Relationship/Romance Thread IV

[SGray]

And no, I don't think these thres are ever going to stop. I mean, Avellone did position himself on this topic in this interview, and we're still here.

He stated that he don't want or unable to create a good romance plot himself alone. But:

Also, the only reason the romance bits in Mask of the Betrayer worked was because George Ziets helped me with them since he was able to describe what love is to me and explain how it works (I almost asked for a PowerPoint presentation).

And George Ziets is promised to be in project already. As an addition to the team. So-o-o?

*Not the biggest fan of MoTB romance though, BGs and PS:T worked much better for me.

 

*Strange behavior of spoilers

The reason why I'd rather not have them is, among other reasons, because of the impact they have on the design of the characters and their implementation.

Meh, I understand, that you could've given up reading the whole thread long ago, but I'm really interested in your arguments against the colored part of that and below: http://forums.obsidi...00#entry1275894

Edited November 26, 2012 by SGray

[Calmar]

How about a necro-mance?

 

Seriously though, I'd like to see a bro-mance. I think Minsc in BG II was a great depiction of a best-friend character. It's probably harder to have an NPC appear like a friend than as a romance.

[Lurky]

Complicated questions you've given me here, guys. I'll try to address them as best as I can. This is going to be long, so I'll cover my answers in spoiler tags to not clutter this thread.

 

 

Regarding the probability of romances being included in PE.

 

It's true that George Ziets will be involved in PE. He's been brought because of fan request, so we can expect that his style will be present in PE's writing. However, do we know just how involved he's going to be? Or what he'll do?

 

Well, we don't know for sure, because that's for Obsidian to handle, and there's overlap between certain areas of design anyway. Fortunately for you, I've been reading several discussions about PE here and in other places for some time, and some people have already done the stalking for me, to find information that could shed some light on what areas everyone will work on. Let's look at it

 

The general ideas about PE were decided before Ziets was on board (he didn't even know what this project was going to be about before it was revealed), and he mentioned that he'll likely do dialogue writing and story, lore develoment and wants to do area design. What I get from this is that character design won't be his main area. He'll help out, there's lots of helping around in team projects, and character writing is something he's good at, but since he came when the project was already started, he probably won't participate much in character design because he's not a lead (and a part of it was already done when he came on board anyway). He'll leave his mark in the end result (which is important because it's what we actually see) and he'll help out with ideas, but he's not really calling the shots.

 

Who's going to do character design, then (since romanceability is a high-level decision)? Avellone said here a while ago how the process usually works: it's usually the Creative Lead the one who decides the high-level stuff and hands it to the writer to flesh it out, or delegates it to other designers. In F:NV, Sawyer was the project director, and he was the one who had that responsibility. In PE, Sawyer is the project director too, so he'll probably have a hand on it here too. Then again, he seems to have his hands full with brand new lore development and new game systems design and story design and all his other duties, so maybe he'll delegate. If you remember the Kickstarter pitch video, when they show the leads of the project, Avellone raves about dialogue writing and characterization and how much he enjoys writing reactive characters and stuff, and he has a blog entry dedicated to characterization tips and tricks he's going to use in PE. With so much focus on characterization in his updates, this makes me think that he's going to have a lot of say in character design: either he's going to co-design characters with Sawyer, or he'll be delegated that part of the job.

 

So, from what I gathered, Avellone is going to play a part in character design, and probably a big part. He's going to be helped by the rest of the team, and there's probably going to be a lot of iterating and refining yet to do. Nothing is certain yet. But the general direction I'm seeing is... not very romance-friendly. Avellone is well known for disliking romances. Not only that, he said here that he wants to look into other kinds of relationships that are not romances. A later interview said (the one I linked earlier, here) that he would not implement romances, and that he'd explore love from a different angle. Combine this with the fact that Sawyer isn't that keen on romances either (F:NV was his project too, and it had no romances), and with the fact that Ziets won't have a lot of influence in character design (and he's more interested in fleshing out the world anyway). Putting all opinions and data together, the global picture I get is that the odds of player romances being included are slim to none, and the chances of happy, life-affirming romances being included (the most well liked) are even lower. You may see this differently, but I see too many signs aligned in the same direction to ignore.

