Relationship/Romance Thread IV

[Lephys]

As said by others before, don't come here asking for "non-bioware style" romances, when bioware is the only company creating games that include romances consistently.

 

Heaven forbid someone suggest anything but precedent. *gasp*

 

Funny how I wasn't the one that brought that up(neither did I call you ignorant), kind of like with other pro-romance posters way back. Guess some things(that people say on the ****ing internet) really hit the nerve huh?

 

Funny how you deny stereotyping all in favor of romance, then immediately compare Pshaw directly to other pro-romance posters way back. That's my favorite part.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Lephys

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well this is cheery. The hissyfits in this thread tickle my funnybone more than Wacker getting called out for being an obnoxious ass.

 

I wonder how long until the ruskies come in and violate the English language? That should be entertaining.

[AGX-17]

Well this is cheery. The hissyfits in this thread tickle my funnybone more than Wacker getting called out for being an obnoxious ass.

 

I wonder how long until the ruskies come in and violate the English language? That should be entertaining.

 

He's busy with his anti-NATO propaganda efforts.

[Heresiarch]

I am a promancer and I officially want PE to be A Dance with Rogues reloaded. Every other person who wants romance for PE wants the same thing as I do. If they don't, they aren't persons. Probably not even humanoids. Most likely they are non-sentient, silicon-based life forms.

 

Seriously, if the only two possible outcomes you can picture is no romance whatsoever and an interactive porn flick, no wonder you are so counter-romance. But works of fiction allow for considerably more depth and diversity, you know. Just some food for thought.

[Jasede]

Diversity? No thanks!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Diversity? No thanks!

 

I think this is the Republican party's motto.

[Monte Carlo]

I have no problem with many of the bioware romances I'll gladly admit to that.

 

End of discussion.

[TMTVL]

Well, I've come 'round to seeing the point of people who don't want relationships. It's not Obs's forte, and there already is a game which does it completely right available on steam. Also, let's hope this kind of thread dies before the game gets released.

[Farbautisonn]

Frankly I dont really want to see Obsidian waste too much scripting, programming or writing time on it. If anything id go for the "bromance" in a kind of "band of brothers" esque sense. The romance... hell romance and love is different things to different people. Trying to write it up successfully is going to result in a massive ****estorm anyway as noone will be even 90% happy with the result. Just let it go and leave it for modders.

[Malcador]

Nah, it'll never die. One of those people always puts it back up as it's a key part of their experience.

[SunBroSolaire]

Well, I've come 'round to seeing the point of people who don't want relationships. It's not Obs's forte, and there already is a game which does it completely right available on steam. Also, let's hope this kind of thread dies before the game gets released.

I'll bite... What game? I would love to see a good implementation. The Witcher 2 is probably the best I've played, but CD Projekt Red had the advantage of using a predefined player character, which PE will not have.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well, I've come 'round to seeing the point of people who don't want relationships. It's not Obs's forte, and there already is a game which does it completely right available on steam. Also, let's hope this kind of thread dies before the game gets released.

I'll bite... What game? I would love to see a good implementation. The Witcher 2 is probably the best I've played, but CD Projekt Red had the advantage of using a predefined player character, which PE will not have.

 

Actually he is wrong. NWN2 Platinum has been taken off Steam.

 

Of course, I'm referring to "relationships" as any type of character interaction (not just a very one that also involves sexual interest), which I would argue Obsidian does excellently. NWN2 MotB has some of the best character interactions I have ever seen in a game, and the other games Obsidian staff have worked on(like Kotor2, PST, FONV) are pretty damn good too.

 

Obviously there is room for improvement(like more dynamic negative relationships), but Obsidian does characters and relationships well enough where worrying if they won't be good or bitching about one type of relationship for 100+ pages seems a bit silly. Obsidian will make this part of PE well I assure you.

 

Of course seeing promancers and antimancers mudsling at each other is almost as much fun as being a grammar nazi to ruskis, so please don't stop.

[PrimeJunta]

That. They do character interactions extremely well.

 

Not romances though. The interactions in MotB were brilliant, but the romantic twist to the Safiya story made me go like "Wait a minute, has this whole thing been a really extended blind date?" Jarring. Would've been better just to leave the possibility hovering in the air, as it were, without all those "...my love..."'s.

