Relationship/Romance Thread IV

[Doppelschwert]

Locking content is good and awesome, as long as it's what the player wants. As long as it depends on informed choices.

 

In my example, finding out that choosing a certain gender makes romance content inaccessible is not an informed choice. It's a consequence that doesn't logically follow my character build choice, so it feels arbitrary. I mean, I put it right there: "I should not be locked out of them because of choices I made that I didn't know that would have this effect". The bolded part is important.

 

 

So basically you think its arbitrary when not everbody in your party is bisexual so that you can't freely pursue every romance regardless of gender?

I'd argue that when you choose gender it shouldn't come as a surprise if the straight people from the same sex in your party may lock you out of their romance content - neither should you need a popup indicating that in order to make it an informed choice.

I seriously hope I've misunderstood that comment of yours.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Doppelschwert

[ClutchR5]

The only way to really make an informed choice is by being familiar with the game imo. It's not like a game tells me from the start (usually) which skills check most often out of combat, or when. I had no idea there were scorpions/traps in the temple the first time I played Fallout 2. My character would underperform. Plus it's entirely possible for uninformed decision-making to appear while playing, with no clear indicator as to where the consequences would lead you to.

[Lurky]

So basically you think its arbitrary when not everbody in your party is bisexual so that you can't freely pursue every romance regardless of gender?

I'd argue that when you choose gender it shouldn't come as a surprise if the straight people from the same sex in your party may lock you out of their romance content - neither should you need a popup indicating that in order to make it an informed choice.

I seriously hope I've misunderstood that comment of yours.

 

You did misunderstand me, but no worries. I did indeed forget to explain things.

 

What I mean by not locking romance content is a more theoretical goal. I don't mean "any companion should be available", I don't mean "a companion should love my PC no matter what". It's more like "under the assumption that the romance content is a worthwhile addition to the game (if it's not, then don't bother), such content should not be made unavailable to the players if they couldn't know that their choice would have that effect". It's more of a "have some worthwhile option somewhere that lets the player access this stuff". How to do that when a) one of the people involved in the romance is the player, a completely variable character, b) the other one is just one of 8 companions with diverse personalities and preferences, and c) without unnecessarily or arbitrarily limiting the player? Hell if I know.

 

Bioware seems to address the problem I said by making the choice at character creation irrelevant. Gender doesn't matter, and race doesn't matter. How you act in general doesn't matter either, because you can bribe the companions with gifts. And now you don't even have to get along with them, because you can still get a "rivalmance" or something. This isn't even bisexuality, it's playersexuality; it doesn't matter how your PC is, because they'll be attracted to you if you press enough buttons.

 

And it's bad. It's bad because it renders the choices made at creating your character irrelevant. It's bad because it attracts people who defend that implementation by saying that it allows them to freely choose whoever they want to fit their PC, as if the companions were accessories to wear instead of anything resembling real people. It's bad because how many people are like that in real life? What are the odds of having a full party like that when the rest of the world is like your typical picky person, with preferences and stuff? I'm not sure if I'm getting my point across, but the gist is that this approach ends up feeling very bland and generic, and the NPCs become weaker because they have no preferences at all, nothing of your PC really matters to them.

 

No, everyone being playersexual is not a good solution either. I was not suggesting any particular solution in that quote, I was pointing out a problem. I don't even know if it has a good solution. I can't think of one anyway, just the problems that other implementations have.

 

I also realize that I'm probably not explaining myself very well, so I'll give up for now.

 

The only way to really make an informed choice is by being familiar with the game imo. It's not like a game tells me from the start (usually) which skills check most often out of combat, or when. I had no idea there were scorpions/traps in the temple the first time I played Fallout 2. My character would underperform. Plus it's entirely possible for uninformed decision-making to appear while playing, with no clear indicator as to where the consequences would lead you to.

 

I believe Sawyer said something about that matter. The gist of it was that, if a choice is given to the player, then it should have some payoff. Maybe not a perfect fit, but an acceptable fit to what the player wanted. It was in a video, I think.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Lurky

[PrimeJunta]

What I mean by not locking romance content is a more theoretical goal. I don't mean "any companion should be available", I don't mean "a companion should love my PC no matter what". It's more like "under the assumption that the romance content is a worthwhile addition to the game (if it's not, then don't bother), such content should not be made unavailable to the players if they couldn't know that their choice would have that effect".

