Relationship/Romance Thread IV

[Sacred_Path]

*Cross-referenced with another interview, that's 2-3 months per party NPC.

 

what interview? In any case, it would be pretty horrible if NPC interaction is such a ressource hog. We have the Adventurer's Hall, so there's no need for overly complex NPCs.

[SGray]

this does not at all exclude adding further elements where this is also true.

Oh, weren't those your words?

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

So, as I understand, you couldn't prove this position anyhow now, neither you could answer question you asked yourself. Wouldn't you admit that your exaggeration and comparison altogether were a little out of the place? And logics like: "if we have X we definitely should have Y, and if we not - there shouldn't be X" - is ill by its nature?

 

To kenup:

 

 

Well aren't you a master of battle knowledge? NO.

 

While fighting the breathing must be as natural as possible. There is no right or wrong, that is different than what's best anywhere else. But of course you are a master of battle arts right?

I have quite a bit of experience in martial arts, aikido and kendo, mostly. If you are able to breath "natural" in any situation under any exercises - you are a great man definitely.

Not sure what you wanted to say by this: "There is no right or wrong", but there is best way of breathing in every specific situation for every specific human. (body oxygen consumption rates, aerobic/anaerobic metabolism and other biology)

 

 

 

To BasaltineBadger (wall of text!):

 

 

It's pretty obvious that the chip is very important and valuable.

Hm, missed the point. So why are you wondering that it worth killing?

 

If someone hit me on purpose, not trying to get him punished would be pretty stupid. It's not like Benny shoot you by accident.

He hit not you deliberately, but some random man carrying chip. If you are not distinguishing those two cases... Well, it's up to morality and philosophy.

 

You knew that the cargo was pretty valuable which is enough to expect someone to want to take it. Knowing about other couriers or the chip being a technological artifact or even knowing that Benny wants the chip would save the courier from an ambush.|

Some information =/= enough information. Courier could handle normally mundane thugs or gang as Ulysses prove (or he'll be dead long before). And he had no clues to expect something more (organized hunt from one of the power families of New Vegas). And knowing so should definitely change his behavior thus - pretty much possible avoiding the trap.

 

This is not true. Goodsprings residents flee from Legion if it gains control of the Mojowe.

That what I said is true. No one cares about Goodsprings. Its residents are not forced to leave or anything, they are simply resettling somewhere better after a while from legion victory.

 

Why not get help when it's offered?

Cause it's either let them die stupidly running near them, or let them die stupidly while looking from afar and laughing evilly holding your personal army back. You've been made too resourceful to force only such choices.

 

You are playing the game to have adventures, it's not the game's fault that it pressumes the MC is an adventurous type.

If this is the only motivation - it's good enough for diablo-like games, not for an rpg with much talking and choices intended. Even Mario is trying to give you reason to advance, not solely because he is "adventurous type".

 

"It's not the problem with lack of motivation but with you not liking an NPCs."

Yup, told so. I don't care about those characters, therefore I'm lacking in motivation.

 

"No matter whet they'd do you'd still be unmotivated if characters are not to your taste."

True again. If I don't like and don't care about any character in the game or in the game lore - I'll be pretty much unmotivated, if it's not a flashy shooter or some platformer/scroller. Even for strategies it's important. And the whole argument is to tell specifically this: If there are no emotional ties to the game world (both positive and negative) - there would be little to no motivation to the player.

 

"The main plot is pretty much the same in F1, 2 and NV."

Nope. In F1 and 2 you are saving or helping someone. Not yourself solely.

 

"You are basically saying that you didn't like the plot"

Nope to this. The big picture is quite good and realistic. But i don't like NPCs indeed. There are no bright ones, the game is too focused on providing negative feedback, forgetting about the positive one. Not "every side has it's pros and cons" but everyone are bad. Every npc feel dusty, mundane and boring. Interesting outcome Art-wise, but bad for gameplay, imo.

 

"and if you don't like the game"

Hasn't ever told so. The game is huge, but it hasn't left an impression it could. I enjoyed more DLCs than the whole main game.

 

"They can add 1,000 romances and"

It depends totally on how it's implemented. Could even worsen the whole impression.

 

 

^And the whole argument is to tell specifically this: If there are no emotional ties to the game world (both positive and negative) - there would be little to no motivation to the player.

[Sacred_Path]

this does not at all exclude adding further elements where this is also true.

Oh, weren't those your words?

