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

[Gurkog]

You know that the romance option will be with some weird bug-like creature. The creature will always wear a helmet though... so talimancers could fap to it.

[l3loodangel]

Who forced Annah and Grace on him?

 

I'll take actions over quotes...

 

They were "weak" romances as you could not get your hand in their pixel panties.

 

How does not being able to have sex with them make them "weak" romances?

They were weak, but not because of the lack of consummation. Mainly because TNO couldn't given the events of the game have a strong romance. Which unless the plot is going to be VERY different than current events indicate, really isn't applicable to PE.

 

No buffoons, because you had NO say in it and there were no dialogue written for it.

[jivex5k]

I've gotta say, I always felt romance options were cheesy in games.

That's not to say they couldn't be done well, I just haven't seen it ever.

 

I'd prefer this game to avoid cheesyness, as much as I love cheese.

[NOK222]

The Anders rivalmence is the only one I like.

[Nonek]

At some point if they include romances, the protagonist should wake up in a pit, only to hear. "It puts the lotion on its skin, it does this whenever it's told."

[Volourn]

"I've gotta say, I always felt romance options were cheesy in games.

That's not to say they couldn't be done well, I just haven't seen it ever.

 

I'd prefer this game to avoid cheesyness, as much as I love cheese."

 

Yeah, because an ugly all pwoerful immortal amnescia that has the power to destroy existence and mystically attracts all sorts of wackos to him isn't cheesy. Come on. Fantasy is absed on cheesiness.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I can't imagine there's much I could say in this thread that hasn't been covered a dozen times over, and I would rather have my genitals shaved with a ginsu knife than endure 400+ posts of the pointless back and forth bickering that has constituted every other romance thread I've seen on this board, but hearing Avellone's approach and Sawyer's approach has set me to respond here nonetheless.

 

For me, romance in an RPG is nowhere near as important as relationships. A romance is one kind of relationship. Other relationships include rivals, family, business partners, bosses, subordinates, servants, masters, and god only knows how many others. Relationships helps define characters, both your own PC and the NPCs you interact with. Your PC is fleshed out by being friendly or adversarial or whatever else with any other character he/she interacts with, and that NPC is in turn fleshed out by his reactions to you. In that sense, I hope they let you pursue relationships of all sorts throughout the game. If at all possible, I want my PC to be a character in his own right given a personality by my choices and interaction, not just a generic and forgettable medium through which I experience the game.

 

With that in mind, a romantic relationship in an RPG is not inherently bad. Its hard to imagine something that could define and flesh out a character more than letting them choose who they have a romantic relationship with. Its simply that its usually done so badly that people can forget this. Either it falls into the NWN2 category of being a useless afterthought ("What the hell!? Stalky elf lady/old paladin guy who hasn't had anything new or interesting to say since his introductory level is making moves on me? Now? Why, for god's sakes? Get away get away get away!") or it becomes tepid poorly written teenage wangsty crap.

 

Romance should be included if the writers want to include it and feel they can do it better than it is usually done. It should not be excluded on principle because icky romances have no place in a CRPG (I find people who hold this position so violently at once disturbing and fascinating), nor should it be included because every modern CRPG needs some generic forgettable romance to be any good (same as above).

 

Do it if you want to and you can do it well. Otherwise, forget it. That is my position as of right now.

[Minttunator]

There's been a very good interview with MCA posted recently:

http://www.gameranx....oject-eternity/

 

One quote in particular is relevant to the topic of this thread:

So if I were to implement a romance subplot in Eternity - I wouldn’t. I’d examine interpersonal relationships from another angle and I wouldn’t confine it to love and romance. Maybe I’d explore it after a “loving” relationship crashed and burned, and one or both was killed in the aftermath enough for them to see if it had really been worth it spending the last few years of their physical existence chained to each other in a dance of human misery and/or a plateau of soul-killing compromise. Or maybe I’d explore a veteran’s love affair with his craft of murder and allowing souls to be freed to travel beyond their bleeding shell, or a Cipher’s obsession with plucking the emotions of deep-rooted souls to try and see what makes people attracted to each other beyond their baser instincts and discovers love... specifically, his love of manipulating others. You could build an entire dungeon and quest where he devotes himself to replicating facsimiles of love, reducer a Higher Love to a baser thing and using NPCs he encounters as puppets for his experimentations, turning something supposedly beautiful into something filthy, mechanical, but surrounded by blank-eyed soul-twisted drones echoing all the hollow Disney-like platitudes and fairy tale existence where everyone lives happily ever after.