 

With such an uncertain picture for romances, one that is based on hopes and expectations rather than any solid evidence, I'd rather expect no romances and hope to be pleasantly surprised, than expecting romances and feeling disappointed if they end up not being in the game. It's better for the players, for the writers, and for everyone, to adjust your expectations to what you see, and while giving your opinions is important to make sure the devs don't miss anything, they're still the ones who make the decisions. If the final say is that romances are not in, there's not much we can do aside from adjusting our expectations and our emotional investment in the game. I'll do the same if romances do end up included in the final game, by the way.

 

Maybe I should have explained all this before simply giving you that link to Avellone's interview. But as you can understand, it's much faster to provide a link where the creative director of Obsidian stated his intentions regarding romances than explaining my entire thought process, complete with sourced links to all my claims. Hopefully this will help you get across that thick wall of denial some of you have, or maybe we'll still disagree, but at least now I'll feel better knowing that I tried my best to get you to understand where my opinions come from. You know, in case you thought I was jumping to conclusions too early. I think my wall of text proves otherwise.

 

 

 

Regarding design and implementation of romances in PE.

 

I'm really interested in your arguments against the colored part of that and below: http://forums.obsidi...00#entry1275894

The main problem I see with it is that it's just not possible to do well what you suggest unless the character has been designed in a certain way. If we assume that both routes feel equally natural and engaging and satisfying, well, there isn't a lot of characters and relationships that can pull it off properly. You'd have to do a lot of tweaking of the character just so that it can work, you have to focus a good chunk of the -general character content- to make both routes natural (instead of more neutral content that exists independently of you), and there's a lot of restrictions to it that you have to address in order to make everything smooth. Yes, the end result could be good for both sides, but trying to do pull it off is very limiting in the types of characters you can do.

 

In the end, my priorities are like this:

1) Above all, I want good characters. I want them to draw me in the game rather than push me out if they challenge my suspension of disbelief. I want them to add to the overall experience in the game, and to strengthen parts of the narrative (as well as benefit from the narrative themselves). I want each of them to be engaging, internally consistent, and to bring different things to the table, so that everyone has something that makes them memorable. I want them to make me think and reflect about the various parts of the game. Basically, I want them to pretty much fulfill Avellone's list of characterization guidelines, because I like what he said. As long as they fulfill a good amount of elements of this list, I'll be happy.

 

2) I said that I think the bad of the romances outweighs the good, but this means that there is some good to be found in them (others don't think so, but I'm not one of them). If romances were to be included in PE, then I want them to be of the same quality as the rest of the game. I want them to be good. I want them to fulfill the same standards of quality as the rest of the companions, I want them to feel like romances (and not like friendships with a "darling" tacked on at the end, like some people have suggested in the past), and I want the character to mantain consistency all the way through (no do-gooder that falls in love with a sociopath, for example).

 

The problem is, these standards add a lot of complexity and problems to the game. For example, if romances are a worthwhile contribution to the narrative, then I should not be locked out of them because of choices I made that I didn't know that would have this effect (such as "I made a female PC but the only companion in the game with a romance likes guys."). That's bad game design (and that's without entering the equality debate). But removing that restriction would lead to a character that is romanceable by everyone, with no preferences of their own, which removes a lot of flavor of the NPC and has a higher risk of character inconsistency (and unless you make mutability the defining trait of the NPC you're also going to harm the believability of the character, which is a grave sin in fiction). But if we make several romanceables to cover all player options we lose character diversity, because you have to make the characters in a certain way in order to have romance and non-romance routes that feel equal (as I said replying to the quote). And if you sacrifice the standards for romances that I said, then the romances cease to be a good contribution to the game, and nobody wants mediocre content unless you're desperate for it.

