Relationship/Romance Thread IV

[Amentep]

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.

 

To be fair, reductive arguments in storytelling doesn't work; the idea that "Story A" is diminished by not having "element B" assumes "element B" was considered for the story in the first place.

 

Which it may not have.

 

While I agree that romance is one "tool in the toolshed" for developers building stories and characters, its by no means the only tool in the toolshed, and they can build a perfectly fine game without it (alternatively for the haters, they could build a perfectly fine game *with* it too).

 

The idea that characters become robots when romanceability is removed automatically assumes that the only character traits the character had was to be romanceable.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Amentep

[Osvir]

Brotherly

Romanticly

Famliy

Sisterly

Rivalry

Friendship

Immaturity

Maturity

Motherly

Hatefully

Envy/Jealousy

 

Basically Romance is just one piece of the cake called (Relationship). We'll see how much of it Avellone digests and how much of it he vomits out.

 

P.S. There's probably more but I just brainstormed.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Osvir

[BruceVC]

Brotherly

Romanticly

Famliy

Sisterly

Rivalry

Friendship

Immaturity

Maturity

Motherly

Hatefully

Envy/Jealousy

 

Basically Romance is just one piece of the cake called (Relationship). We'll see how much of it Avellone digests and how much of it he vomits out.

 

P.S. There's probably more but I just brainstormed.

 

I don't mean to be dismissive because I am one of the people asking for Romance\Sex but aren't we expecting too much to ask Obsidian to represent all these aspects of Relationships? I am asking for something simple. You need to court the person and if you succeed you have sex with them. There should be straight and gay options. This is similar to all classic fantasy that I grew up reading, like Conan. I don't want to over-complicate it?

[Monte Carlo]

You are asking for something that isn't remotely similar to the precursor games.

 

Again and again and again and again.

 

Romances. A tiny part of BG2. Tiny.

 

You are projecting your need for fan-service, and that's all it is. You don't have to like it. And you are the reasonable end of the promance spectrum, god help us when the rest turn up.

[Heresiarch]

To be fair, reductive arguments in storytelling doesn't work; the idea that "Story A" is diminished by not having "element B" assumes "element B" was considered for the story in the first place.

 

Which it may not have.

 

While I agree that romance is one "tool in the toolshed" for developers building stories and characters, its by no means the only tool in the toolshed, and they can build a perfectly fine game without it (alternatively for the haters, they could build a perfectly fine game *with* it too).

 

The idea that characters become robots when romanceability is removed automatically assumes that the only character traits the character had was to be romanceable.

Well, a role-play game isn't a story, it's an experience. If the experience is bad by design, it does not excuse the developer. No matter how much Bioware screams bloody murder about their artistic integrity, they managed to spoil the whole series by having an ending so bad, it can be criticised for hours. I am speaking valid criticism here. They failed to deliver the experience to the majority of players and it doesn't matter of their story is flawed by design. Being flawed is all that matters.

 

Romance is a part of human relationships. An integral part, I would say, even though I am no big fan of it. Not having it is like not having friendship, camaraderie or any other common type of relationship. Saying that it's prohibitively expensive to make it good is not a good argument against it. It makes you choices and gameplay more substantial, and I (along with many other players) would prefer a shorter, but more engaging experience to an insipid, but long one.

 

Now, about the point that you can make perfectly fine games with and without it, it is true, of course. If it is a Tom Clancy shooter about tough military men or another iteration of Max Payne, who is so self-absorbed (while swimming in drugs and alcohol and murdering countless numbers of bad guys) that he doesn't notice anything else around, romance does not really belong there. So avoiding it completely is perfectly fine, maybe, adding it would even be detrimental to the experience. Hell, maybe even Planescape Torment would have been totally fine without Annah romance, although it does add quite a bit of depth. But if it is a story about an average person having no romance in it is artificial. What is he a complete psychopath? Has he a severe post traumatic stress disorder? He can't really be all-right if he behaves like that.

 

Mind you, I'm nor saying you can't play a character like this. But having the only option to play such an emotionally challenged individual does take away from the experience.

[Osvir]

Brotherly

Romanticly

Famliy

Sisterly

Rivalry

Friendship

Immaturity

Maturity

Motherly

Hatefully

Envy/Jealousy

 

Basically Romance is just one piece of the cake called (Relationship). We'll see how much of it Avellone digests and how much of it he vomits out.

