Relationship/Romance Thread IV

[Osvir]

OMG. That building is burning. I can only save either (a) the family sleeping upstairs or (b) the prisoner locked in the cellar who's as evil as sin. But, the prisoner has vital information that might allow me to save more lives. But I can only save one..."

 

However the prisoner is a hot female Dark Elf in bikini chainmail armour who has promised you sordid sexual fantasies if you free her....

And the family aren't attractive at all...who do you save?

 

So you can be links between Romance\Sex and moral choices?

 

 

*shudders*

 

Sorry man.

 

EDIT: I understand the concept but, no not interested. Your entire example is tailored to a certain audience. Why would she be dressed up in chainmail bikini? Why does she have to be hot? Why is she imprisoned by the family, is the family entirely good? How long has she been a prisoner? Would she not be given a prisoner's outfit or would the family keep her half-naked in their basement?

 

To be honest I'd probably save the family, specially if the chick is evil (I usually play good characters) and find that vital information elsewhere (your entire example, by the way, gives you less of a reward choosing the "Good" choice playing a "Good" character and the "Evil" choice rewards you thrice, more evil character roleplay, virtual sappy pleasure and vital information, whilst saving the family gives you "Gratitude" and more good character roleplay).

 

EDIT EDIT: How long have I known the family and the prisoner before the house started burning? Is this something the prisoner is yelling at me as I'm walking by? "If you save me you can lay with me!!!!" or what? How much time did I have, up until the time of the house burning, to assess and gain a relationship with these people?

Edited November 12, 2012 by Osvir

[LadyCrimson]

OMG. That building is burning. I can only save either (a) the family sleeping upstairs or (b) the prisoner locked in the cellar who's as evil as sin. But, the prisoner has vital information that might allow me to save more lives. But I can only save one..."

 

However the prisoner is a hot female Dark Elf in bikini chainmail armour who has promised you sordid sexual fantasies if you free her....

And the family aren't attractive at all...who do you save?

I'd probably fail to save anyone because I'd be too busy drinking in the bar and gambling to try to increase my meager supply of gold coins to even notice the fire.

 

.... wat?

[BetrayTheWorld]

OMG. That building is burning. I can only save either (a) the family sleeping upstairs or (b) the prisoner locked in the cellar who's as evil as sin. But, the prisoner has vital information that might allow me to save more lives. But I can only save one..."

 

However the prisoner is a hot female Dark Elf in bikini chainmail armour who has promised you sordid sexual fantasies if you free her....

And the family aren't attractive at all...who do you save?

I'd probably fail to save anyone because I'd be too busy drinking in the bar and gambling to try to increase my meager supply of gold coins to even notice the fire.

 

.... wat?

 

And I'd probably miss out on the do-gooder fun as well, while I was trying to pick up the chick gambling in the bar.

[BruceVC]

OMG. That building is burning. I can only save either (a) the family sleeping upstairs or (b) the prisoner locked in the cellar who's as evil as sin. But, the prisoner has vital information that might allow me to save more lives. But I can only save one..."

 

However the prisoner is a hot female Dark Elf in bikini chainmail armour who has promised you sordid sexual fantasies if you free her....

And the family aren't attractive at all...who do you save?

 

So you can be links between Romance\Sex and moral choices?

 

 

*shudders*

 

Sorry man.

 

EDIT: I understand the concept but, no not interested. Your entire example is tailored to a certain audience. Why would she be dressed up in chainmail bikini? Why does she have to be hot? Why is she imprisoned by the family, is the family entirely good? How long has she been a prisoner? Would she not be given a prisoner's outfit or would the family keep her half-naked in their basement?

 

EDIT EDIT: How long have I known the family and the prisoner before the house started burning? Is this something the prisoner is yelling at me as I'm walking by? "If you save me you can lay with me!!!!" or what? How much time did I have, up until the time of the house burning, to assess and gain a relationship with these people?

 

Osvir I appreciate your logical rebuttal to my concept but don't you think you are over- analyzing the scenario. Remember its a fantasy RPG, not everything is going to make sense?

[SGray]

To be honest I'd probably save the family, specially if the chick is evil (I usually play good characters) and find that vital information elsewhere

 

How long have I known the family and the prisoner before the house started burning?

Exactly. Brought back some memories. Some black-skinned, clearly evil and murderous chick tied to a pole and a crowd of lawful citizens waiting for the the start of righteous barbecue. Goody-good character, hesitating about slaughtering the whole crowd if he walked through BG1 with her? Not really. If he not?