 

There is simply no good solution that pleases everyone. Because of this, even though I acknowledge the worth romances can have, I'd prefer them to not be implemented in the game. There's too many problems involved with their inclusion, and I think designing the game without them will produce the most optimal results; not perfect, but the best possible (and as a last resort, a group effort to make good romance mods could produce good results). If the writers of Obsidian still want to try them out, despite everything, then at least I'll know that after all this debate they'll be aware of what they're getting themselves into. I'll still voice my opinions and expectations regarding this topic if they need them, though. That's a good reason to still hang around this thread.

 

Edited November 27, 2012 by Lurky

[Mandragore]

I have to say, from the interview it seems like avellone was just more in favor of a darker take on romance than completely against it, which is fine by me.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Mandragore

[gglorious]

Hunh, well, following up with this:

http://forums.obsidi...311#entry725311

 

I would rather have Sawyer's implementation than nothing at all. I think romances add to the game, by adding a layer of depth and integration, as people do end up caring about the romance and it's path, so the idea of creating a mind-screw romance would itself be interesting. Amusingly BG2's romances were full of all sorts of crap, but very popular. So, Viconia kept on freaking out about her emotional problems. Aerie whined all of the time. Jaheira was freshly widowed. But they were very liked just the same. Obviously literally recreating that isn't desirable, but there is flexibility in what people will want or tolerate.(Even though the fact they all threw themselves at you was a bit ridiculous) I would like a love that actually succeeded, but why not failure? Most romantic efforts end in failure. I mean, heck, why not just create a romance so that way at some point in the game there's a ****ty break-up involved?(maybe even a *really* ****ty break-up) Adventurers are probably not the most stable individuals. Actually getting someone to open up like that in a time of danger may not really be a matter of them throwing themselves at you or vice versa. I also kind of agree with him on the coitus... I mean, one of the things I kind of liked about the Aerie romance was it actually being the wrong time for her to go off and do that. I mean, imagined sex really isn't driving me on the romance, even though I find romance with chastity vows odd as well.

 

So, sure, romantic love is an old trope, but it's a very popular one. If you listen to popular music people are basically obsessed with some variant of it. So, because it's a very deeply popular theme, I would think it would be good and fruitful to use, even to subvert and twist and corrupt in a thousand ways. I mean, deeply seated tropes and notions, ones with a lot of appeal, probably have a lot of room to play with. It could be especially amusing because a romance is what some part of the crowd is asking for.....

 

In any case, cost arguments are hard for me to evaluate. I can't see the game being broken because of a romance included.

 

I also don't mind some degree of lock-out. I mean, in DAO, you're locked out of certain endings with Alistair if you don't pick a female human noble, and you can't even touch Anora unless you're a male human noble. I don't even see a problem with bizarre lock-outs, just so long as the romance isn't just a complete easter egg.(Note: I wouldn't mind an easter-egg romance, but it'd be a lot of content for only a few dedicated people to see)

Edited November 27, 2012 by gglorious

[SGray]

Lurky, wow, really great explanation ) Thanks )

Could agree with many statements, but not every and not the conclusions, though.

 

Regarding the probability of romances being included in PE.

 

Ziets ... on board ... he'll likely do dialogue writing and story, lore develoment What I get from this is that character design won't be his main area.

That's true, but I'm not sure if (strongly doubt that) romances fall completely in to the character design but not in dialogue writing and story.

 

but since he came when the project was already started, he probably won't participate much in character design because he's not a lead

So we're almost sure to not to see romance related main plot like in MoTB. Which I'm happy about, btw )

 

He'll leave his mark in the end result (which is important because it's what we actually see) and he'll help out with ideas

That's an important thing.

 

Everything below is imho, correct me if I'm wrong:

On my thought "character design" is about - who and from where the character is, what intentions and goals does he has, what morality is in his mind. Add to that his appearance, class/specialization, personal concerns in the story (personal quests, climactic points in character development), possibly introduction scene, possibly main themes for dialogues (if to overspecify), and that's all.