 

Picture not by me:

 

 

 

 

[Delterius]

If anything, that picture is a good point for romance subplots in PE. All of them by Avellone.

 

Every single phrase, every single word, every single point and comma from the pen of a guy locked in a dark, cold and claustrophobic room - the only lighting nearby a television, depicting the most mellow and fake moments of love in the history of cinema and the only source of sanity a single page of Lovecraft's best (lest it be a distraction).

Edited October 31, 2012 by Delterius

[jezz555]

I know what Avellone says about it and I know a lot of you out there probably agree but to be perfectly honest, I am a fan of romances in games and I'm willing to argue in favor of them. People often like to say it's cheesy, or unnecessary or whatever but the fact is, in real life, most human beings assuming your not, some kind of underground troglodyte( no offense to anyone who is) have some sort of romantic drive, even if they have never been romantically involved with anyone. Characters in games or literature or w/e always feel somewhat incomplete to me if they don't at least show some hint of sexual preference. Like it or not, love, or the search for it, is a part of life and while obsession and perversions on the typically romantic relationship are cool and interesting, It comes across as a immature or perhaps a little prudish to me to not embrace what is, a large portion of adult life. Not saying there needs to be romance in this game, but I think it would be cool.

[Ieo]

I know what Avellone says about it and I know a lot of you out there probably agree but to be perfectly honest, I am a fan of romances in games and I'm willing to argue in favor of them. People often like to say it's cheesy, or unnecessary or whatever but the fact is, in real life, most human beings assuming your not, some kind of underground troglodyte( no offense to anyone who is) have some sort of romantic drive, even if they have never been romantically involved with anyone. Characters in games or literature or w/e always feel somewhat incomplete to me if they don't at least show some hint of sexual preference. Like it or not, love, or the search for it, is a part of life and while obsession and perversions on the typically romantic relationship are cool and interesting, It comes across as a immature or perhaps a little prudish to me to not embrace what is, a large portion of adult life. Not saying there needs to be romance in this game, but I think it would be cool.

 

For many of us who'd rather not see "romance" in games, it's not a matter of your cultural assumption of "prudishness." It's a combination of technical limitations, social expectations, and the resources available to PE. In fact, it seems to me that the obsession with getting romances into a game is far more childish, because the people asking for romances seem to believe it's the highest form of affect while failing to understand it's only a part of the entire umbrella of "love." (Besides the fact that "romance" is the only subset of love that leads to sex. ) There are plenty of other classes of affect that don't make it into games, even the other types of equally compelling "love"; so why only request one most commonly caricatured in mass media?

 

Now, if there were 18 NPCs (like in BG2) of considerable depth like PS:T companions...

9 could have "romance" paths...

9 would have their own character content...

 

I doubt there would be as much controversy over this as there is now. Because, guess what, we have only 8 companions in a party of 6.

 

Then the issue I described in other threads comes down to--

 

|=====general character content=========|Y/N romance = Y|-------romance content-----------|

 

versus

 

|=====general character content=========|Y/N romance = N|

 

That's my concern. There has to be equal content no matter what "path" a given NPC development goes down. This is generally not the case in game development, in my experience (and yes, I've tried out a number of different game romances in my day out of morbid curiosity).

 

Once again ( ), here is my proposed mechanic for perfectly parallel and exclusive "Y" paths that cover everything, described briefly from a preceding romance thread. The following examples are situated from the companion's perspective. It's very simple!

 

 

Y = bottom main branch is the starting point for all companion interaction

 

Main branch: get-to-know-you (This really should take up the bulk of the companion interaction over time; then we can get to specialization!)

 

Left branch: romance

Right branch: bromance/womance

 

Left branch: younger sibling

Right branch: protege

 

Left branch: older sibling

Right branch: advisor

 

Left branch: younger sibling

Right branch: romance

 

Et cetera.

 

Huzzah! No one ever gets more content in choosing one path over another and both paths are equally deep, meaningful, and immersive.

[Sylvanpyxie]

I posted in the previous thread, front page I think, but it didn't get much attention beyond a few likes, so I figured i'd pop back in to post a few factors on why romances can be a huge downside:

 

One of the biggest negatives is obviously a degradation of character in order to achieve a certain "Love Interest" status. Nothing is more horrific than a completely out of character discussion with a Homicidal Maniac about how you make his pants tight and he wants to make sweet love to you all night long. Some characters are simply not good candidates for "romance" and should never be considered for such.

