity that you can't easily ignore the elements that aren't meant for you and is also entirely optional. And you have a problem that other people having a different preference than you. This is an insecurity.

 

Also, how old are you ?

 

And also, my pic is from Dragon Age Origins, so kiss it ^^ Didn't much care for DA2, thank you very much

Edited October 29, 2012 by -Zin-

[BasaltineBadger]

If romances were included in the game it would be better if they were the evolution of Fallout and Vampire system than Bioware system that Obsidian also used in the past. In the first model you become romantically involved with an NPC it makes you do some semi-quest and you get various profits from the relationship. You sleep with Bishop's daughter and can rob him, you make the girl a ghoul and she search items for you. The whole thing is really ambiguous as it's not clear if PC is really interested in an NPC or just using him/her. In Bioware/Obsidian model you almost always romance with party members who bug you from time to time and if you chose the right answer they like you more which leads to some sort of finale (sometimes including blue alien asses). The first way is more natural, makes more sense and is more integrated in the game that's why I think it's better.

 

Um, dude. Girls in real life often *bug* you if they have a crush on you. I'm constantly annoyed and aroused in real life I'm kidding a bit, but yeah.. Sometimes girls just say weird things to you just to have something to talk about. It's fine. I happen to like girls anyway and it's not a big deal. I happen to have my unsuave moments too where I'm not the brighest bulb in the haystack.

 

But seriously, romances done the way you first mentioned makes a lot of sense. Obsidian/Bioware focus MAINLY on the characters who are around you the most because those characters are written to have the most personality. They like their own characters, and they want us to like them too, but if we don't, it's okay. However, I think there should be a middle road to your arguement. I would like to see romances/casual fling/using people outside the party be just as strongly written. The more thought into this subject the better.

 

And for people who don't want this in their game, here's an advice for you: Don't flirt with anyone and just be quiet about your own insecurities. Some people just want to see their character happy. Others just like thriving on drama and hurt feelings. Lord of the Rings had the Aragorn/Arawen romance. Sam had that girl at home. Romance is just icing on the cake to sweeten the deal of saving/destroying the kingdom of PE.

 

Yes, I am sadistic creep and have insecurities (lol wut) because I prefer one implementation of romance in video games to another. Brilliant logic there kiddo.

 

Oh wait, Dragon Age 2 avatar explains everything. Sorry I bothered to reply.

 

Yeah, it's an insecurity that you can't easy ignore the elements that aren't meant for you and that is optional, and that you have a problem that other would like it in the game. Also, how old are you ?

 

Also, it's Dragon Age Origins, so kiss it ^^

 

I just said that I'd like it to be implemented in one game and not another. What you've written is just your vivid imagination. At least attack the idea, not the person behind it. Of course it it's not too difficult for you. I don't even know if we should continue this conversation.

 

The picture being from DA 1 doesn't make you less of a Biodrone.

Edited October 29, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[-Zin-]

I actually think you mis-read my first post in the quotation there, or maybe I wasn't clear enough. Sorry about that on my end though. I liked what YOU had written specifically, and I was improving on your idea by suggesting a middle-ground that I personally would be happy with.

 

In my conclusion I made a side-point though. Not to you, but just to the people who outright rejected the premise of a romance all together. I think THEY have a problem if they can't ignore the fact that some people like 'romances'. Especially when it's optional like in all Obsidian/Bioware games. I actually agree with a lot of your posts in general Again, I think this is just a misunderstanding, because I don't think my final statement in the first post had anything to do with you.

 

EDIT: I don't blindly hate Bioware. I acknowledge when I'm happy with a product. I'm not happy with most of their recent stuff, but my Warden was awesome. lol

Edited October 29, 2012 by -Zin-

[BasaltineBadger]

I actually think you mis-read my first post in the quotation there, or maybe I wasn't clear enough. Sorry about that on my end though. I liked what YOU had written specifically, and I was improving on your idea by suggesting a middle-ground that I personally would be happy with.

 

In my conclusion I made a side-point though. Not to you, but just to the people who outright rejected the premise of a romance all together. I think THEY have a problem if they can't ignore the fact that some people like 'romances'. Especially when it's optional like in all Obsidian/Bioware games. I actually agree with a lot of your posts in general Again, I think this is just a misunderstanding, because I don't think my final statement in the first post had anything to do with you.

 

Well if you wasn't offending me then it's for other people to argue with your comment. It's end of topic for me.

[-Zin-]

Eh, yeah, this isn't going anywhere :/ harr

[Monte Carlo]

In my conclusion I made a side-point though. Not to you, but just to the people who outright rejected the premise of a romance all together. I think THEY have a problem if they can't ignore the fact that some people like 'romances'.

 

Care to elaborate? Because I view my 'problem' (not needing bogus emotional and / or sexual validation and / or gratification via a virtual digital relationship) as being a pretty healthy one TBH.

[-Zin-]

In my conclusion I made a side-point though. Not to you, but just to the people who outright rejected the premise of a romance all together. I think THEY have a problem if they can't ignore the fact that some people like 'romances'.

 

Care to elaborate? Because I view my 'problem' (not needing bogus emotional and / or sexual validation and / or gratification via a virtual digital relationship) as being a pretty healthy one TBH.

 

Congrats, you also just insulted Obsidian/Bioware writers who enjoy writing these things for a living for hundreds of thousands of people. :/ All because you couldn't just be quiet and ignore something that's clearly not for you. I mean, if you can't deal with people being different from you, then.. yeah, that's a problem. Especially considering who's forum we're currently in.

 

That's about all the elaboration I'm willing to do with someone who doesn't even want to like this 'bogus' stuff.

Edited October 29, 2012 by -Zin-