Now if the character is more or less human-like, and if it's attractive by it's design (definitions of attractiveness could differ, but it's up to character designers) - it's not so hard to add romance subplot to generally designed already character, without affecting much things defined in initial list (if they are not connected to some romance-related plot already). Said hardly apply to completely disgusting (couldn't remember any in games), or completely inhuman (modron - Nordom) party members, but I couldn't remember any game with severe lack of protagonist-shape resembling heroes (anthropomorphic or any other) if there are any, neither with lack of plausible personalities.

 

Who's going to do character design, then (since romanceability is a high-level decision)? Avellone said here a while ago how the process usually works:

Not sure if romanceability is top level decision also. Needs approval at top lvl ofc, but always designed at top lvl?

- On most Obsidian projects, the Creative Lead either creates narrative summaries of the companions or delegates the creation of the companion arcs to individual designers.

Quite interested on how it was done in BGs and PS:T. Couldn't find much info on it (

 

>Combine this with the fact that Sawyer isn't that keen on romances either

That's what he said:

 

I don't hate love in game stories; I just hate reducing love to shallow, masturbatory fantasy indulgence.

...

That bugs me. I don't like the idea that you can "win" everything or get everyone on your side. I'm also not fond of the idea that romance always has to resolve with a "fade out" to implied coitus, but that's another issue.

 

I'll re-state what I wrote before: I want romance to receive either less or more attention in games. Anything worth doing is worth doing well, especially when it's something with so much emotional potential. But I certainly don't want to go the route of harem anime, which is total fantasy indulgence and gross pandering.

I'll go even further and say that I think some characters can and should be "false" romance options as long as there is some sort of resolution to the plot line. That's why I really like the romance in Full Throttle: Mo and Ben can't be together, but they have a bittersweet resolution in the game's final moments.

 

 

"No" to "**** her" button, and "no" to implied and unquestioned possibility to mate with everything met simultaneously. Could sign under such statement myself, but not able to see how it interfere anyhow with romances present in game. On my look he is more pro-romancer than no-romancer himself.

 

 

 

scrolled that topic further, and, suddenly, what have I found:

is the solution really to exclude them entirely?

No.

 

>With such an uncertain picture for romances, one that is based on hopes and expectations rather than any solid evidence, I'd rather expect no romances and hope to be pleasantly surprised, than expecting romances and feeling disappointed if they end up not being in the game. It's better for the players, for the writers, and for everyone, to adjust your expectations to what you see, and while giving your opinions is important to make sure the devs don't miss anything, they're still the ones who make the decisions. If the final say is that romances are not in, there's not much we can do aside from adjusting our expectations and our emotional investment in the game. I'll do the same if romances do end up included in the final game, by the way.

Double that. But my picture of possibility of romances in game is a little brighter )

 

Regarding design and implementation of romances in PE.

 

The main problem I see with it is that it's just not possible to do well what you suggest unless the character has been designed in a certain way.

 

If we assume that both routes feel equally natural and engaging and satisfying, well, there isn't a lot of characters and relationships that can pull it off properly.

Hm, anthropomorphic (human, demi-human) char of opposite sex, without any special concerns on this topic, not disgusted by protagonist? Are such chars are really so rare? Ofc trying to fit it to inappropriate char would require it's overhaul.

 

>You'd have to do a lot of tweaking of the character just so that it can work, you have to focus a good chunk of the -general character content- to make both routes natural

Doubt about that, at least about the amount of additional content needed. Thats pair of occasional phrases, really. Everything else goes to "non-romance content" which size I already theorized about.

 

>In the end, my priorities are like this:

>1) Above all, I want good characters.

Double that paragraph.

 

>If romances were to be included in PE, then I want them to be of the same quality as the rest of the game. I want them to be good. I want them to fulfill the same standards of quality as the rest of the companions, I want them to feel like romances (and not like friendships with a "darling" tacked on at the end, like some people have suggested in the past), and I want the character to mantain consistency all the way through

Double that. Just because of it I don't want (wouldn't ever) rely on mods for adding romances.