 

P.S. There's probably more but I just brainstormed.

 

I don't mean to be dismissive because I am one of the people asking for Romance\Sex but aren't we expecting too much to ask Obsidian to represent all these aspects of Relationships? C) I am asking for something simple. A)You need to court the person and if you succeed you have sex with them. There should be straight and gay options. This is similar to all classic fantasy that I grew up reading, like Conan. B) I don't want to over-complicate it?

 

It's all pieces of a cake and many people value Friendship faaar above Romance.

 

A) "Need" to court them? I don't "need" to do anything.

B) Maybe I do. Love isn't easy, and Romance is oft sporadic, impulsive "Heat of the moment" type of thing that's something easy that gets complicated. It is a game, but it is a difficult, snakey, devious and lustful game. You have to play your cards right, "The Game" is a great book (never finished it but read about 1/3rds before I lost it somewhere).

C) I feel that you are asking for fan-service, you are asking for the pron content. You are the horny teenager when the rest of us real romantics don't want it to degenerate to the level of sweaty diaper sex, it ruins the entire thing about the romantic feeling. Romance is an art.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Osvir

[SGray]

Romances. A tiny part of BG2. Tiny.

So, you said that. A tiny part of game. Worth very little in development hours. And how much exactly does it add to gameplay?

Many that played BG2 will firstly remember their romances, then other companions, and only then general plot - baalspawn, etc. Majority, i dare to say.

If it works so good - why not to consider spending a little more effort this way? Twice or trice more text than in BGs(1,2,TOB) would be absolutely great and enough.

Edited November 12, 2012 by SGray

[Monte Carlo]

Romances. A tiny part of BG2. Tiny.

Many that played BG2 will firstly remember their romances, then other companions, and only then general plot - baalspawn, etc. Majority, i dare to say.

 

Really? Really?

 

* shakes head *

[jezz555]

You are asking for something that isn't remotely similar to the precursor games.

 

Again and again and again and again.

 

Romances. A tiny part of BG2. Tiny.

 

You are projecting your need for fan-service, and that's all it is. You don't have to like it. And you are the reasonable end of the promance spectrum, god help us when the rest turn up.

 

Fan-service? If a complete engaging, and mature story is fan-service, than sure, count me in. Your character can be a eunuch that's fine with me, just don't make mine one.

[nikolokolus]

Romances. A tiny part of BG2. Tiny.

Many that played BG2 will firstly remember their romances, then other companions, and only then general plot - baalspawn, etc. Majority, i dare to say.

 

Really? Really?

 

* shakes head *

 

This can't be my life ... can it?

 

Don't mind me, I'll just be over to the side rhythmically banging my head against the wall.

[Amentep]

Well, a role-play game isn't a story, it's an experience.

 

See I'd disagree (possibly because of semantics, but reading a novel is an experience, its just not the same experience as playing a role-playing game). To me a role-playing game is a participatory story; I take a character in the story and develop that character through the story based on what the story gives me.

 

This is why they can be so flexible as to carry very heavy plot and character driven epics and simple "jump in a tunnel and fight monsters" type tales. The experience is in the playing, sure, but that's not what they are.

 

Romance is a part of human relationships. An integral part, I would say, even though I am no big fan of it. Not having it is like not having friendship, camaraderie or any other common type of relationship. Saying that it's prohibitively expensive to make it good is not a good argument against it. It makes you choices and gameplay more substantial, and I (along with many other players) would prefer a shorter, but more engaging experience to an insipid, but long one.

 

Actually given a limited budget, I'd argue to expense (money, developer resources) is a good reason to be very frugal in character development to ensure that the player gets the most "bang for their buck" (dodgy innuendo not intended, oo-er). But for my purposes I could see a story in which a group of people share a friendship and journey for that reason or a group forced together in a fellowship developing a camaraderie along the way without having there be a need for a romantic relationship to develop. Could it? Sure. Must it? No.

 

I'm a big believer in the idea that romances need to work within the context of both the PC and the NPC and if the group gathered doesn't make sense to have a romance there's no reason to include such a thing. A character can be well drawn and realized in the game without being romanceable (and I think the reverse is true, although I know many who debate this).

[SGray]

Don't mind me, I'll just be over to the side rhythmically banging my head against the wall.