[jezz555]

OMG. That building is burning. I can only save either (a) the family sleeping upstairs or (b) the prisoner locked in the cellar who's as evil as sin. But, the prisoner has vital information that might allow me to save more lives. But I can only save one..."

 

However the prisoner is a hot female Dark Elf in bikini chainmail armour who has promised you sordid sexual fantasies if you free her....

And the family aren't attractive at all...who do you save?

 

So you can be links between Romance\Sex and moral choices?

 

 

This is a pretty bizarre scenario, but I mean just weighing the options here. I get hot dark elf booty and the opportunity to save more lives if I save the prisoner, and literally nothing if I save the family. Furthermore the family is sleeping upstairs and will likely die a quiet painless death, from smoke-inhalation where as the dark elf in her locked prison cell will likely be cooked to death and die in agony. Not much of a choice really.

 

Furthermore the dark elf could reform herself, and given her possible combat ability, and clear sexual prowess, she could likely aid me in saving more innocents in the future, done and done.

Edited November 12, 2012 by jezz555

[BruceVC]

To be honest I'd probably save the family, specially if the chick is evil (I usually play good characters) and find that vital information elsewhere

 

How long have I known the family and the prisoner before the house started burning?

Exactly. Brought back some memories. Some black-skinned, clearly evil and murderous chick tied to a pole and a crowd of lawful citizens waiting for the the start of righteous barbecue. Goody-good character, hesitating about slaughtering the whole crowd if he walked through BG1 with her? Not really. If he not?

 

But thats a good and applicable example. I never played BG1 but I still saved Viconia in BG2 and ended up having a relationship with her. She turned out not to be that evil and in the summary at the end of BG2 she had my children and we were happy. The crowd deserved what they got

[kenup]

Romances are as much a minigame as any other quest and piece of dialogue. Because they are just dialogues and quests. The only difference is theme. If we use your logic to cut romances we should also cut most of the subquests because killing Firkraag didn't have anything to do with BG's main plot. Neither did the troubles in Trademeet. The main plot doesn't change if you do them or not. Also romances in MoTB didn't feel sappy so unless you are suggesting Obsidian will hire Gaider to write them this argument is invalid.

Do you people even read what you write?

 

So you want romances to be sidequests? You talk about how strong and deep romantic love is, compared to other relationships, and then you want it to be a sidequest. Not to mention MoTB had much better writing than BG2; in MoTB love was part of the theme, and for the 100th time every relationship(regardless of what kind) with a companion mattered and plot choices were affecting them. And they weren't a minigame to satisfy different sexual fantasies either.

 

But Monte you are missing the obvious correlation with your analogy and Romance\Sex. Allow me to elaborate

 

OMG. That building is burning. I can only save either (a) the family sleeping upstairs or (b) the prisoner locked in the cellar who's as evil as sin. But, the prisoner has vital information that might allow me to save more lives. But I can only save one..."

 

However the prisoner is a hot female Dark Elf in bikini chainmail armour who has promised you sordid sexual fantasies if you free her....

And the family aren't attractive at all...who do you save?

 

So there can be links between Romance\Sex and moral choices?

How does that make it a harder moral choice? Or shows that romances are adding to it and don't just make the game shallow? In fact your example does the opposite.

 

"And the family aren't attractive at all"? Ugh.....

Edited November 12, 2012 by kenup

[BasaltineBadger]

To be honest I'd probably save the family, specially if the chick is evil (I usually play good characters) and find that vital information elsewhere

 

How long have I known the family and the prisoner before the house started burning?

Exactly. Brought back some memories. Some black-skinned, clearly evil and murderous chick tied to a pole and a crowd of lawful citizens waiting for the the start of righteous barbecue. Goody-good character, hesitating about slaughtering the whole crowd if he walked through BG1 with her? Not really. If he not?

 

It's not like they are any different than other people player slaughtered through BG 1 because they crossed him.

 

 

OMG. That building is burning. I can only save either (a) the family sleeping upstairs or (b) the prisoner locked in the cellar who's as evil as sin. But, the prisoner has vital information that might allow me to save more lives. But I can only save one...

 

If it's a Bioware game I will save the family because I'll obviously get the information from different source and every good character will bitch about not saving that family until the day i die.

If it's an Obsidian game I'm going to save the prisoner because otherwise family will bitch about saving them instead of saving more people.

It it's the Witcher it doesn't matter what I'll do everything is going to end horribly.