[TMTVL]

No. The Walking Dead. The father-daughter relationship between Lee and Clementine is the best of it's kind in any game I ever played.

[SunBroSolaire]

No. The Walking Dead. The father-daughter relationship between Lee and Clementine is the best of it's kind in any game I ever played.

Gotcha. I agree, that was damn well executed. Not really a romance, though, unless you played Lee very differently than I did

Well, I've come 'round to seeing the point of people who don't want relationships. It's not Obs's forte, and there already is a game which does it completely right available on steam. Also, let's hope this kind of thread dies before the game gets released.

I'll bite... What game? I would love to see a good implementation. The Witcher 2 is probably the best I've played, but CD Projekt Red had the advantage of using a predefined player character, which PE will not have.

 

Actually he is wrong. NWN2 Platinum has been taken off Steam.

 

Of course, I'm referring to "relationships" as any type of character interaction (not just a very one that also involves sexual interest), which I would argue Obsidian does excellently. NWN2 MotB has some of the best character interactions I have ever seen in a game, and the other games Obsidian staff have worked on(like Kotor2, PST, FONV) are pretty damn good too.

 

Obviously there is room for improvement(like more dynamic negative relationships), but Obsidian does characters and relationships well enough where worrying if they won't be good or bitching about one type of relationship for 100+ pages seems a bit silly. Obsidian will make this part of PE well I assure you.

 

Of course seeing promancers and antimancers mudsling at each other is almost as much fun as being a grammar nazi to ruskis, so please don't stop.

Yeah, that's pretty much my take. I'm confident Avellone and company will handle the character relationships intelligently. If there is a romantic relationship, fine; if not, fine. As long as they're done as well as Obsidian's past characters, I'll be happy.

[Lephys]

They should probably add in traits and skills specifically for romance. Then, romance could be like Stealth!

 

"How'd you get to that chest if you don't pick locks or have a key?"

"I passed my romance check on the guard!"

"AWESOME!"

 

Humor aside, the relationship-to-romance spectrum is pretty broad. The only problem I have with "OMG definitely no!" stance is that a world full of people who never develop any level of fondness for one another, despite constantly saving each other's lives and whatnot, is a dull, dull world. It would be similar to hating the idea of building snowmen in the game, and being against the existence of snow in the game world so that no snowmen could ever be built.

[SunBroSolaire]

True, but I think it's just as silly when ALL your companions are potential romances. I also think it is not very good when a companions character arc depends on falling in love with the PC, as in Mass Effect. Just because I don't want to bone some character, that shouldn't mean their character development stops. Ideally I would like to see companion relationships that can resolve in multiple satisfying ways, like in Alpha Protocol or Walking Dead. Whether some of those paths end up with the NPC falling in love with the PC, I am pretty indifferent on. I agree that to completely ignore love/romance in the world of Project Eternity would be a mistake. Skyrim was a very sterile, lifeless world where I didn't feel like any of the characters actually had strong feelings for each other. That's just bad writing, though. I'm sure Obsidian will do better. Veronica had a great love story, as did many characters in past Obsidian games. Doesn't necessarily have to revolve around the player character.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

True, but I think it's just as silly when ALL your companions are potential romances. I also think it is not very good when a companions character arc depends on falling in love with the PC, as in Mass Effect. Just because I don't want to bone some character, that shouldn't mean their character development stops. Ideally I would like to see companion relationships that can resolve in multiple satisfying ways, like in Alpha Protocol or Walking Dead. Whether some of those paths end up with the NPC falling in love with the PC, I am pretty indifferent on. I agree that to completely ignore love/romance in the world of Project Eternity would be a mistake. Skyrim was a very sterile, lifeless world where I didn't feel like any of the characters actually had strong feelings for each other. That's just bad writing, though. I'm sure Obsidian will do better. Veronica had a great love story, as did many characters in past Obsidian games. Doesn't necessarily have to revolve around the player character.

 

I think Ieo actually addressed this with an idea to have branching character development for different types if relationships. It is a pretty good idea, and hopefully some variation of it will be implemented in PE.

 

Anyone else hoping for more developed negative relationships?