Good luck with that, I hope it would create beautiful rhythms )

I could be balancing on the edge of assumptions with priority of first statement over second. (Though most of the polls prove I'm not completely wrong.) But I'm absolutely sure that Minsk and Boo solely are refered at least as often as the whole baalspawn plot altogether. Try to google it.

[Mandragore]

After reading more of the posts in the previous thread and in this one. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that this is less a rational discussion about the merits of romance in RPGs and more an (admittedly hilarious) argument between horny old grognards like myself (who appreciate the occasional chainmail bikini) and anal retentive aspergers people who think that sex is icky.

[jezz555]

 

Romance is a part of human relationships. An integral part, I would say, even though I am no big fan of it. Not having it is like not having friendship, camaraderie or any other common type of relationship. Saying that it's prohibitively expensive to make it good is not a good argument against it. It makes you choices and gameplay more substantial, and I (along with many other players) would prefer a shorter, but more engaging experience to an insipid, but long one.

 

Actually given a limited budget, I'd argue to expense (money, developer resources) is a good reason to be very frugal in character development to ensure that the player gets the most "bang for their buck" (dodgy innuendo not intended, oo-er). But for my purposes I could see a story in which a group of people share a friendship and journey for that reason or a group forced together in a fellowship developing a camaraderie along the way without having there be a need for a romantic relationship to develop. Could it? Sure. Must it? No.

 

I'm a big believer in the idea that romances need to work within the context of both the PC and the NPC and if the group gathered doesn't make sense to have a romance there's no reason to include such a thing. A character can be well drawn and realized in the game without being romanceable (and I think the reverse is true, although I know many who debate this).

 

For the millionth time no one is saying the game has to have romances to be good. We are just advocating for them in games in general, this entire forum is essentially about wish-listing as we don't really have any details about the game yet, If they don't make it into the game fine, I'm not going to cry about it, but it would be nice if they did and that's all anyone was saying.

Edited November 12, 2012 by jezz555

[Osvir]

You are asking for something that isn't remotely similar to the precursor games.

 

Again and again and again and again.

 

Romances. A tiny part of BG2. Tiny.

 

You are projecting your need for fan-service, and that's all it is. You don't have to like it. And you are the reasonable end of the promance spectrum, god help us when the rest turn up.

 

Fan-service? If a complete engaging, and mature story is fan-service, than sure, count me in. Your character can be a eunuch that's fine with me, just don't make mine one.

 

If the Romance is as deep, engaging, captivating and heart-wrenching as the rest of the content or the story *shrug* I want good stories~ (I'm all for "true" love, whether it is romantic or tragic I don't care, as long as it isn't sappy pretend love... looking at you Morrigan, Liara). Dynaheir (fan-made mind you, see quote and underline) was great because it was dedicated to be captivating, whilst Morrigan and Liara felt as if they were thrown together and was poor writing (in context to the rest of the game) and poor implementation mechanically (the "Mini-Game" argument). If the Dating Sim of Mass Effect and Dragon Age would be taken out of the the games as stand-alone games they would be "Well written Dating Sims" (I've played my share of dating sims in the past when I was younger and more sexually confused). About at the same time as Dragon Age: Origins was released to be honest, was there any other "mechanical" method that people knew of at that time? Isn't Dragon Age: Origins a bit of an experimental game that tries many new things?

 

What did we learn? There's a huge fanbase for Japanese Dating Sims (Check the "Simulation - Dating" section Newgrounds, also can't you just get your fix from there? Does it have to be in everything?) in various forms, there's lots of cash to be had from that player-base. Just like Final Fantasy 8 was tailored for one group of consumers, Final Fantasy 9 was tailored to another, and Final Fantasy 10 tries to appeal to both. We learned that it was not appealing to the old school Baldur's Gate fans that obviously doesn't belong to the Japanese Dating Sim community.

 

What do we want?

* FF8? Lure in the new crowd? (Dragon Age: Origins)

* FF9? Get back the old? (IE Games)

* FF10, a mix of both? (Witcher, I haven't played it much to be honest, the prologue and some in the first fort with the "Beast" but it sounds like an attempt at it)

 

A good way, in Baldur's Gate I romanced Dynaheir (Mod) and she was always by my side in this kind of cool way, not all too gullible but genuinely interesting banters. About the world, about the party, even deeper into Dynaheir's life, some about Minsc etc. etc.