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

So, as I understand, you couldn't prove this position anyhow now, neither you could answer question you asked yourself. Wouldn't you admit that your exaggeration and comparison altogether were a little out of the place? And logics like: "if we have X we definitely should have Y, and if we not - there shouldn't be X" - is ill by its nature?

 

Can't you read? Where in these two posts did I say that romance shouldn't be in the game under any circumstance? I gather you didn't get my point, that is romance and a food mechanic are both not inherently necessary. Yet I like the latter (which isn't fashionable), and that's just as subjective as wanting romance. It has often been brought up by promancers that they feel romance is necessary to their immersion/ character development, that's why I used food mechanics as a way to show that this is not only true for romance.

[BruceVC]

this does not at all exclude adding further elements where this is also true.

Oh, weren't those your words?

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

So, as I understand, you couldn't prove this position anyhow now, neither you could answer question you asked yourself. Wouldn't you admit that your exaggeration and comparison altogether were a little out of the place? And logics like: "if we have X we definitely should have Y, and if we not - there shouldn't be X" - is ill by its nature?

 

Can't you read? Where in these two posts did I say that romance shouldn't be in the game under any circumstance? I gather you didn't get my point, that is romance and a food mechanic are both not inherently necessary. Yet I like the latter (which isn't fashionable), and that's just as subjective as wanting romance. It has often been brought up by promancers that they feel romance is necessary to their immersion/ character development, that's why I used food mechanics as a way to show that this is not only true for romance.

this does not at all exclude adding further elements where this is also true.

Oh, weren't those your words?

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

So, as I understand, you couldn't prove this position anyhow now, neither you could answer question you asked yourself. Wouldn't you admit that your exaggeration and comparison altogether were a little out of the place? And logics like: "if we have X we definitely should have Y, and if we not - there shouldn't be X" - is ill by its nature?

 

Can't you read? Where in these two posts did I say that romance shouldn't be in the game under any circumstance? I gather you didn't get my point, that is romance and a food mechanic are both not inherently necessary. Yet I like the latter (which isn't fashionable), and that's just as subjective as wanting romance. It has often been brought up by promancers that they feel romance is necessary to their immersion/ character development, that's why I used food mechanics as a way to show that this is not only true for romance.

 

But Sacred lets be realistic, I agree that both Romance and food mechanics are not necessary but if we have to see what is important to the community I guarantee you that Romance will be considered more important. Also Romance allows you to build more of an identity with your characters, well Food is more an aspect of survival.

Edited November 13, 2012 by BruceVC

[Monte Carlo]

The bitterest pill the promancers need to swallow is the on-the-record loathing Avellone and Sawyer have for romances.

[Sacred_Path]

But Sacred lets be realistic, I agree that both Romance and food mechanics are not necessary but if we have to see what is important to the community I guarantee you that Romance will be considered more important.

 

As I've said in my Mature Themes thread, I think romances are probably mandatory today. There's a younger generation of players that probably grew up with romances in RPGs and they expect those to be in there. Also imagine the average gaming journalist's verdict if there was no romance, zomg! I just want it to be either well done or optional but without missing any content (like, the only thing you'd miss out on would be dialogue)

[BruceVC]

The bitterest pill the promancers need to swallow is the on-the-record loathing Avellone and Sawyer have for romances.

 

You funny Monte, I may not always agree with you but you do make me chuckle

But Sacred lets be realistic, I agree that both Romance and food mechanics are not necessary but if we have to see what is important to the community I guarantee you that Romance will be considered more important.

 

As I've said in my Mature Themes thread, I think romances are probably mandatory today. There's a younger generation of players that probably grew up with romances in RPGs and they expect those to be in there. Also imagine the average gaming journalist's verdict if there was no romance, zomg! I just want it to be either well done or optional but without missing any content (like, the only thing you'd miss out on would be dialogue)

 

I see your point, okay what about in BG2 where you are courting Viconia and eventually you get attacked by Lolths followers. So the Romance thread leads to an encounter but not missing content. Would you be happy with this?

Edited November 13, 2012 by BruceVC

[Sacred_Path]

I see your point, okay what about in BG2 where you are courting Viconia and eventually you get attacked by Lolths followers. So the Romance thread leads to an encounter but not missing content. Would you be happy with this?

 

In that case (where I'm not missing content) I'd like to toggle romances off like it has been suggested. If all I'm missing out is some dialogue with no real consequence I wouldn't care.