 

Funny, I can't think of any better way to take the romance out of romance. Thing with romance, both real-life and (good) fictional, is that it's capricious. It happens when you least expect it, in ways that you least expect it to happen. The very thing that makes it romantic is that it's elusive. It's all about possibility rather than actuality. Being sure that it's 'available' will, by definition, destroy it and replace it with a shabby imitation.

 

I do agree with your larger point, though, sort of, except that IMO you're looking at it too narrowly. If your choice of race, class, sex, etc. locks you out of meaningful interactions with your party, then yeah, that's bad design. However, if your choice of race, class, sex, etc. affects and changes those interactions, that's good IMO, even, perhaps especially if it means that romance will only happen to some of them. (The only bad thing about that IMO is that it would certainly cause such enormous whining that it would probably be better to leave out romance altogether.)

 

Seriously: if the potential love interest is your typical golden-haired high elf maiden, the whole romance would have to be pretty damn different if you're playing a female half-orc or male wood elf princeling. If both of these got the 'same' romance, now, that would be really shabby writing. OTOH if it meant that playing one or the other locked you out of any meaningful interaction with her (and didn't compensate in some other way), then yeah, that would be sub-optimal too.

 

(Come to think of it, if they wrote in a romance between the female half-orc and the golden-haired high elf maiden, that might actually be interesting to play. Certainly a hella more interesting than the one between her and the clichéd wood-elf princeling.)

[TRX850]

What if your companion played "hard to get", but the game allowed conversation responses from you that ultimately lead to them discovering that it was YOU who was playing hard to get all along?

 

- That awkward moment when your companion blushes from being played at their own game -

 

Edited January 7, 2013 by TRX850

[Ulquiorra]

 

Seriously: if the potential love interest is your typical golden-haired high elf maiden, the whole romance would have to be pretty damn different if you're playing a female half-orc or male wood elf princeling. If both of these got the 'same' romance, now, that would be really shabby writing. OTOH if it meant that playing one or the other locked you out of any meaningful interaction with her (and didn't compensate in some other way), then yeah, that would be sub-optimal too.

 

 

I think the only real issu will be with dwarf and orlan race as romance opion (other look wery simillar to human) but thouse difrences that you sad is one of the major problem. And becouse of that i think that if devs are gonna put ROMANCE as an option they shoud put romance option to 1 character per gender and thats all ... in DA we saw at least 3 romances per gender and i really think that was an issu. If they put whole work, and interest in one per gender not three we whoud be see at least 1 good romance not 1 unfinished and 2 crapy.

 

I don't like Romancing in games i whoud like to se bu influences on characters, if some character is starting to love me becouse of my influence on her this shoud be growing slowly, not something like "oh, you bring me the flower let's ****". The problem in romances are also in FORCED romances, somethimes devs are creating character and then at the 90% they jum to conclusion "Hey let's make her romance'able" and in almost all cases it end badly.

 

Becosue if you want to put romance opion with some characeter, then character in some way must be desined for this romance, not only added to fully independent one. Why ? Becose if you create fully independet non-romance-abe character that don't rely on others the only opion where this type of chcaracter will romance someone is sexual desire or desire to settle down.

 

Of coure making a character that is only done to romance player can also result in very shallow character but in this case if we create character to ramance it's realy character=romance if romance is crapy then character is also ... se elanee from nwn2 and you know what i mean.

 

romance shoud be major thing to a storyline, or even entire game why ? becouse it's not one night stand. It's something more compex, affecting two characters i even think that romance shoud be opening to new ending like "Hero after his jurneys settle dawn and start small bisnes in harbor town etc"

 

also i think that adding death of a "woman you love" can give players character some addictional motivation to kill archevil in my opinion, we all sean this in many novels, games and movies and i think thats not bad idea ....

 

 

See ya

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I hate it when (in some games) every time the PC flirts with a NPC they are attracted to the PC, where every time the PC is nice to a NPC they take it well, and every time the PC insults a NPC they take it badly. I want some reactions to be unexpected, which adds flavor IMO. Maybe someone likes you more when you insult them because they feel you are being honest. Maybe you piss someone off because you were kind to them. Maybe flirtation is ignored because the NPC is oblivious to the PC's intentions.