 

A big problem for me - and easily one of the biggest threats to character integrity, I think - is the fact that "Love Interest Status" can easily overshadow a character. I played Dragon Age Origins recently and at first I was enjoying myself (my Lady Cousland countering the sexism of the douchebags at Highever with her sheer awesomeness was most enjoyable). It began to go downhill for me when I finished my origin story and then encountered the Grey Warden known as Alistair....

 

Alistair suffers from a clear case of "Obvious Love Interest Please Do Me", at first it wasn't so bad, there was a bit of leering in our first conversation but I figured it'd wither out and stop if I made no advances on him. The problem is it didn't stop. Every other conversation with Alistair ended in subtle nuances to romance, or bright orange neon signs screaming "I AM A LOVE INTEREST". This is something that irreparably damages characters for me, having romance overshadow almost every aspect of a character is an inexcusable crime on the writer's part. A character should not be defined by the fact I'm capable of riding him all night long, and I shouldn't have romantic content shoved down my throat when I did nothing to initiate or encourage a romantic relationship - I wanted to be Alistair's friend, I wanted to understand him, get to know him as a Pixelated Person. I did not want to ride him like a pony long into the night and I do not need the dialogue to check that I haven't changed my mind when it wasn't looking.

 

Sorry, that went a bit ranty didn't it?: Another thing that can easily damage the integrity of a character is when a romantic relationship is available to polar opposites of personality. If i'm playing a Rogue that is equal parts charming, dangerous and utterly lawless/chaotic, I don't expect a White Knight Goody Goody to be falling to the floor, kissing my feet and praising my womanly wiles. Sure, my Rogue is charming, but she would be stomping all over the foundations of the poor man's beliefs. Mr.Goody Goody shouldn't be offering her a full body massage, he should be trying to get the stealing, cheating, backstabbing cowbag to stop being such a... Well.. Cowbag.

 

I shouldn't be able to destroy the very foundations of a character in order to get sweet loving from the White Knight Good Guy, it just shouldn't happen. Yet, when romance is involved, core characteristics of an NPC can easily be broken in order to make the romantic content easily accessible to people who wish to pursue it, this happens more often than anyone would really like to admit, and it's really not acceptable. There should never be an "i win" button to characters, their personalities should never conform to the player in order to avoid "restriction on choices". If you're a douchebag and an NPC knows you're a douchebag, and they hate you for it, you should not be able to click a few "i win" dialogue options and make everything better.

 

Which easily leads us to probably the *biggest* problem with romantic content: Entitlement. Now, i'm not throwing stones or pointing fingers here, so please try to avoid burning me at the stake until I've successfully gotten my point across. I know from personal experience that people can get very invested in in-game romances and I can understand why (I still find myself quite invested in Valen Shadowbreath if i'm being totally honest with you), the problem is all this emotional investment can often lead to resentment if expectations aren't met.

 

There isn't ever going to be a "Love Interest" for everyone, our personal preferences are just too varied and the supply of available characters is obviously quite limited, so someone is always going to feel as though they've gotten the short end of the stick and, from my personal experience, this can lead to quite a bit of vocal outcry from people. I'm not saying that every Pro-Romance person is going to be crying bitter tears and spouting fountains of hatred from their bile filled mouths simply because there was no Dashing Rogue to sweep them off their feet, but from my experience there has always been a rather... vocal minority that feels to need to spew venom because a certain character was not available as a romantic option to them.

 

Now, call me a masochist but I like a bit of rejection, I like my choices to have unforeseen consequences that alter the relationships I have with characters. Whether it's something as simple as a selection of race (Dwarf won't date an Elf) or an essential choice that has far reaching consequences beyond my own personal relationships (Killing a child and losing the respect of many people) I want to feel the weight of those decisions. However, a lot of people that I have spoken with over the years feel as though certain consequences "railroad" them into unforeseen circumstances, when they discover that their heinous acts of violence have caused their significant other to abandon them in disgust, they feel as if the writer's have "cheated" them out of the romantic content that they had chosen to pursue.

 

Entitlement is a really terrible thing, and unfortunately it can often follow romances like a plague. I'm not saying that every Pro-Romance person is a self absorbed tit (I certainly don't think I'm a self absorbed tit anyway...), but it can't really be denied that people feel very passionately about romantic relationships and will often get very aggressive when they feel as though they're in-game preferences are being ignored, or punished.