[BruceVC]

I see your point, okay what about in BG2 where you are courting Viconia and eventually you get attacked by Lolths followers. So the Romance thread leads to an encounter but not missing content. Would you be happy with this?

 

In that case (where I'm not missing content) I'd like to toggle romances off like it has been suggested. If all I'm missing out is some dialogue with no real consequence I wouldn't care.

 

Another question around this, don't you think that the various Romance dialog options lead to a deeper kinship with your various party members? Getting to know what makes them think and act. I just can't imagine a game where my characters are just names and are there to win combat. I firmly believe that Romance/Sex options give our characters personality

 

But I suppose you can get to know your party without the Romance option?

Edited November 13, 2012 by BruceVC

[Sacred_Path]

Another question around this, don't you think that the various Romance dialog options lead to a deeper kinship with your various party members? Getting to know what makes them think and act. I just can't imagine a game where my characters are just names and are there to win combat. I firmly believe that Romance/Sex options give our characters personality

 

But I suppose you can get to know your party without the Romance option?

 

My experience with romance in games is just that they're done in a cringe inducing way. Did Arie's romance lead to a deeper understanding of the character? Not really. She doesn't have wings so she's unhappy, fine. OTOH, Minsc's bonding with Arie that could make him go berserk was a nice twist to have in the game. If you didn't have both in your party you weren't really missing out, but having them together resulted in this neat interaction.

For me, the goals that your characters have just overshadows more mundane things like romance. I just imagine that there's all kinds of interaction going on between characters; after all there must be a reason why they travel together in the first place.

 

Like this poll implies, party interaction simply shouldn't focus obsessively on romance, there are so many layers of interaction that could happen that I'm just not impressed when everything results in a love story.

[SGray]

that your character has enough experience in his world to take care of his physical needs, why don't you just guess that he also knows how to satisfy his emotional needs?

 

Thanks, but that means there's more reason to have food in the game than romance, u know?

 

If I could romance a pie [and eat it], we'd all be happy and I'd buy 10 copies of this game.

? Newermind.

 

So everyone can agree with that:

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

After that:

All romance-haters just couldn't figure one thing, imo:

It's totally possible that reality is

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

with

|=====general character content=========|Y/N romance = N|-----non-romance content-------| (friendship, disdain, hatred, anything)

 

And that would take not much more work from devs. As already mentioned in this thread romances in BGs were tiny part of the game. And it would less then double amount of work and content required for creating romances to properly implement the second part of comparison. That romances proved themselves very good for big part of BG community. So there is a reason to spend more effort on that part of a game than it was done in partially experimental BG. On worst assumptions - let's triple the amount of text used in BGs romances (anyone with numbers?), split it equally to "romance accepted" and "romance refused" paths, and (surprise!) we have one and half more than in BGs which will make pro-romancers happy, and not hindered anyhow but enhanced experience for no-romancers. All that at cost comparable to trice a "tiny" part of a game. (In fact - less: companion motivations and personalities are already written, so it's much easier for writer to add something to already defined character. Also - count the part of a text should be written anyway to cover the gap when romance is refused or impossible, wasn't so small in BGs as I remember.)

 

So, to sum above: anyone who cries for "there shouldn't be any romances" is just unreasonable, imo. Or just don't get some things.

The ones who say: romance shouldn't be the only way of interaction with romancable character and that refusing romance shouldn't cut further dialogs at once are pretty much right. And I could join such a plea myself. There are not so many pro-romancers that like harems, you know.

The ones who say: refusing the romance shouldn't affect your interaction with party member and shouldn't have any consequences are just weird. Or totally unsocialized.

Edited November 13, 2012 by SGray

[Monte Carlo]

I will do you the courtesy of repeating myself - the writing fairy does not mysteriously drop scripts under Avellone's pillow at night. We know that it takes 2/3 months to write an NPC properly (and some of you need to read your own posts back to yourselves... You really do think that the only meaningful NPC interaction is romance and sex minigames? Are you *that* needy?).

 

Romance content equals time and assets that a quiet majority of old-skoolers who never suckled on the teat of next-gen biocrap hated.

 

So No. Please.

[Osvir]

Well, the pro-romancer's have had their glory in Dragon Age: Origins. Can't we add in a 3rd Party Character NPC/Deity/"Avellone Poltergeist" that is an Option in the Gameplay menu that just says "No" whenever you try?

 

I'm either/or with Romance, yes or no, doesn't really matter as long as it's presented good.