[Ulquiorra]

I hate it when (in some games) every time the PC flirts with a NPC they are attracted to the PC, where every time the PC is nice to a NPC they take it well, and every time the PC insults a NPC they take it badly. I want some reactions to be unexpected, which adds flavor IMO. Maybe someone likes you more when you insult them because they feel you are being honest. Maybe you piss someone off because you were kind to them. Maybe flirtation is ignored because the NPC is oblivious to the PC's intentions.

 

I think it's not and romance problem in general but it's foult of crapy influence system. Romance love etc. is very deep and complex co if influence system or character in general is in some way unfinished or crapy you will see it mostly in these type of deep relationships.

 

If characters are crapy or let's say "shallow" they will find them self in a simple games like "let's level up and kill archevil" but if you putt them in more deep relationships and game plot in general then all of their minuses, disadvanteges etc. will be most discovered.

 

I realy hate those IWD tpe of the "let's make a team of 6 character and then no relationships between them" becouse it's almost like "catch 6 pokemons and use them to fight" nothing more above "level ups".

 

romances, love, hate, frendship, and all other are just another way to show your characters. If you don't want to make good characters but only "wardogs" then don't make them at all or at least call them "THINGS" not persons ...

 

I don't to play Project Eternity for "LEVEL UPS" or "LOOT Gathering" and other ego-masturbations. I want interactiv novel, that i can influence in every way i want.

[Faerunner]

 

I think the only real issu will be with dwarf and orlan race as romance opion (other look wery simillar to human) but thouse difrences that you sad is one of the major problem. And becouse of that i think that if devs are gonna put ROMANCE as an option they shoud put romance option to 1 character per gender and thats all ... in DA we saw at least 3 romances per gender and i really think that was an issu. If they put whole work, and interest in one per gender not three we whoud be see at least 1 good romance not 1 unfinished and 2 crapy.

 

Um... DA only had two romances per gender. In DA:O you had Alistair and Zevran for women (good boy and bad boy, respectively), and Morrigan and Leliana for men (bad girl and good girl, respectively). Of those two per gender, Zev and Leli were bisexual so there would be a same-sex romance option for each gender. Similarly, DA2 had Anders and Fenris for women (er... they're both bad boys, but one's a hopeless romantic and the other an emotional cripple), and Isabela and Merrill for men (bad girl and good girl again). Though DA2 made all romantic options bisexual, so they aren't exactly gender-specific. The only third romance I can think of is the inclusion of Queen Anora for human noble men in DA:O, and Sebastian for women in DA2. Admittedly, they aren't deeply developed, but then the player doesn't meet Anora until the very end and it's more of a political marriage anyway (i.e. a means for the throne), and Sebastian is a DLC character that wasn't that well developed anyway.

 

I worry about having only one romance-able character per gender though. One character's personality might not appeal to a wide variety of PC personalities, which would leave out a lot of people who love romance but don't care for the only option they got. Also, would this one romanceable character per gender be bisexual? There's a lot of players who would love the option to romance a character of the same gender (for whatever reason; maybe they're LBGT, their character is, they feel this character would be compatible with this character, etc.) and it just seems a shame to limit them to one male romance for women and one female romance for men. Not terribly exciting.

 

I don't like Romancing in games i whoud like to se bu influences on characters, if some character is starting to love me becouse of my influence on her this shoud be growing slowly, not something like "oh, you bring me the flower let's ****". The problem in romances are also in FORCED romances, somethimes devs are creating character and then at the 90% they jum to conclusion "Hey let's make her romance'able" and in almost all cases it end badly.

 

Becosue if you want to put romance opion with some characeter, then character in some way must be desined for this romance, not only added to fully independent one. Why ? Becose if you create fully independet non-romance-abe character that don't rely on others the only opion where this type of chcaracter will romance someone is sexual desire or desire to settle down.

 

Of coure making a character that is only done to romance player can also result in very shallow character but in this case if we create character to ramance it's realy character=romance if romance is crapy then character is also ... se elanee from nwn2 and you know what i mean.

 

So an easy solution would be to focus on developing strong characters, then only include romances for characters they think players would like.