 

This isn't even addressing the fact that, in a number of previous cases (and not limited to Bioware I might add), there can be very little content available to a specific gender if they refuse to pursue a romance.... There are a lot of reasons that romances can damage not only the integrity of characters, but also the interactions that players have with them.

 

 

That being said - I'm not entirely against romances either. I pointed out earlier that I still feel invested in Valen Shadowbreath, probably the last "romance" I pursued of my own free will and not just to experience more dialogue. Whenever I play Hordes of the Underdark I still find myself drawn to Valen, and it's not because of his romance, but because of his character. I said on the previous thread the number of reasons that I loved Valen Shadowbreath, and still do, but the biggest one of them was the fact that Valen was largely friendship dialogue, with very little inclination to flirtation or romance until the final stretch of the game.

 

If you pursue a romantic relationship with Valen then you will not discover huge branches of romantic dialogue pestering him with questions about what foods he likes, if he thinks you're pretty or what kind of dress he'd like you to wear - You get the opportunity to flirt with him a little when you're discussing "friendship" dialogue. He gets bashful and shrugs it off, then later he begins to express an interest, but it still doesn't dominate the interactions that you have with him. Everything is pushed forward by topics that are neutral dialogue. All your interactions are based on completely open dialogue, available to everyone, and this is what made Valen's relationship truly beautiful to me.

 

I hated Valen when I first met him, he didn't like me, he didn't trust me and he didn't want my help. He pretty much wanted to throw me out on my arse. I hated him for it... Here I was, preparing to sacrifice myself for the sake of everyone and this little git was daring to question me, I wanted to pound him into the dirt, but unfortunately I required a Fighter as I was playing a particularly terrible class. He would occasionally offer me advice on the things we were facing, but he was constantly trying to put me down, made it perfectly clear that he didn't trust me, no matter what I said.

 

The turning point came when Valen admitted that he held a little bit of resentment towards me, I'd swooped in and stolen his mantle, made everything that he worked so hard for look like nothing. Swept all his achievements under the rug with the sheer greatness of my glory. I really felt horrible and I began to look at him in a new light, the beginning of the end of my dignity.

 

Longer than I intended, I apologise. I'll do a nice neat summary for people who don't want to read through inane ramblings: Romance is very much a double edged sword, it can cause the downfall of a character, or it can add a greater emotional investment that can raise it to new heights. I wouldn't have felt as strongly about Valen Shadowbreath if I hadn't fallen so completely in love with his character, but I also know that I wouldn't have fallen in love with his character if he had been heavily dominated by romantic content.

 

I guess I'm on the fence - There's a part of me that feels romances could add something to a character, but another part of me knows that romance can easily decimate all character integrity and dominate all forms of Player->NPC interactions. Regardless of if there are romances in the game or not - I would like to see a wide array of relationships between the Player and the NPCs, ranging from Trusting Friendship to Bitter Rivalries to Free For All Homicidal Intent.

 

Again, I'm sorry for creating such a long post. I'm also sorry if anyone feels offended by anything I've said - It isn't my intention to offend anybody, but I felt the need to express my concerns, as well as my appreciation, for romances.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Sylvanpyxie

[AgentOrange]

The fact that romance is being talked about as a mechanic is in itself so incredibly absurd, every discussion about it is rendered similarly absurd.

[Gorth]

There's been a very good interview with MCA posted recently:

http://www.gameranx....oject-eternity/

 

One quote in particular is relevant to the topic of this thread:

So if I were to implement a romance subplot in Eternity - I wouldn’t. I’d examine interpersonal relationships from another angle and I wouldn’t confine it to love and romance. Maybe I’d explore it after a “loving” relationship crashed and burned, and one or both was killed in the aftermath enough for them to see if it had really been worth it spending the last few years of their physical existence chained to each other in a dance of human misery and/or a plateau of soul-killing compromise. Or maybe I’d explore a veteran’s love affair with his craft of murder and allowing souls to be freed to travel beyond their bleeding shell, or a Cipher’s obsession with plucking the emotions of deep-rooted souls to try and see what makes people attracted to each other beyond their baser instincts and discovers love... specifically, his love of manipulating others. You could build an entire dungeon and quest where he devotes himself to replicating facsimiles of love, reducer a Higher Love to a baser thing and using NPCs he encounters as puppets for his experimentations, turning something supposedly beautiful into something filthy, mechanical, but surrounded by blank-eyed soul-twisted drones echoing all the hollow Disney-like platitudes and fairy tale existence where everyone lives happily ever after.