 

However the prisoner is a hot female Dark Elf in bikini chainmail armour who has promised you sordid sexual fantasies if you free her....

And the family aren't attractive at all...who do you save?

 

If it's a Bioware game I save the girl because she's obviously a party member and have a hart of gold, while family is evil and will try to murder me the second I turn my back on them.

It if's an Obsidian game I save the prisoner and kill her later when she turns out to be a mole for the main enemy.

If it's the Witcher I save the family because Letho is going to rescue the girl.

If it's a jRPG I can't reach the family no matter how hard I try and I'm forced to rescue the girl to progress further.

 

 

 

So you want romances to be sidequests? You talk about how strong and deep romantic love is, compared to other relationships

 

 

I believe you confused me with some other poster. It happens.

 

and then you want it to be a sidequest.

 

No matter what you will do in the end romance subplot is just a string of dialogues with an optional subquest. It's not a matter of choice.

 

 

Not to mention MoTB had much better writing than BG2; in MoTB love was part of the theme, and for the 100th time every relationship(regardless of what kind) with a companion mattered and plot choices were affecting them. And they weren't a minigame to satisfy different sexual fantasies either.

 

If you admit that romances made by Obsidian are not the thing you complain about why complain about people wanting romances made by Obsidian.

Edited November 12, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

But Monte you are missing the obvious correlation with your analogy and Romance\Sex. Allow me to elaborate

 

OMG. That building is burning. I can only save either (a) the family sleeping upstairs or (b) the prisoner locked in the cellar who's as evil as sin. But, the prisoner has vital information that might allow me to save more lives. But I can only save one..."

 

However the prisoner is a hot female Dark Elf in bikini chainmail armour who has promised you sordid sexual fantasies if you free her....

And the family aren't attractive at all...who do you save?

 

So there can be links between Romance\Sex and moral choices?

How does that make it a harder moral choice? Or shows that romances are adding to it and don't just make the game shallow? In fact your example does the opposite.

 

"And the family aren't attractive at all"? Ugh.....

 

Are you familiar with the concept of sarcasm?

[SGray]

but I still saved Viconia in BG2

The crowd deserved what they got

So it was not no-brainier decision? Which is definitely so, when you are familiar with her already.

 

What i tried to tell is that same situations observed from different points of view (different experience) could lead to much more or much less obvious decisions even with same morality in mind. And personal relationships is often the thing that matters. Romances only promote this to higher extent and add more meaning to player's actions.

That's why i love Witcher - everything is up to who you like and emotionally/morally attached to, you understanding why are you doing this.

And that's why i don't like FO:NV as much - I don't care about anyone here, there is simply no motivation to not to settle in some remote village and shoot everyone who approaches. Pronounced with pathos: It has be done for...!! What? Revenge? - don't care anyhow. Abstract Greater Good? - sounds funny, but i don't care also. Exp? - uh, well... ok.

 

Games without strong emotional connection feel just empty. Romances are good and reliable tool (true for majority of players, as all polls depict) to create more ties for player with a world, to make him actually care about the world around. Well written romance could be a good addition to any role-playing game.

Only if they are not purpose by themselves.

[BasaltineBadger]

Getting revenge, knowing why the hell were you shot in the head and finishing the job you was supposed to do is a pretty good motivation. After killing Benny there was no reason not to go further either. After all why settle down when you can be one of the most important people in Vegas by siding with one of the factions.

[SGray]

Getting revenge, knowing why the hell were you shot in the head and finishing the job you was supposed to do is a pretty good motivation. After killing Benny there was no reason not to go further either. After all why settle down when you can be one of the most important people in Vegas by siding with one of the factions.

"knowing why the hell were you shot in the head" - wasn't that absolutely obvious? Someone needed your package. Nothing was added later.

"Getting revenge" - on who, for what? Just business, nothing personal. On your employer, who was using you blind? Possibly, but not an urge.

"finishing the job" - for employer, that didn't intend to provide you enough information and was using you as mere pawn? No, thanks.

Is not good enough motivation already. At least for me and some people i know. I care more about folks in first village, that rescued me, than about all the above.

 

"After killing Benny there was no reason not to go further" - since i don't care about anyone here (except apocalypse followers mb), and I'm bad-ass enough to stay on my terms with anyone who will win - first intention is to set back in my chair and watch the fireworks.