 

EDIT: A Flashheart type character

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKfbSHW9uGA

Edited November 13, 2012 by Osvir

[SGray]

Monte Carlo, that's pity that you don't do the courtesy to read the post at first.

 

We know that it takes 2/3 months to write an NPC properly

Thanks for numbers (not ones I asked for, but nevertheless). Agreed, it's a hard job. Now: how much exactly did romance part take from character development in BGs? How much work romances took by themselves? With already written and complex characters?

You are just refusing to think that way (and ignoring what I've already written), cause i strongly doubt you are unable to understand such a simple thing.

 

romance and sex minigames?

Where had i mentioned that? Are you *that* obsessed with it?).

 

Romance content equals time and assets

Of a single minor quest.

 

that a quiet majority of old-skoolers who never suckled on the teat of next-gen biocrap hated.

So, on your opinion Baldurs Gate's and Planescape romances are equal to "next-gen biocrap hated"? Pity you, if you really think so.

 

So Read. Please.

Edited November 13, 2012 by SGray

[BruceVC]

Guys can I ask a favor to the anti-Romance crowd, please stop stating unsubstantiated facts around why Romance\Sex won't work. For example if you are saying that a few lines of Romance\Sex dialog is going to take 2-3 months for Obsidian to implement can you provide the link so we can review it. Debating points based on conjecture isn't constructive to the overall discussion

[Jojobobo]

Just throwing it out there - if romance were in the game I'd like to seduce someone to cheat on their husband or wife, which would be made more interesting if they had kids. I think it would add a compelling evil option instead of the usual "I steal stuff, I stab people in the back needlessly and I like to slaughter entire villages - roar!" pyscho characters - especially if you just sacked the person off after ruining their family life; and it would show that romancing can be used for evil ends rather then some trite sickly love-in (not that a conventional "happy" romance would be like that in the devs' fine hands, but I think that's what people are concerned about - that and resource/time wastage).

[Amentep]

Romance content equals time and assets

Of a single minor quest.

 

Describing the romance as minor is precisely the reason why some people argue that people who want romance in games just want a sex minigame. Because it doesn't seem like there's any import to them if they're "minor". So minigame.

 

I'd also argue that the proper way to do a romance is that it can't be a singular "extra" quest, because then the Player is going to feel the character is pointless unless they want to romance them. To make sure that the character holds up in responsiveness for all players, the Romance should be an alternate path and there should be dialog content for the player who chooses not to romance the NPC that still gives the NPC character depth.

 

Which would mean, realistically, that adding a romance is at least creating double the amount of work.

 

YMMV, of course.

 

Guys can I ask a favor to the anti-Romance crowd, please stop stating unsubstantiated facts around why Romance\Sex won't work. For example if you are saying that a few lines of Romance\Sex dialog is going to take 2-3 months for Obsidian to implement can you provide the link so we can review it. Debating points based on conjecture isn't constructive to the overall discussion

 

To be honest, downplaying the implementation of romances (as some people have claimed a fully formed, completely responsive, non-trivial romance could be created in hours) isn't helpful either.

 

What we know is that the developers have said that it takes 2-3 months to write a companion. For a romance to work (IMO) it cannot be tacked onto the character as an afterthought, it has to be part of the 2-3 months. It should - as I mentioned above - not lock out the player who doesn't choose the romance from having and interesting companion. Which means developing parallel relationships (romance-friendship or romance-rivalry or romance-unrequited love or whatever)

 

Now you also need to make the romance recognizable by the game world (since the player is going to want feedback on their choices). So now the other companions need to have comments, maybe non-joinable NPCs; maybe the villain. And now their are other choices - should a group going to an Inn with a couple in a relationship be charged more for a specific room for themselves? Should there be shops that sell items that you can give to your SO (for RP purposes not for a +1 on the relationship meter)? Are their quests where knowing that the characters are in a relationship is important (storyline bits where the heroes may end up captured and being interrogated I think you'd want the game to acknowledge trying to get to the PC through the NPC SO). Etc.

 

So to my mind this stuff isn't minor and isn't trivial.

[SGray]

Meh (

Describing the romance as minor

Hasn't done so ever. It could take as much resources as simple quest, and still be an important and deep part of the game. Just to think: the whole text specific to romance story in BGs (per character) could fit to one or two pages of printed text. It's comparable in volume with npc-npc in-party interactions.

So a good but barebone romance story (if characters are good enough already, BG-like) boils to: one page of a text from "narrative designer" and couple of global-variable triggers already accessible from dialog mechanics.