 

Because Domi is a writer and did study in Russia because romance does not take away too much from characters written by Domi. Take Kivan, for example; it's basically a camaraderie which can last from BG1 and to the ToB, there are situational banters, struggles, and trying to understand and help that emo elf to overcome his obsession with revenge. You don't lose anything if you do not play as a female elf, really. He's written as character first and foremost. Compare that to legion of "masturbatory fiction" which BG mods are usually, with 35 flirt options and 40 questions like "What's your favorite color?", "If you'd be an animal, what animal would you be?". There, character only serves a purpose for entertaining a specific crowd, he has no real dreams and hopes, and quickly comes down to being nothing but your plaything. You can easely see when exactly writers steam ran out - he finished writing romance, and then it's like "oh snap, now I need to write something for people who won't romance dude/gal, like friendship path". And it sucks, of course, because the character was there to have romance to begin with, not to be a being with some grand hope or with ideas to say.

Those who enjoy that kind of **** should have no vote on how characters should be written and their tribute should end in their names being used as NPCs in that Avellone's dungeon with crazy Cipher.

 

EDIT: It's a platform game xD

 

HAHA! Flash game/Newgrounds: Don't Catch the Herp

Edited November 12, 2012 by Osvir

[Amentep]

After reading more of the posts in the previous thread and in this one. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that this is less a rational discussion about the merits of romance in RPGs and more an (admittedly hilarious) argument between horny old grognards like myself (who appreciate the occasional chainmail bikini) and anal retentive aspergers people who think that sex is icky.

 

Except Monte Carlo is anti-romance and was forced to remove a cartoon of a lady in a chainmail bikini from his sig!

 

As I mentioned before, I think its far to easy to classify the "sides" in a derogatory manner.

 

For example pro-romancers have been accused of being people who think sex is icky in real life and therefore look to games as their sexual fetish outlet. And now you've essentially asserted the same of the other camp.

 

The problem is assuming that someone's pro / con romance feeling has any connection to how they feel about sex and relationships in real life, which ultimately doesn't logically follow.

 

 

For the millionth time no one is saying the game has to have romances to be good. We are just advocating for them in games in general, this entire forum is essentially about wish-listing as we don't really have any details about the game yet, If they don't make it into the game fine, I'm not going to cry about it, but it would be nice if they did and that's all anyone was saying.

 

Er...I'm on your side and that's the argument I've been making for like a month now. Color me befuddled.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Amentep

[BruceVC]

You are asking for something that isn't remotely similar to the precursor games.

 

Again and again and again and again.

 

Romances. A tiny part of BG2. Tiny.

 

You are projecting your need for fan-service, and that's all it is. You don't have to like it. And you are the reasonable end of the promance spectrum, god help us when the rest turn up.

Nope sorry Monte, as I have mentioned numerous times I was happy with the BG2 Romance\Sex implementation and I'll be happy with something similar in PE. So I don't expect anything unreasonable or difficult to integrate into PE.

 

Brotherly

Romanticly

Famliy

Sisterly

Rivalry

Friendship

Immaturity

Maturity

Motherly

Hatefully

Envy/Jealousy

 

Basically Romance is just one piece of the cake called (Relationship). We'll see how much of it Avellone digests and how much of it he vomits out.

 

P.S. There's probably more but I just brainstormed.

 

I don't mean to be dismissive because I am one of the people asking for Romance\Sex but aren't we expecting too much to ask Obsidian to represent all these aspects of Relationships? C) I am asking for something simple. A)You need to court the person and if you succeed you have sex with them. There should be straight and gay options. This is similar to all classic fantasy that I grew up reading, like Conan. B) I don't want to over-complicate it?

 

It's all pieces of a cake and many people value Friendship faaar above Romance.

 

A) "Need" to court them? I don't "need" to do anything.

B) Maybe I do. Love isn't easy, and Romance is oft sporadic, impulsive "Heat of the moment" type of thing that's something easy that gets complicated. It is a game, but it is a difficult, snakey, devious and lustful game. You have to play your cards right, "The Game" is a great book (never finished it but read about 1/3rds before I lost it somewhere).

C) I feel that you are asking for fan-service, you are asking for the pron content. You are the horny teenager when the rest of us real romantics don't want it to degenerate to the level of sweaty diaper sex, it ruins the entire thing about the romantic feeling. Romance is an art.