 

romance shoud be major thing to a storyline, or even entire game why ? becouse it's not one night stand. It's something more compex, affecting two characters i even think that romance shoud be opening to new ending like "Hero after his jurneys settle dawn and start small bisnes in harbor town etc"

 

No offense, but this statement seems to contradict some of your earlier statements. You claim to dislike romances, yet you advocate them being a major part of the storyline? You seem to claim that romances tend to be too shallow, and yet you advocate only one romancable character per gender; I imagine one male romance for women and a female romance for men? No matter how well-written a character is, they simply aren't going to appeal to everyone, or even arguably the majority of the audience. If they're well-written enough to have preferences of their own (no bribing with gifts or anything like that), then to romance them you would need to conform your character to fit their expectations (basically choosing all the dialogue options that they would like) even if it's OOC, or go without any romance. Not to mention the hetero-normative implications of one character per gender.

 

I agree that well-written and well-characterized romances are important, though I don't think having only one per gender is necessarily the right solution. Personally, I'm always okay with two or so romance options per gender so players will be more likely to find a character they get along with. In fact, funny how you mentioned NWN2 earlier, because there were originally going to be two romances per gender before they had to get cut for time. Elanee and Neeshka for men, and Casavir and Bishop for women. Essentially, a dutiful/good-aligned and a chaotic/evil-friendly romance for both men and women. I think it would have worked out much better, as opposed to just one standard romance for one alignment/personality type.

 

Also, though they get a lot of flak for it, I rather like BioWare's method of including at least one same-sex romance for both genders in the DA franchise. While I'm not advocating LBGT romancable companions just for the sake of it, since it would fall into the to the "designing a character just to be romanced" problem, I think odds are that one or two might happen to have differing preferences is believable. I actually read somewhere that Gann from NWN2: MotB was supposed to be bisexual (just because it was how the writers envisioned his character), but executive meddling changed him to be completely straight. If the writers happen to create characters that they see as having certain preferences, I think they should go for it.

 

also i think that adding death of a "woman you love" can give players character some addictional motivation to kill archevil in my opinion, we all sean this in many novels, games and movies and i think thats not bad idea ....

 

I'm not a fan of this trope, personally. I don't think that perfectly engaging characters should be wantonly killed just to give their love interest more motivation to fight; especially not female characters for male leads. (Not for nothing Gail Simone found plenty of fodder for her "Women in Refrigerators" list, which she created after noticing a disproportionate amount of superheroines being brutalized in comics just to further the character arcs of male superheroes close to them). I think love interests should be allowed to contribute to the story by being alive, active, engaging, contributing their thoughts, expertise, experience, support, and letting the player share their goals, character arcs, and so on. What does killing them accomplish? A bit of angst for the player and that's it. Angst and motivation can be obtained in other ways besides killing love interests like they're disposable, and I hope the developers at Project Eternity look for ways to do that.

[Lephys]

*snicker snicker*... I'm sorry, but that talk about the person you love's death contributing to motivation made me think of a literal RPG mechanic translation.

 

"Guys, the evil Lord Galthresk is too strong! We're not going to be able to stop him!"

"*ponder*... *looks at love of life*... I'm REALLLY sorry about this. *kill*"

*You just gained a state of Vengeance! +5 to all stats and skills!*

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

*snicker snicker*... I'm sorry, but that talk about the person you love's death contributing to motivation made me think of a literal RPG mechanic translation.

 

"Guys, the evil Lord Galthresk is too strong! We're not going to be able to stop him!"

"*ponder*... *looks at love of life*... I'm REALLLY sorry about this. *kill*"

*You just gained a state of Vengeance! +5 to all stats and skills!*

 

 

I could see someone writing a guide on how to get multiple lovers to have several "state if vengeance" abilities active.

[BruceVC]

*snicker snicker*... I'm sorry, but that talk about the person you love's death contributing to motivation made me think of a literal RPG mechanic translation.

 

"Guys, the evil Lord Galthresk is too strong! We're not going to be able to stop him!"

"*ponder*... *looks at love of life*... I'm REALLLY sorry about this. *kill*"

*You just gained a state of Vengeance! +5 to all stats and skills!*

 

 

the concept of your post really made me laugh

[Lephys]

the concept of your post really made me laugh

 

Haha. It even made ME laugh.

 

"I can't believe I just voluntarily killed my soul mate! I'M HYSTERICAL WITH POWER-BOOSTING GRIEF!"