[Adhin]

Yeah variation and multiple paths, in all parts of the game is a good one. Not everyone should be romancable, but completely ignoring the options for the sake of ignoring its a bad idea as far as im concerned. Sides I adored the semi-romance with Annah in PST.

 

Also yeah good ehh... negative? relationships yes. Depends what you mean by negative though but I like a good rivalry with ego-jabs.

[BruceVC]

[

I think Ieo actually addressed this with an idea to have branching character development for different types if relationships. It is a pretty good idea, and hopefully some variation of it will be implemented in PE.

 

Anyone else hoping for more developed negative relationships?

 

Sorry to ask but what exactly do you mean by "negative relationships" ?

Edited January 3, 2013 by BruceVC

[GhoulishVisage]

Sorry to ask but what exactly do you mean by "negative relationships" ?

 

I'm supposing what he means is relations with companions where the npc dislikes the player either because of something the player has done or because the player was antagonistic to them.

I have to say I agree, npcs rarely develop interestingly or provide benefits when they dislike the player character, leading many players to not try and experiment in their relations with them and merely choose the dialogue options likely to win them influence with the companion.

 

Exploring how an npc might develop as a character when they dislike the player and what potential benefits might come from that companion could be interesting.

[BruceVC]

Sorry to ask but what exactly do you mean by "negative relationships" ?

 

I'm supposing what he means is relations with companions where the npc dislikes the player either because of something the player has done or because the player was antagonistic to them.

I have to say I agree, npcs rarely develop interestingly or provide benefits when they dislike the player character, leading many players to not try and experiment in their relations with them and merely choose the dialogue options likely to win them influence with the companion.

 

Exploring how an npc might develop as a character when they dislike the player and what potential benefits might come from that companion could be interesting.

 

Okay that makes sense, but wouldn't an NPC just leave the party if he disliked the player? Like we saw in games like BG2.

[SunBroSolaire]

BruceVC: I think realistically, companions should have a very compelling personal motive for joining the party in the first place, so their opinion of the PC might not matter terribly much. Have you played the games I cited: Alpha Protocol and Walking Dead? They both did negative relationships very well. Sometimes it was actually in the players best interest to antagonize other main characters, depending on the results you could achieve.

 

Frankly, I don't know what to expect on this topic. I'm really not sure how deep Obsidian are going with the character interactions here. It was one of the three pillars of the original vision statement (exploration, combat, characters/dialogue), but we haven't heard much about reputation mechanics and reactivity. I know that that stuff is more dependent on the writing than on mechanics, but I would love to hear their plans for the design of those things. Obsidian have spoiled me with their constant updates, hehe.

[Helm]

Romance in a game is good if it is done right. But I don't think the game will have much romance (if at all).

[Lephys]

Yeah, the one good thing I can say about DA2 is that they at least didn't divide all character interactions into purely "Right" and "Wrong." Even if you pissed them off and made decisions they didn't like and told them to deal with it, they just developed along a different path.

 

Of course, that's kinda taking out the potentiality for them just-plain leaving you because you're literally spiting them, or you've just gotten their village murdered or something. I don't think that was necessary at all, to convert ALL negative interactions into a different benefit with no real consequences. I think all three should exist.

 

You can influence them in a positive manner (relative to their nature... showing mercy might be good for some, and showing no mercy might be good for others), a negative manner, and a "you totally suck and I'm just doing things to spite you, now" manner. Well, I mean, IF the game design allows for such actions.

 

Basically, I think it's overly simplistic and forced to provide you with 2 different companions who are SO far apart in their views that your decision to take the left corridor in a cave instead of the right makes one of them get upset, halts their follower relationship with you, and/or causes them to leave.

 

Dragon Age: Origins was a good example of this. Every time you so much as looted a chest, someone was like "Oh my crap. Why did you give THAT person the mana potion? I HATE YOU SO HARD RIGHT NOW! * -10 points to Gryffindor*" Then, of course, you had that terrible "Would you want to romance me, perchance?" thing with Morrigan. And just saying "Nah, you're awesome, but no thanks, sorry." got you ridiculous amounts of negative points, which literally reduced her combat effectiveness in that game's systems.

 

I don't know why everyone (exaggeration of so many game developers) insists on using a binary lightswitch with these things, instead of a 3-setting switch at the very least, or a dimmer knob.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Lephys