 

It started out as a vague hope

 

So far, I've liked what Avellone & Co. have done, but that doesn't mean I'm not curious to see what they can do when exploring higher highs and deeper depths of human(oid) depravity. Key issue for me is it has to feel "natural" (or unnatural) as appropriate for the characters involved. If my companion is a crazed follower of the blood good, screaming "Blood for the Blood God" all the time, I would find it strange if he didn't express his "love" for his deity by butchering everything in his path. An abusive bastard I would expect to act abusively and a "ladies man" I would expect to be a flirt. Extrapolate the list of examples and add to it, hopefully seeing where I'm going

 

Another thing that can easily damage the integrity of a character is when a romantic relationship is available to polar opposites of personality. If i'm playing a Rogue that is equal parts charming, dangerous and utterly lawless/chaotic, I don't expect a White Knight Goody Goody to be falling to the floor, kissing my feet and praising my womanly wiles. Sure, my Rogue is charming, but she would be stomping all over the foundations of the poor man's beliefs. Mr.Goody Goody shouldn't be offering her a full body massage, he should be trying to get the stealing, cheating, backstabbing cowbag to stop being such a... Well.. Cowbag.

 

Stranger things have happened in the real world. Mighty men and woman have fallen, principles forgotten, oaths ignored etc. when people start thinking with their hormones and thought and reason starts dribbling out through a small hole in the bottom of peoples skulls

[nikolokolus]

*snip*

Again, I'm sorry for creating such a long post. I'm also sorry if anyone feels offended by anything I've said - It isn't my intention to offend anybody, but I felt the need to express my concerns, as well as my appreciation, for romances.

 

It's OK, just let it out, don't hold it in, that just leads to ulcers and heart attacks.

 

Shame on you Bioware! See what damage you've done?

[Sylvanpyxie]

Stranger things have happened in the real world. Mighty men and woman have fallen, principles forgotten, oaths ignored etc.

I'm not saying it's an impossibility. I'm saying that it's unlikely that a romance would evolve from a relationship between characters that clash so brutally in personality. A lack of romance doesn't mean there needs to be no relationship between the two, however, if we stick with the White Knight/Cunning Rogue example, I find it hard to believe that any "loving relationship" would form between two characters when they are constantly undermining each other's most basic beliefs, their core characteristics constantly rivaled by each other and each act reminding themselves that they are from two different ends of the spectrum, selfless and selfish.

 

One or the other could certainly change their beliefs and alter their behaviour accordingly, but why would the White Knight be inclined to do such a thing? Why would a selfless man, set in his beliefs about right and wrong/good and evil who is constantly trying to make the world a better place, be more inclined to change? Simply because he loves a woman that is constantly undermining his beliefs, undoing his work and shafting "lesser citizens"? Love is a selfish emotion, why would a selfless man consider it more important than the good of the world? Why would he give up what he believes in almost devoutly, to be a woman that by all accounts he should despise?

 

More importantly, where would he draw the line? If there is a Barbarian hell bent on destruction, feeding on chaos and death, with her words as equally charming as the Rogue's, is he going to accept her as well? Is he going to change, accept violence and murder, simply because he loves a woman that feasts so readily on the suffering on others? If he's so easily inclined to alter the very core of his character, then perhaps his character shouldn't be defined at all. Perhaps he should simply be a golem that is easily manipulated into whatever a woman wishes it to be.

 

I don't understand why it should be the NPC expected to conform to the Player. Why do we need to be the ones to crush the will of such a strong character? Why do we need the power to play God and undermine the most basic foundations of a character? Making romances easily accessible is quite a slippery slope... one that is likely to end in a spike pit and a very grizzly end.

 

Why can't we be the ones that finally have to conform to the beliefs of others? Would it be so hard to accept the beliefs of a character that you're trying so hard to love?

Edited November 1, 2012 by Sylvanpyxie

[jezz555]

I know what Avellone says about it and I know a lot of you out there probably agree but to be perfectly honest, I am a fan of romances in games and I'm willing to argue in favor of them. People often like to say it's cheesy, or unnecessary or whatever but the fact is, in real life, most human beings assuming your not, some kind of underground troglodyte( no offense to anyone who is) have some sort of romantic drive, even if they have never been romantically involved with anyone. Characters in games or literature or w/e always feel somewhat incomplete to me if they don't at least show some hint of sexual preference. Like it or not, love, or the search for it, is a part of life and while obsession and perversions on the typically romantic relationship are cool and interesting, It comes across as a immature or perhaps a little prudish to me to not embrace what is, a large portion of adult life. Not saying there needs to be romance in this game, but I think it would be cool.