 

>The problem is, these standards add a lot of complexity and problems to the game.

Agreed, but I'd say not "a lot of", but "some", with benefits much worth the effort. Not solely for me, but for game sales and game memorability too.

Concerns you worrying about are applying more to full voice-over games, where each line o text equals not so small money. Which is not exactly the case.

 

>If the writers of Obsidian still want to try them out, despite everything, then at least I'll know that after all this debate they'll be aware of what they're getting themselves into. I'll still voice my opinions and expectations regarding this topic if they need them, though. That's a good reason to still hang around this thread.

Yup.

 

 

[Heresiarch]

I would like a love that actually succeeded, but why not failure? Most romantic efforts end in failure. I mean, heck, why not just create a romance so that way at some point in the game there's a ****ty break-up involved?(maybe even a *really* ****ty break-up) Adventurers are probably not the most stable individuals. Actually getting someone to open up like that in a time of danger may not really be a matter of them throwing themselves at you or vice versa.

I would think that Skyrim parody of RPG romance would get the point across, but I suppose it's just not meant to be. Romance as a side quest or as something you do at your leisure just doesn't work. It feels artificial. Your romance choice should come with rewards and handicaps. Just because people are egoistic bitches (regardless of gender, mind you) and they don't care how many peasants are being eaten by an evil dragon this very instant and want you to hold on a minute and sort things out. Maybe even fling a cast iron pot at you in anger. Or a stone with a sling. Bottom line, people are not cardboard figures and romances should not be limited to simply choosing the right words. Neither they have to be the same way: you woo someone, say what they want to hear, and then happily enjoy the fruit of your hard labour.

 

In any case, cost arguments are hard for me to evaluate. I can't see the game being broken because of a romance included.

I would say cost argument are petty, nothing more than a way to justify distaste for romance. You could say the same thing about pretty much every game element. As I've argued before, then let's cut out most of the classes, since they are cost prohibitive too, and spend this money on something everyone can enjoy. Like exploding helicopters in the background.

[jezz555]

 

I would think that Skyrim parody of RPG romance would get the point across, but I suppose it's just not meant to be. Romance as a side quest or as something you do at your leisure just doesn't work. It feels artificial. Your romance choice should come with rewards and handicaps. Just because people are egoistic bitches (regardless of gender, mind you) and they don't care how many peasants are being eaten by an evil dragon this very instant and want you to hold on a minute and sort things out. Maybe even fling a cast iron pot at you in anger. Or a stone with a sling. Bottom line, people are not cardboard figures and romances should not be limited to simply choosing the right words. Neither they have to be the same way: you woo someone, say what they want to hear, and then happily enjoy the fruit of your hard labour.

 

 

You make a fair point about Skyrim, I mean they say she's your wife. But you essentially carry out the role of a pimp adventuring across skyrim and visiting her only when you come back to whiterun to collect the money she's made you.

[AGX-17]

Oh hey good news pro-romance fellas, Bioware still exists and is planning on making more video games. This is news to me, too.

[Lephys]

The only romance I want to see in my RPG is the kind that starts with "nec" and ends with the sound that pirates make.

 

Just kidding.

 

But, in all seriousness, I'm not so much in favor of romance, specifically, being included in RPGs as I am with personal relationships being in there. I don't care if it's just the main character's relationship with party members, or if it reaches outside of that. But, it should definitely be woven into the game at large. Whether or not you're more personally involved with any character should directly affect other aspects of the game in a natural fashion, and I don't mean become your puppet simply because you've befriended them (i.e. This ruler of this kingdom who previously favored slavery suddenly loathes it because you poisoned them with the words of righteousness.)

[Hormalakh]

Neck romance? I can dig it. But why stick only with the neck? Just posting in the fourth of many threads about this "glorious" topic. Can't believe people are still talking about this :)

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So how many threads have there been and the only type of relationship talked about is Romance?