"you can be one of the most important people in Vegas by siding with one of the factions" - If and only if you really care about your "importance". You already could get anything you want for yourself by yourself. Without serving to anyone or ruling anyone. If you haven't anyone you care about or someone to protect - at this point game becomes pretty much pointless. (I know some people newer finished it.) At this point you have to artificially imagine reasons why to continue as game not providing any except supposedly-default-functioning-as-intended-by-plot ego and exp rewards. Out of the game curiosity and wish to see every dialog don't count.

 

All said above pretty much fits "courier" philosophy. And as quite well depicted in one of the dlc's: If there is nowhere to return - all the journey is pretty much pointless.

Edited November 12, 2012 by SGray

[Osvir]

OMG. That building is burning. I can only save either (a) the family sleeping upstairs or (b) the prisoner locked in the cellar who's as evil as sin. But, the prisoner has vital information that might allow me to save more lives. But I can only save one..."

 

However the prisoner is a hot female Dark Elf in bikini chainmail armour who has promised you sordid sexual fantasies if you free her....

And the family aren't attractive at all...who do you save?

 

So you can be links between Romance\Sex and moral choices?

 

 

*shudders*

 

Sorry man.

 

EDIT: I understand the concept but, no not interested. Your entire example is tailored to a certain audience. Why would she be dressed up in chainmail bikini? Why does she have to be hot? Why is she imprisoned by the family, is the family entirely good? How long has she been a prisoner? Would she not be given a prisoner's outfit or would the family keep her half-naked in their basement?

 

EDIT EDIT: How long have I known the family and the prisoner before the house started burning? Is this something the prisoner is yelling at me as I'm walking by? "If you save me you can lay with me!!!!" or what? How much time did I have, up until the time of the house burning, to assess and gain a relationship with these people?

 

Osvir I appreciate your logical rebuttal to my concept but don't you think you are over- analyzing the scenario. Remember its a fantasy RPG, not everything is going to make sense?

 

The thing is I hope that P:E will be well-written, and for something to be well written it needs to have some sense. I also dislike that argument as it seems to be the "lazy last resort" argument. Couldn't you at least try to paint a scenario where your idea is in it's prime triumph where it makes sense? Where a burning house doesn't appear out of nowhere with a hot dark elf prisoner and a family in peril, but with some history and background to it. What's the agenda with the family? What's the agenda with the prisoner? But most importantly (like some said "I'd be at the bar and gamble all my money away") what is it to your character? It needs some sort of "entrance" to matter or be important for your character and not a "troll event" from out of the improvised blue.

 

EDIT: Probably not, otherwise you wouldn't have brought out the "it's a fantasy RPG" card.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Osvir

[BruceVC]

but I still saved Viconia in BG2

The crowd deserved what they got

So it was not no-brainier decision? Which is definitely so, when you are familiar with her already.

 

What i tried to tell is that same situations observed from different points of view (different experience) could lead to much more or much less obvious decisions even with same morality in mind. And personal relationships is often the thing that matters. Romances only promote this to higher extent and add more meaning to player's actions.

That's why i love Witcher - everything is up to who you like and emotionally/morally attached to, you understanding why are you doing this.

And that's why i don't like FO:NV as much - I don't care about anyone here, there is simply no motivation to not to settle in some remote village and shoot everyone who approaches. Pronounced with pathos: It has be done for...!! What? Revenge? - don't care anyhow. Abstract Greater Good? - sounds funny, but i don't care also. Exp? - uh, well... ok.

 

Games without strong emotional connection feel just empty. Romances are good and reliable tool (true for majority of players, as all polls depict) to create more ties for player with a world, to make him actually care about the world around. Well written romance could be a good addition to any role-playing game.

Only if they are not purpose by themselves.

SGray my friend I agree completely with your post. I absolutely believe that Romance\Sex adds to the depth and realism of an RPG. No arguments here

As someone else mentioned "an RPG without Romance makes the characters like emotionless Robots ", and who wants to play an impassive robot?

 

OMG. That building is burning. I can only save either (a) the family sleeping upstairs or (b) the prisoner locked in the cellar who's as evil as sin. But, the prisoner has vital information that might allow me to save more lives. But I can only save one..."

 

However the prisoner is a hot female Dark Elf in bikini chainmail armour who has promised you sordid sexual fantasies if you free her....

And the family aren't attractive at all...who do you save?

 

So you can be links between Romance\Sex and moral choices?

 

 

*shudders*

 

Sorry man.

 

EDIT: I understand the concept but, no not interested. Your entire example is tailored to a certain audience. Why would she be dressed up in chainmail bikini? Why does she have to be hot? Why is she imprisoned by the family, is the family entirely good? How long has she been a prisoner? Would she not be given a prisoner's outfit or would the family keep her half-naked in their basement?