 

For many of us who'd rather not see "romance" in games, it's not a matter of your cultural assumption of "prudishness." It's a combination of technical limitations, social expectations, and the resources available to PE. In fact, it seems to me that the obsession with getting romances into a game is far more childish, because the people asking for romances seem to believe it's the highest form of affect while failing to understand it's only a part of the entire umbrella of "love." (Besides the fact that "romance" is the only subset of love that leads to sex. ) There are plenty of other classes of affect that don't make it into games, even the other types of equally compelling "love"; so why only request one most commonly caricatured in mass media?

 

Now, if there were 18 NPCs (like in BG2) of considerable depth like PS:T companions...

9 could have "romance" paths...

9 would have their own character content...

 

I doubt there would be as much controversy over this as there is now. Because, guess what, we have only 8 companions in a party of 6.

 

Then the issue I described in other threads comes down to--

 

|=====general character content=========|Y/N romance = Y|-------romance content-----------|

 

versus

 

|=====general character content=========|Y/N romance = N|

 

That's my concern. There has to be equal content no matter what "path" a given NPC development goes down. This is generally not the case in game development, in my experience (and yes, I've tried out a number of different game romances in my day out of morbid curiosity).

 

Once again ( ), here is my proposed mechanic for perfectly parallel and exclusive "Y" paths that cover everything, described briefly from a preceding romance thread. The following examples are situated from the companion's perspective. It's very simple!

 

 

Y = bottom main branch is the starting point for all companion interaction

 

Main branch: get-to-know-you (This really should take up the bulk of the companion interaction over time; then we can get to specialization!)

 

Left branch: romance

Right branch: bromance/womance

 

Left branch: younger sibling

Right branch: protege

 

Left branch: older sibling

Right branch: advisor

 

Left branch: younger sibling

Right branch: romance

 

Et cetera.

 

Huzzah! No one ever gets more content in choosing one path over another and both paths are equally deep, meaningful, and immersive.

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post and that was my bad, but by "romance" I don't necessarily mean sex. I hate using the term, but I see it as a bit of a strawman that people always posit the idea that romance automatically equates to a sex minigame. I mean I think my character should be able to fall in love with and show affection for a character who he/she likes. She/he doesn't even have to return the affection necessarily, I'm not suggesting it be a points system or "mechanic" as someone up there put it. I simply mean that human beings ( or at least all the human beings I know) experience sexual feelings on a daily basis and if I am to believe in my character as a human being and not just a "strong guy adventurer type" cardboard cutout, he should behave as a human does. Lets eschew the idea of poorly done or cheesy romances, anything can be done badly, that is not a question of romance in videogames but one of your faith in obsidians ability to write convincing dialog.

 

Furthermore I would like to point out that I never said that PE had to include romance, technical limitations are what they are and that is out of our hands I am merely defending the importance of romance in a mature and well told tale, which is what I hope this game will be. I'm not sure what you meant by my "cultural assumption of "prudishness."", a disgust at the prospect of normal human intimacy is prudishness no matter what culture you come from, so maybe you would care to elaborate. Simply put, if my character is running around with a bunch of beautiful medieval babes for weeks on end, and he never even attempts to tap that, I'm going to start wondering if he's a eunuch.

[Jymm]

I'm not going to quote Sylvanpixie's entire post because its mammoth. But its a good treatise. I'm generally in the promance camp because I think it doesn't hurt anything. I wish they were more often written better, but in general I find any expansion of the gaming medium beyond the narrow confines of shooting or stabbing something to be good, on principle. But reading your post gives me pause. Having played many of these games with multiple characters of different genders, I have to admit that the addition of the romance plot does seem to lobotomize a character in an uncomfortable way. Seeing a single NPC from the eyes of a PC who has no romantic value to them really opens your eyes to how forced their behavior was when the chromosomes were flipped.