 

Anyways, I would like the game to be dynamic enough to allow multiple relationship types per NPC, not the friend/enemy thing that usually happens. I would also like to see a mentor-ship , drinking buddies, grudging respect, barely contained hostility but still have to work together as possible relationships. I think Obsidian can do these quite well.

 

And if there is romance, please have one end up like Gwen Stacy, now that would be awesome.

[Sacred_Path]

So how many threads have there been and the only type of relationship talked about is Romance?

 

So true, there are many types of bonds that can be formed under the umbrella term of romance:

 

- oaths of friendship over the sound of cracking Orc skulls (lolmance)

 

- characters trying to evoke your empathy with their 'traumatic' past (failmance)

 

- characters with vague intentions playing hard to get (facepalmance)

 

- exploring issues of transgender love (buttmance)

 

- furries and quadrupeds as love interests (beastmance)

 

- a budding interest in dead bodies/ inanimate objects (necromance)

 

[Mandragore]

- furries and quadrupeds as love interests (beastmance)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81Jg6L16Mzs

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So how many threads have there been and the only type of relationship talked about is Romance?

 

So true, there are many types of bonds that can be formed under the umbrella term of romance:

 

- oaths of friendship over the sound of cracking Orc skulls (lolmance)

 

- characters trying to evoke your empathy with their 'traumatic' past (failmance)

 

- characters with vague intentions playing hard to get (facepalmance)

 

- exploring issues of transgender love (buttmance)

 

- furries and quadrupeds as love interests (beastmance)

 

- a budding interest in dead bodies/ inanimate objects (necromance)

 

 

Dude, I think you might have misunderstood my statement. I was expressing dismay that no other types of relationships besides romance have been discussed because people keep fighting about romance.

 

And the furry thing was just nasty.

[Ieo]

The poll is STILL dumb, because any smart person can see that "romance" is "love+sexual attraction*," ergo none of the other options even make sense for the question.

 

I was expressing dismay that no other types of relationships besides romance have been discussed because people keep fighting about romance.

 

Oh, they've been mentioned plenty, just not discussed. People tend to skim right over them. My primary post still bears repeating. And with my other post about the sociological research done on the romance mass media genre so far, I think we can see that a lot of the posts about getting romance into the game because it's the "height" of human interaction--that's a dysfunctionally simplistic view about human relations, actually. Would they add flavor? Yes. I just don't want Obsidian to sacrifice a bunch of character writing in favor of a long-winded application thus because we have so few characters to work with, while you skipped the vast majority in BG2 anyway.

 

Fall-From-Grace was a very well written non-romance because you could easily read between the lines if you wanted to, but so much was left to the imagination as well (and Avellone said she was his favorite character in PS:T to write!). I'd go with that, at most.

 

Out of Kieślowski's Trois Couleurs, I've always loved Rouge best, though, as touching more deeply and broadly upon the human condition in ways so few other works have done. (Okay, I couldn't stand Blanc on its face, but artistically, it was very well done too. Just ouch.)

 

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

 

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

 

Left branch: romance

Right branch: bromance/womance

 

Left branch: younger sibling

Right branch: protege

 

Left branch: older sibling

Right branch: advisor

 

Left branch: younger sibling

Right branch: romance

 

Et cetera.

 

*Only in the character relation sense, not the other ones.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Ieo

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

@Ieo I do agree that assuming Romance is the absolute deepest relationship possible is wrong(I'd argue that relationships have "variable depth" from person to person, but that is another topic). I still love that idea about the "relationship branches", but I think that it would be even better if there were more than 2 options per NPC(this might not be possible with resource /time limitation, but one can always hope) and if the "negative" companion relationships actually have some depth to them.

[clippedwolf]

Despite the anti-romance tone of the thread, the poll says differently. I find this curious. There is a quieter majority.

[Sacred_Path]

Despite the anti-romance tone of the thread, the poll says differently. I find this curious. There is a quieter majority.

 

You need to account for the fact that people expect romance is going to be in the game, wether they like it or not. So they may still vote in the hope that at least it will offer some nuances other than classic romance.