 

 

Sorry Osvir but you are going to be very disappointed if you think that Obsidian is going to be able to implement Romance\Sex as an art. This is a fantasy RPG and we need to have realistic expectations. I could recommend some good poetry if you are looking for Romantic inspiration, but in PE the Romance\Sex should be a part of the game through dialog options and response to your actions by party members. It shouldn't be a huge part of the game but how it was done in BG2 would suit me fine

Edited November 12, 2012 by BruceVC

[Monte Carlo]

Fan-service? If a complete engaging, and mature story is fan-service, than sure, count me in. Your character can be a eunuch that's fine with me, just don't make mine one.

 

If by 'mature' you mean pretend love affairs with computer game characters then you and I obviously own different dictionaries.

[Monte Carlo]

After reading more of the posts in the previous thread and in this one. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that this is less a rational discussion about the merits of romance in RPGs and more an (admittedly hilarious) argument between horny old grognards like myself (who appreciate the occasional chainmail bikini) and anal retentive aspergers people who think that sex is icky.

 

"Horny old grognards" generally are getting it in the r/w dude.

[Mandragore]

After reading more of the posts in the previous thread and in this one. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that this is less a rational discussion about the merits of romance in RPGs and more an (admittedly hilarious) argument between horny old grognards like myself (who appreciate the occasional chainmail bikini) and anal retentive aspergers people who think that sex is icky.

 

"Horny old grognards" generally are getting it in the r/w dude.

 

I completely agree, which is why I don't think they feel uncomfortable seeing it in a game. My post was less directed at this thread (although still somewhat) and more at the previous one were certain people were harping on about "platonic love" and the merits of celibacy.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Mandragore

[Sacred_Path]

I'd like someone who supports romance in games argue against a food mechanic. Anyone?

[BruceVC]

After reading more of the posts in the previous thread and in this one. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that this is less a rational discussion about the merits of romance in RPGs and more an (admittedly hilarious) argument between horny old grognards like myself (who appreciate the occasional chainmail bikini) and anal retentive aspergers people who think that sex is icky.

 

"Horny old grognards" generally are getting it in the r/w dude.

 

I completely agree, which is why I don't think they feel uncomfortable seeing it in a game. My post was less directed at this thread (although still somewhat) and more at the previous one were certain people were harping on about "platonic love" and the merits of celibacy.

 

Well said, your point resonates with me. I not embarrassed to admit that I think Chainmail bikini and characters like Viconia are attractive. Sorry if that makes me some kind of sexual deviant

[Amentep]

I'd like someone who supports romance in games argue against a food mechanic. Anyone?

 

I'd like to assume that my character knows when they're hungry and how to plan to have food available to them when traveling.

 

I don't like to assume my character knows how I want them to interact with other people.

 

A character doesn't have to be in a romance to live; they do have to eat* to live.

 

I'd like to assume dialog with other characters can lead to unexpected outcomes. If I eat bread, I should eat bread. Not roll for initiative and try to hit with my teeth.

 

The only way these two situations - in my opinion - could be remotely relatable is if I have to have dialog options with my food to successfully eat or something. Which is just weird enough concept to be worth it.

 

*or some eating equivalent if we're talking plant people or something

[Osvir]

Sorry Osvir but you are going to be very disappointed if you think that Obsidian is going to be able to implement Romance\Sex as an art. This is a fantasy RPG and we need to have realistic expectations. I could recommend some good poetry if you are looking for Romantic inspiration, but in PE the Romance\Sex should be a part of the game through dialog options and response to your actions by party members. It shouldn't be a huge part of the game but how it was done in BG2 would suit me fine

 

Stop including my screen name in the same sentence as Romance\Sex. I don't want the Sex part, I do want the Romantic part.

 

Art doesn't need to be a movie, but just like you say, in text (like BG presents it).

 

Novella/Novell/Short-Stories is Art as well.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Osvir

[Heresiarch]

*snip*

I don't quote the whole post, because I feel like the only disagreement we have apart from semantics is priorities. You believe that romance, camaraderie and other relationship stuff is secondary in PE, while I would trade more side quests, flashier graphics, bigger huge cities, and better what-have-yous for more party character content in the game any day. It doesn't need to be romance necessarily, it just has to remind me why I care. And romance for one thing is pretty good at it.

 

But priorities and other personal likes and dislikes aren't really worth arguing about. There is no contradiction in some people preferring cappuccino, while others like their coffee black. All the same it would not be right to cut down on milk only to provide bigger portions for everyone.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Heresiarch