 

The preposterousness of the 'opposites attract' trope I also agree with, and its definitely part-and-parcel of the entitlement problem. And that alone is almost enough to convince me to cross sides on this one. The fanbase often tends to be so immature about this stuff. Hell, the gaming audience has a massive entitlement problem already, and now we're letting the fans become the publisher through Kickstarter? This could be entitlement squared. So while a big part of me wants to keep trusting good writers to polish their art and give us more reasonable representations of this common human aspect, perhaps its too much to hope for. Maybe if they succeeded the folks at Obsidian would just be punished for their efforts by a horde of ungrateful, overly entitled fans. And if they again wrote shallow, fanservice "romance" plots then they would have contributed nothing to the greater whole.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Jymm

[Sugarjaye]

I know what Avellone says about it and I know a lot of you out there probably agree but to be perfectly honest, I am a fan of romances in games and I'm willing to argue in favor of them. People often like to say it's cheesy, or unnecessary or whatever but the fact is, in real life, most human beings assuming your not, some kind of underground troglodyte( no offense to anyone who is) have some sort of romantic drive, even if they have never been romantically involved with anyone. Characters in games or literature or w/e always feel somewhat incomplete to me if they don't at least show some hint of sexual preference. Like it or not, love, or the search for it, is a part of life and while obsession and perversions on the typically romantic relationship are cool and interesting, It comes across as a immature or perhaps a little prudish to me to not embrace what is, a large portion of adult life. Not saying there needs to be romance in this game, but I think it would be cool.

 

For many of us who'd rather not see "romance" in games, it's not a matter of your cultural assumption of "prudishness." It's a combination of technical limitations, social expectations, and the resources available to PE. In fact, it seems to me that the obsession with getting romances into a game is far more childish, because the people asking for romances seem to believe it's the highest form of affect while failing to understand it's only a part of the entire umbrella of "love." (Besides the fact that "romance" is the only subset of love that leads to sex. ) There are plenty of other classes of affect that don't make it into games, even the other types of equally compelling "love"; so why only request one most commonly caricatured in mass media?

 

Now, if there were 18 NPCs (like in BG2) of considerable depth like PS:T companions...

9 could have "romance" paths...

9 would have their own character content...

 

I doubt there would be as much controversy over this as there is now. Because, guess what, we have only 8 companions in a party of 6.

 

Then the issue I described in other threads comes down to--

 

|=====general character content=========|Y/N romance = Y|-------romance content-----------|

 

versus

 

|=====general character content=========|Y/N romance = N|

 

That's my concern. There has to be equal content no matter what "path" a given NPC development goes down. This is generally not the case in game development, in my experience (and yes, I've tried out a number of different game romances in my day out of morbid curiosity).

 

Once again ( ), here is my proposed mechanic for perfectly parallel and exclusive "Y" paths that cover everything, described briefly from a preceding romance thread. The following examples are situated from the companion's perspective. It's very simple!

 

 

Y = bottom main branch is the starting point for all companion interaction

 

Main branch: get-to-know-you (This really should take up the bulk of the companion interaction over time; then we can get to specialization!)

 

Left branch: romance

Right branch: bromance/womance

 

Left branch: younger sibling

Right branch: protege

 

Left branch: older sibling

Right branch: advisor

 

Left branch: younger sibling

Right branch: romance

 

Et cetera.

 

Huzzah! No one ever gets more content in choosing one path over another and both paths are equally deep, meaningful, and immersive.

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post and that was my bad, but by "romance" I don't necessarily mean sex. I hate using the term, but I see it as a bit of a strawman that people always posit the idea that romance automatically equates to a sex minigame. I mean I think my character should be able to fall in love with and show affection for a character who he/she likes. She/he doesn't even have to return the affection necessarily, I'm not suggesting it be a points system or "mechanic" as someone up there put it. I simply mean that human beings ( or at least all the human beings I know) experience sexual feelings on a daily basis and if I am to believe in my character as a human being and not just a "strong guy adventurer type" cardboard cutout, he should behave as a human does. Lets eschew the idea of poorly done or cheesy romances, anything can be done badly, that is not a question of romance in videogames but one of your faith in obsidians ability to write convincing dialog.

 

Furthermore I would like to point out that I never said that PE had to include romance, technical limitations are what they are and that is out of our hands I am merely defending the importance of romance in a mature and well told tale, which is what I hope this game will be. I'm not sure what you meant by my "cultural assumption of "prudishness."", a disgust at the prospect of normal human intimacy is prudishness no matter what culture you come from, so maybe you would care to elaborate. Simply put, if my character is running around with a bunch of beautiful medieval babes for weeks on end, and he never even attempts to tap that, I'm going to start wondering if he's a eunuch.