While some short generic quest is: 3/4 of a page of text from narrative designer (dialogs and quest plot for area designers), some work from area designers (creating areas, mob spawns, behavior scripts, event triggers, reward balancing) and some work from artists if there is anything unique in there.

 

I'd also argue that the proper way to do a romance is that it can't be a singular "extra" quest

Meh, isn't a quest. Think of BG-like.

 

adding a romance is at least creating double the amount of work.

Ok, told so myself. A little something to consider: to double what amount of work? Definitely not the whole character creation.

 

For a romance to work (IMO) it cannot be tacked onto the character as an afterthought

Definitely could argue that. When general concept of character is established, his/her reactions and intentions are well understood and there is enough depth in it to be interesting not solely as sword-swinging dummy - its not hard to add romance line (if appropriate) at all. A little more effort than to add some more regular conversations but not much more.

Otherwise if character wasn't intended as more then flat armor-hanging dummy - this could take rewriting it from scratch. Similar thing when forced to implement romances inappropriate for specific character. Comrade warriors suddenly turning gay and hastily trying to justify that... bleh.

 

developing parallel relationships (romance-friendship or romance-rivalry or romance-unrequited love or whatever)

Mentioned that above.

 

Now you also need to make the romance recognizable by the game world (since the player is going to want feedback on their choices).

Not more than any other thing. Such feedback is really good thing and you always want more, but that's applicable to anything.

There could be some generalized feedback on single/not single protagonist (mention protagonist is single/fill blank spaces in template with names and descriptions and mention he is not). Such feedback could be fun to non-romancers also, since it's recognizing their decision.

 

Could double that: So to my mind this stuff isn't minor and isn't trivial.

But not taking such a huge amount of work that could hinder game quality if implemented or enhance the game significantly by redirecting used resources to other things if not.

[Monte Carlo]

LOL.

[Amentep]

If I thought romances would hinder game quality, I'd not argue for them. But I'm pro-romance in that I think there's value in developing relationships of all types with the NPC and PC.

 

But I certainly can't dismiss those who think that such effort will negatively impact the game because to my mind the implementation of it isn't trivial - not saying you are saying they are, but that that has been an argument on these threads.

[ravenshrike]

One thing I'm absolutely against however, in any capacity, is the Bioware Sex Scene. You know the deal--fade in--ass--fade out--fade in--shoulder--fade out. It's quite possibly one of the most awkward and unpleasant things to watch in games today and it needs to stop. Please just fade to black or something. These scenes are not rewarding at all nor are they necessary in any capacity. They're really, really unpleasant. This would be fine if it was just something Bioware did but I saw it a while back in one of the Assassin's Creed and I said "Okay no this is becoming a problem."

But.. but... mannequin sex is the pinnacle of human graphics technology. Why, without mannequin sex you would be reduced to merely accepting an event occurred. The developers couldn't show you the depth of the character's emotion and connection. Not to mention it would put the guy they specifically hire to do the lingerie graphics out of work. Edited November 13, 2012 by ravenshrike

[kenup]

-snip-

[Monte Carlo]

Not to mention it would put the guy they specifically hire to do the lingerie graphics out of work.

 

Admittedly not an expert, but I thought Bio characters wore diapers for sex. Crazed pervert modders do the Victoria's Secret modding and nude stuff, like, for free.

[Bos_hybrid]

Could we stop with the 'I don't like the bio style romance'. If you didn't like BIo romances you wouldn't be here asking for them. Lets be honest here, Obsidian games aren't known or popular for their romances. Bioware are. When you think of rpg romances that's what you are thinking of.

 

And enough with the 1 or 2 sentences for a 'romance' too please. I really couldn't think of anything worse....

 

Well I could, be we really don't want to open that nightmare.

 

As it stands I'm in the camp that doesn't want them in, but that's more due to the extreme focus and pressure people put on both Bioware and Obsidian to include it anywhere and everywhere for every gender and every preference with multiple choices, regardless of character, story, pacing, setting and budget.

[simon_templar]

Romance with the companions are simply boring. I had enough of it in Baldur's Gate. What about something new? Why not marry barmaid or some other simply woman, or when you become richer and stronger for your deserts for the king, he gives you knighthood. Than you can arrange marriage with some princess/baroness etc., and live with her in your fortress. Or don't have any wedding, just woman/guy in every town or be a polygamist.

 

All of this could be with some interesting quests.

Edited November 21, 2012 by simon_templar