[melkathi]

I don't care what -mance it is. I don't care for any -mance. Unless it has been given enough work to truly anchor it in the story. Deep relationships between npcs and/or between the player and the npcs can enhance the game experience. Simply outfitting every npc with a romance dialogue tree because the game needs to offer enough virtual relationships for as broad a target audience as possible does not provide what I find worthwhile.

Perhaps JRPGs have it easier there by not necessarily having one single player character in the same way that for example Mass Effect does. Thus for example FF7 can spend a lot of time on the Cloud-Tifa or Cloud-Aeris relationship or even the Vincent arc, stories that are strong in the "relationship" department, without turning your party into a soap opera or the shrink's couch (and all the FF charcters definitly need a shrink).

 

I am quite happy in seeing a great love story in the game if the writing team feels they can pull it off and that it will enhance the experience - I by no means feel the need to be the protagonist in it or the object of desire all the npcs fight over.

[Sacred_Path]

Dude, I think you might have misunderstood my statement. I was expressing dismay that no other types of relationships besides romance have been discussed because people keep fighting about romance.

 

Nah, I got that. I was only pointing out the many interesting facets of romance that hadn't been mentioned yet.

 

Personally I'm anti-romance, but what I really want to see more of is party banter. Specifically, I want them to reminisce about and contemplate the awesome things they have done and those they lie before them and how to prepare for them. Realistically, that's what 90% of the conversation would be about IRL. I know that's a tad harder to implement than romance dialogue that comes out of nowhere and can be played out at any time anywhere, but it's also much more satisfying/ immersing. Also some comments on locations you're visiting. IMO, that makes "friendship" among characters much more realistic and believable; there's something like a quiet bond formed over common experience.

[clippedwolf]

Despite the anti-romance tone of the thread, the poll says differently. I find this curious. There is a quieter majority.

 

You need to account for the fact that people expect romance is going to be in the game, wether they like it or not. So they may still vote in the hope that at least it will offer some nuances other than classic romance.

 

Have you heard of confirmation bias? I meant to say "there may be a lot of people wanting sexy-time romance in PE but the people who don't want it are louder hence they seem to care more." I'm saying seem because that necessarily isn't the case, however it may be exactly the case. That is my observation.

My vote was for Romance, because I have had fun with those in the past. However, some have been awkward and absurd, and not fun. Keeping an open mind, and keeping faith that whatever the decision the developers make we, the players, will get some interesting characters.

Edited December 12, 2012 by clippedwolf

[Sacred_Path]

Have you heard of confirmation bias? I meant to say "there may be a lot of people wanting sexy-time romance in PE but the people who don't want it are louder hence they seem to care more." I'm saying seem because that necessarily isn't the case, however it may be exactly the case. That is my observation.

 

That's not surprising at all though. Interactive companions have been advertised. Homage to IE games has been advertised. That means by 99% that there will be romance in the game. It's simply not necessary for promancers to lay out the reasons why this should be a good idea.

 

Even if Obs hadn't made it obvious that there will be romance, I think it's becoming such a staple in party CRPGs that it can be expected.

[Azrayel]

What if it was just between other party members?

 

There was one NWN mod I really enjoyed and whose name I will not mention for fear of great shaming where a paladin couple hires you to tag along with them to a temple.

 

Male's a douchebag trying to cheat (but equally a **** to the PC if you decide to cheat with him about how you're essentially a piece of ass and he really likes the woman he's just cheated on with you) and female's willfully oblivious/sees the best in him until just about the end of that arc.

 

I'd like to see something similar given great chance, with perhaps an already married couple or two party members who begin to fall in love? Could create interesting situations when someone gets seperated/Appears to have been killed.

 

The PC might be able to meddle in the relationship, but the true romance (or lack thereof) should be between two NPCs. It just seems like an unexplored area of near-infinite possibility.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Wow, Relationship Counsellor Simulator, I can't wait to play that one.