 

EDIT EDIT: How long have I known the family and the prisoner before the house started burning? Is this something the prisoner is yelling at me as I'm walking by? "If you save me you can lay with me!!!!" or what? How much time did I have, up until the time of the house burning, to assess and gain a relationship with these people?

 

Osvir I appreciate your logical rebuttal to my concept but don't you think you are over- analyzing the scenario. Remember its a fantasy RPG, not everything is going to make sense?

 

The thing is I hope that P:E will be well-written, and for something to be well written it needs to have some sense. I also dislike that argument as it seems to be the "lazy last resort" argument. Couldn't you at least try to paint a scenario where your idea is in it's prime triumph where it makes sense? Where a burning house doesn't appear out of nowhere with a hot dark elf prisoner and a family in peril, but with some history and background to it. What's the agenda with the family? What's the agenda with the prisoner? But most importantly (like some said "I'd be at the bar and gamble all my money away") what is it to your character? It needs some sort of "entrance" to matter or be important for your character and not a "troll event" from out of the improvised blue.

 

EDIT: Probably not, otherwise you wouldn't have brought out the "it's a fantasy RPG" card.

 

Osvir I use to DM for many years, so trust me when I say it would be really easy for me to create a story or context for the example I mentioned. But I don't believe that would change the anti-Romance sentiment. Anyway this was Monte's example, I was just highlighting why moral choices and Romance\Sex options can be interchangeable. They don't have to have this dichotomous relationship.

[SGray]

a "troll event" from out of the improvised blue.

You want more detailed situation? Not too hard, really, to fleshen such event in proposed mood, say:

 

Exploring the city you accomplish some righteous quests for respectable and noble family, in fact representing the law in the city. They are always generous with rewards and quests are doing good for city, they are obvious good guys and you sympathize them. On one of the quests you cross your ways with some rogue who leaves the trail of dead bodies after himself and occasionally helps you by distracting enemy attention elsewhere. You have some clue that rogue is not "he", but "she". Later on you hear the rumor of some horrible murderer was caught and sentenced to execution. Some time later you find mansion of your respectable quest-givers burning. You manage to enter it through the basement, where you find mentioned above rogue, locked in one of cells. She is absolutely clear female (imagine Viconia as a reference) half-naked and all other fanservice and begging you for rescue. She couldn't offer anything but herself literally in reward (not as a companion, no reason for that, but bluntly as sexual favor), proving her words with some oath or magic adjuration. Key to her cell is somewhere on the first floor, so you have to find it and return before the building crumbles, instead of trying to reach family barricaded by someone on upper floors.

 

So we have classic (or not-so one) "damsel in distress" vs some loyalty. No oaths involved from your side, just what you think is right and what you decide to do. You have to consider if you could trust her, if she knows something important about what's going on, won't you get a stab in the back anyway, could you really save those men upstairs at all, couldn't they handle themselves etc.

 

So i could double that: moral choices and Romance\Sex options can be interchangeable. They don't have to have this dichotomous relationship.

[Amentep]

Having no romance feels artificial. Unless you're playing an emotionless robot

 

Conversely, having romance feels artificial. Unless you're playing a squee-laden emo sap.

 

Playing a video game feels artificial. Unless you're a computer.

 

Do any of you guys ever come back and read what you write and just feel embarrassed?

 

I'm just wondering, because sometimes some of these posts remind me of why I can't be known for playing video games.

 

See:

 

http://www.something...cial-forums.php

for details.

 

Edit: For the record, I think this SA article should be inextricably bound with Chris Avellone's opinion on romances in all extensions of this discussion going forward.

 

I pretty much left BSN after the flood of people demanding that Bethany, the PC's sister in DA2, be romanceable. And I say this as someone who is generally "pro-romance" in games if it fits the story, character, etc, I just couldn't come to terms with people who felt like that wasn't just a good idea but an absolute necessity for the game. Of course it didn't hurt that I find the BSN to be terribly hard to use as a forum, either.

 

I'll say this as someone who feels they are pro-romance I'd never stoop to say that any romance is absolutely necessary. I'll also always argue that any romance shouldn't ever be done at the expense of the NPC (ie violating their core concepts). I'd rather have no romance than poor romances that exist only to make the NPC the PCs virtual love slave, devoid of their personality that made them an interesting NPC in the first place.

[BruceVC]

a "troll event" from out of the improvised blue.