 

Made me LOL so much.

[LadyMuck]

I have two questions for those who don't like romances in games.

 

1. If you believe that romances between the PC and NPCs are simply fanservice, do you consider friendships between the PC and NPCs fanservice as well?

 

2. If the answer to the above is no, then why is a friendship not fanservice, but a romance is?

 

1. Yes

 

I'll answer the second one, because I'm tired and when I'm tired, I don't know when to shut up.

 

Because friendships are simple, and easier to believe. You don't see thread after thread of people demanding a gay/lesbian/bi/straight/tall/short/whatever else type of friend. Players either like them, or they don't. Romances though, have to be just so; and gods help Obsidian, should love interest X not be one of the above. It all ends up being nauseatingly silly. Yes, I can avoid them, but that's one of the problems I have with them. I don't think I should have to "avoid" something that's supposed to be optional. I think if a person wants a romance, then they should be made to repeatedly spout cringe worthy dialogue to get to the object of their desires. I want to be able to play from start to finish, never knowing that so and so could be romanced.

 

My fear of the factions starting up, has come to pass. Otherwise reasonable people are now labelling others, that don't share their views. It seems I now belong to the antimancer side.

[LadyMuck]

I posted in the previous thread, front page I think, but it didn't get much attention beyond a few likes, so I figured i'd pop back in to post a few factors on why romances can be a huge downside:

 

One of the biggest negatives is obviously a degradation of character in order to achieve a certain "Love Interest" status. Nothing is more horrific than a completely out of character discussion with a Homicidal Maniac about how you make his pants tight and he wants to make sweet love to you all night long. Some characters are simply not good candidates for "romance" and should never be considered for such... snippity

 

I agree with this. If there is going to be a romance, and I think there is, hopefully it'll be someone that has been written with romance in mind.

 

Valen was my first(?) in game romance. I didn't like him at the start either, but he grew on me. Imo, he's an example of a fairly well done, and believable romance. I don't know what the others in that game were like. The same?

[Monte Carlo]

And, you see, this is the entire problem here:

 

If there is going to be a romance, and I think there is, hopefully it'll be someone that has been written with romance in mind.

 

1/8 of the companion writing tyme dedicated to sappy Fan Service.

 

I wish someone would write a low-combat romance CRPG, even an indie one. They would make a fair bit of money and lots of folks would be happier and not haunt games like this with their demands.

[LadyMuck]

And, you see, this is the entire problem here:

 

If there is going to be a romance, and I think there is, hopefully it'll be someone that has been written with romance in mind.

 

1/8 of the companion writing tyme dedicated to sappy Fan Service.

 

I wish someone would write a low-combat romance CRPG, even an indie one. They would make a fair bit of money and lots of folks would be happier and not haunt games like this with their demands.

 

"Assume the position" in NV, said everything and was to the point. More dialogue than that is just lip flapping. (jk) Just in case

 

Edit: sorry, I didn't see the bit you wrote above the quote. Makes my reply seem somewhat silly.

Edited November 1, 2012 by LadyMuck

[Kleisthenes]

I agree with this. If there is going to be a romance, and I think there is, hopefully it'll be someone that has been written with romance in mind.

 

Valen was my first(?) in game romance. I didn't like him at the start either, but he grew on me. Imo, he's an example of a fairly well done, and believable romance. I don't know what the others in that game were like. The same?

 

I really loved the Nathyrra and Aribeth romance in HoU. The flirting sequences were rather amusing, but I never could resist sarcasm and friendly mockery.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Kleisthenes

[jezz555]

The way I see it it's pretty simple. You take certain dialogue paths with certain compatible people and they will eventually grow to like you or dislike you, if they grow to like you, you or the NPC have the option to turn that like into a romantic relationship, if you don't want to you can reject them, if they don't want to they can reject you. It's optional, and not a huge part of the game, just something you can achieve if you work at it hard enough and you have the right chemistry. If you wan't to play an asexual character no one is stopping you.

 

What is unbelievable to me in games is that two people can spend so much time with each other, relying on each other and risking their lives together and not develop close or even romantic ties, that's just stupid, I know people who have developed relationships after being locked in elevators, sometimes these things just happen.

 

Furthermore can we drop the whole "fanservice" thing? This entire game is fan service for fans of IE games, why should Obsidian not want to service their fans?(bow chicka bow wow)

Edited November 1, 2012 by jezz555