You want more detailed situation? Not too hard, really, to fleshen such event in proposed mood, say:

 

Exploring the city you accomplish some righteous quests for respectable and noble family, in fact representing the law in the city. They are always generous with rewards and quests are doing good for city, they are obvious good guys and you sympathize them. On one of the quests you cross your ways with some rogue who leaves the trail of dead bodies after himself and occasionally helps you by distracting enemy attention elsewhere. You have some clue that rogue is not "he", but "she". Later on you hear the rumor of some horrible murderer was caught and sentenced to execution. Some time later you find mansion of your respectable quest-givers burning. You manage to enter it through the basement, where you find mentioned above rogue, locked in one of cells. She is absolutely clear female (imagine Viconia as a reference) half-naked and all other fanservice and begging you for rescue. She couldn't offer anything but herself literally in reward (not as a companion, no reason for that, but bluntly as sexual favor), proving her words with some oath or magic adjuration. Key to her cell is somewhere on the first floor, so you have to find it and return before the building crumbles, instead of trying to reach family barricaded by someone on upper floors.

 

So we have classic (or not-so one) "damsel in distress" vs some loyalty. No oaths involved from your side, just what you think is right and what you decide to do. You have to consider if you could trust her, if she knows something important about what's going on, won't you get a stab in the back anyway, could you really save those men upstairs at all, couldn't they handle themselves etc.

 

So i could double that: moral choices and Romance\Sex options can be interchangeable. They don't have to have this dichotomous relationship.

 

I like this example, good one. I would like to add to it. You find out the thief/dark elf female is the only person who knows about a certain cure to a rare poison that is killing one of your party members. And she is also prepared to offer herself to you sexually and as a party member. But if you rescue her the family dies and this family apart from being "good guys" is a noble family that will carry influence in the next city you need to go on your quest. So you now have 2 choices

• Rescue the hot Viconia lookalike. Save your one party member and get laid (but getting laid isn't the only reason you choose to rescue her)
  
• Recuse the family and gain important allies in the next city but one of your party members dies and you lose the impressive skills of Viconia and her Bikini Chainmail
  

So in fact these are both moral choices and Romance\Sex choices

[BasaltineBadger]

"knowing why the hell were you shot in the head" - wasn't that absolutely obvious? Someone needed your package. Nothing was added later.

 

Normal person would be curious why the hell is one chip worth killing someone.

 

"Getting revenge" - on who, for what? Just business, nothing personal. On your employer, who was using you blind? Possibly, but not an urge.

 

On an **** who shot you in the head. It's not like shooting you for business reasons hurt less or something.

 

"finishing the job" - for employer, that didn't intend to provide you enough information and was using you as mere pawn? No, thanks.

 

House didn't know about the trap and you don't even know what information did House provide except the fact that there are fake packages and that the chip is some ancient super-software. It's not like knowing it would save you from the trap. There is also that courier agency you are working for.

 

Is not good enough motivation already. At least for me and some people i know. I care more about folks in first village, that rescued me, than about all the above.

 

People in your village will probably die or become slaves if you don't stop Cesar.

 

"After killing Benny there was no reason not to go further" - since i don't care about anyone here (except apocalypse followers mb), and I'm bad-ass enough to stay on my terms with anyone who will win - first intention is to set back in my chair and watch the fireworks.

"you can be one of the most important people in Vegas by siding with one of the factions" - If and only if you really care about your "importance". You already could get anything you want for yourself by yourself. Without serving to anyone or ruling anyone. If you haven't anyone you care about or someone to protect - at this point game becomes pretty much pointless. (I know some people newer finished it.) At this point you have to artificially imagine reasons why to continue as game not providing any except supposedly-default-functioning-as-intended-by-plot ego and exp rewards. Out of the game curiosity and wish to see every dialog don't count.

 

You can get power or defeat super evil-rape squad and courier is an RPG protagonist not middle aged woman so choice between adventure and becoming a bum is obvious. It's not like there were no people to care about. There were companions and every fraction you encountered in the game. It's possible that you didn't cared about what would happen to the Brotherhood, the Boomers, the Kings, Cassidy, Boon or Veronica. Veronica but most people did, Boon and Cassidy actually were very similar to standard romancable NPC except they didn't want to **** protagonist. I support romances but if you actually need romance subplot to care I think there are other games that would interest you. More details here: http://vndb.org/.

[SGray]

Save your one party member

Save one, and get additional one... Specifically that I tried to avoid ) When it goes down to "save your party member" or "get another party member" it's mostly no-brainer. You simply don't want ever to miss everything tied to party member vs any reward. Don't like any significantly distinguishable person is instantly joinable and don't like new party members introduced by sex. Why would you want her in your party? Take every random hot chick with you at first glance? Going down to wandering brothel. Why would she stay after fulfilling her promise? Not psychological at all if you forced such oath, if you not...

 

In my scenario there would be pretty much same quests after that, chasing those who ignited the house (bad nobles), with good nobles as quest givers or with rogue as information source, and after completion of that quest branch - there you could became a noble yourself or get a party member if she still not hates you. Much later consequences and equal rewards, imo.

[Osvir]

• Rescue the hot Viconia lookalike. Save your one party member and get laid (but getting laid isn't the only reason you choose to rescue her) vital information.
  
• Rescue the family and gain important allies in the next city but one of your party members dies and you lose the impressive skills of Viconia and her Bikini Chainmail
  

So in fact these are both moral choices and Romance\Sex choices

 

How are both these Romance/Sex options?? Look don't take any offense but how much do you think about Sex? (obviously not Romance)

 

Thank you SGray.

[Lurky]

I absolutely believe that Romance\Sex adds to the depth and realism of an RPG. No arguments here

 

But then you go and say this...

 

As someone else mentioned "an RPG without Romance makes the characters like emotionless Robots ", and who wants to play an impassive robot?

...No. You seemed like you could get it, but turns out that you didn't.

There's platonic love. There's familial love. There's respect and admiration. There's drive to nurture. There's competitiveness. There's rivalry. There's hatred. All of those are examples of emotions you can get from interacting with your companions, and none of them involve romantic love.

 

Want romantic love to be one of the many emotions you can experience? Then say that! Don't say that having no romance means being emotionless, because it sure as hell isn't the case. Romances are not the only emotion you can get from NPC interactions, they're not the strongest emotion a game can give you, and they aren't even the best or most immersive emotions you can experience (seriously, they're not). Hell, as far love goes, they're not the highest form of love either, just the one that gets the most attention.

 

And that's the problem. Want to know why some people oppose romances specifically? Because far too many times they lead to statements like the last one I just quoted. They hog the spotlight like no other NPC relationship does. If the existence of romances leads to the rest of emotions being trivialized, if it leads to reducing the focus of the rest of the relationship spectrum*, it's no wonder that some people would rather see them gone entirely.

 

*grumble* This is why we can't have nice things

 

*(For the record, I'm not worried about this happening in-game. Avellone's statements have been very clear that this is not going to happen. But no matter how clear he is in stating what he's going to do with party relationships, romances still hog the spotlight in the forum discussions. This thread is supposed to cover the rest of relationships too, why doesn't anyone talk about them?)

[SGray]

//mostly offtopic wall of text

 

Normal person would be curious why the hell is one chip worth killing someone.

In fallout - 20 caps are worth killing someone. And if chip is worth hiring a courier - any normal person would know it definitely worth killing for someone.

 

On an **** who shot you in the head. It's not like shooting you for business reasons hurt less or something.

You were hit by the car. It vanished in the night, you survived. Would you devote your life in chasing that driver? If he deliberately targeted you and your family - that is. If not - that's plain stupid, hurts it more or less, no matter.

 

House didn't know about the trap and you don't even know what information did House provide except the fact that there are fake packages and that the chip is some ancient super-software. It's not like knowing it would save you from the trap. There is also that courier agency you are working for.

At first - you didn't have info about other couriers or about that chip being some technological artifact. Next thing - you weren't aware of real scale of value of that chip, so you didn't expect organized and targeted ambush indeed. Third thing - agency didn't pass contract for couriers in blind, previous courier (more informed one) refused this mission and he was contacted personally.

 

People in your village will probably die or become slaves if you don't stop Cesar.

By the time you are dealing with Cesar this village is lo-o-ong forgotten. So you have to think in such way: i won't be able to ask any non-scripted favor from Cesar no matter what i do, village is long forgotten by plot, so there definitely won't be such option, sooo, he could probably be bad to them. Well, let's slaughter all legion, just in case. And (surprise!) no one bothers about goodsprings in the end, no matter who wins the global struggle.

 

You can get power or defeat super evil-rape squad

Oh, really? And you couldn't do this by yourself, without ruling the region with army of robots or without help from some NCR slowpokes?

lend a bomber, arm it with nukes, bought on your cash, lay waste on anything that moves your way?

And where are all the cries about moral ambiguity in FO:NV sides and decisions?

 

and courier is an RPG protagonist

Wow! Such an argument! Don't add much to in-game motivation though.

 

It's not like there were no people to care about. There were companions and every fraction you encountered in the game.

All lesser fractions (with single partial exception of followers of apocalypse) were shallow and unwilling themselves. Main ones... To chose from: stupid and mean because of that, or selfish&mean / selfish&mean&protagonist, and very mean ones - without other variants and personal attachments...

Such attachments could be provided by your companions or outstanding not joinable characters. But they mostly fail to.

Can't name any NPC's not from dlc except House or Cesar, but they were equal to their sides.

Your companions are tumbleweed just as you, not matter much to them what will happen in that particular part of wasteland, they can handle themselves. One bright exception - Boon, he is not quite a deep person, but at least willing to do something. Another one - enclave man, but he is much less entertaining and caring about conflict. Cass? Veronica? Others? No one else cares about global struggle (clearly seen in endings). There is some negative feedback on certain sides from your companions but not any positive one.

 

Boon and Cassidy actually were very similar to standard romancable NPC except they didn't

...have deep enough personalities and lacking feedback to be such, or interesting ones if to be precise.

 

want to **** protagonist.

I hadn't mentioned this, but if it bothers you so much: Two lines of "I want to **** you" wouldn't add much to their personalities neither to plot motivation.

 

if you actually need romance subplot to care

I need a plot to care. If main plot is lacking in motivation - romances are possible tool to add more personal in and fix it, or to add even more if it's enough already. Not absolutely necessary thing though - loved Fallout 1 and 2.

Edited November 12, 2012 by SGray

[Heresiarch]

But yes, having no romance is exactly like having no moral choices, because it takes away from the experience.

* sigh * Yes, having no bananas is exactly like having no moral choices, because it takes away from the experience.

 

Re-read your post, forensically, and try to tease out a few micrograms of sense. No? Me neither.

 

...

 

If you like dating sims then come out and say it, don't dress it up in terms of moral choices and immersion. Feh.

Yes, writing stupid thing, while saying that you opponent makes no sense, is exactly like having an argument. Because I suppose this kind of behaviour comes with a gratifying feeling of false superiority.

 

As for the dating sims, I have already explained the difference. If you paid attention to what I was saying instead of trying to look witty and well-worded, you would have known it too.

 

Now, while having buildings on fire is nice and everything, how many times per day do you face deep moral choice? Except behaving like a gentleman vs. going about an argument all ignorant baboon-style, I mean. More along the line of pulling someone out of the fire. The answer is not so often. So if everyone around you in a video game is a damsel in distress and you get to save one each time (or pet only one dog or punish only one robber or only one whatever) it becomes stale and repetitive. I already know that I am a good guy here, because I helped the weak and the poor and thoroughly murdered every evil bastard I came across. Having more orphans to save or villains to kill looses its charm half the way into the game.

 

Romance (or friendship and other similar stuff), on the other hand, makes you build a connection with the character. Then all the choices about that character become quite a bit more difficult. It doesn't really matter how many you have. Do you save Madison Saint-James or disarm the bombs? Wouldn't be so hard a choice if you never had extensive dialogues with her. Doesn't even matter if she ended up in your bed or hitting you on the head. How about Merrill selling you out and siding with demons, while saying that she likes you and all, but not that much? If you had a romance with her, you would be all the more inclined to give Merrill the boot.

 

Devs just need to go a way from the preconception of romance as a way to get sex and treat it as a form of strong and potentially convoluted (and totally ****ed up at times) relationship.

[BruceVC]

• Rescue the hot Viconia lookalike. Save your one party member and get laid (but getting laid isn't the only reason you choose to rescue her) vital information.
  
• Rescue the family and gain important allies in the next city but one of your party members dies and you lose the impressive skills of Viconia and her Bikini Chainmail
  

So in fact these are both moral choices and Romance\Sex choices

 

How are both these Romance/Sex options?? Look don't take any offense but how much do you think about Sex? (obviously not Romance)

 

Thank you SGray.

 

Yes you are correct only one is a Romance\Sex choice. In fact I should have said 2 moral choices. But it was just an example, there could have been another Romance\Sex choice but it needs to be appropriate.

 

I don't know what you mean by "how much do you think about Sex". Do you mean in RL or do you mean in the context of where I want my characters in the game to have Romance\Sex

Edited November 12, 2012 by BruceVC