 

The final boss would be so very confused...

[Sylvanpyxie]

then to romance them you would need to conform your character to fit their expectations, even if it's OOC, or go without any romance.

Holy Mother of God, you mean... You'd have to change? Forgive me if I don't find this quite as horrifying as you seem to.

 

So, I have this Cheeky Little Minx of a Rogue and she is head over heels for this Gorgeous Self-Righteous Paladin, obviously our Gorgeous Paladin friend is disgusted by my Rogue's constant lying, cheating, stealing and backstabbing and he has decided, despite my Rogue's best efforts, that their relationship will remain purely professional. My little Rogue, who is so completely smitten with this sexy hunk of Paladin, has realised her only option is to try and change her ways - less lies, less stealing, less cheating and generally trying to be a better person. Our Paladin buddy notices the change in her and, despite the odd wicked streak that my Minx still displays, he tries to be more supportive of her attempts at atonement and redemption, becoming more friendly and developing a good relationship with her.

 

It's not really quite as game-breaking as you seem to think, sometimes to get the things that you want you - The Player - need to change. It's not "Out of Character" and it's not wiping her slate clean, it's simple character evolution - Her experiences changing her perspective, giving her the inspiration to change. I don't have to do it, of course, but if my little Minx truly cared for her Gorgeous Paladin friend then she would make the effort to gain his affections.

 

If it's so much trouble for you to conform your character to the ideals of your potential Love Interest then maybe you don't actually deserve the love and respect of the Love Interest anyway.

 

Now that I've gotten that off my chest:

 

One character's personality might not appeal to a wide variety of PC personalities, which would leave out a lot of people who love romance but don't care for the only option they got.

There is never going to be enough romantic options to please everyone, heck there won't even be enough options to please the majority of Players. We're too varied, we're too different and our expectations differ. So I have to ask - Where does it stop? Two options? Three? Four? Five? Ten? Twenty? Heck, just let us suck-face with every NPC in the game, then no one can complain that they couldn't get it on with their favourite NPC in the game, whether it was the Gorgeous Paladin Companion or the Sexy Barmaid in Random Inn Number 22.

 

There are limits to what the writers can do, and there are limits to how much "romance" a game can endure before it becomes overwhelming. I for one do not want to worry that every time my Rogue bends down to loot a chest she's going to be jumped by her entire Band of Adventurers. I don't want to enter a conversation with my companions only to have overbearing Romantic Dialogue shoved down my throat - We see enough of it in Bioware games, among others, and whether you believe that level of romance is "acceptable" or not is irrelevant because is still damages character interactions.

 

First it's "Politically Correct Number of Love Interests" then it's "I wanted to romance a <Very Specific Character Archetype>" then the next thing you know there's romantic context in every single conversation you have, every character in your Band of Brothers is trying to pull off your pants and then the characters become so all encompassed by Romantic Expectations that there's no real characterization left. The expectations won't falter, the demands won't end and we end up with another game promoting "Character Interaction" when in actuality the only "Interaction" you'll get is the romantic drivel that will get poured down your throat.

 

No, these "expectations" don't apply to everyone that's posted in these threads, I know that, and I mean no offense but this kind of Player Entitlement doesn't stop, and it is exactly why I'm so completely and utterly, pant-wettingly terrified of the idea of Romance in this Project.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Sylvanpyxie

[Lephys]

Holy Mother of God, you mean... You'd have to change? Forgive me if I don't find this quite as horrifying as you seem to.

 

It's not even "changing," really. It's simply deciding that, until that point, wasn't previously decided. In overly simple terms, if one relationship-interest favors evacuating the burning orphanage before it collapses, and one favors looting its valuables before it burns (to hell with the occupants!), then you pick whichever thing you want to do, and the interest who likes what you did likes where your head's at. It's that simple. You didn't change for that person, unless you were forced to BEGIN evacuating the orphans, THEN stop doing so, shove them all back inside, and loot the valuables.

[Malevolent]

Romances are a touchy area for me. To be entirely honest, I tend to enjoy them, but half of the nerdy pleasure I derive has to do with what non-romanceables lack. In general, characters that aren't being romanced have fewer dialogues, and aren't explored to the same depth. While you may become familiar with their backstory and their personality, the greatest degree of reactivity is found in romanceables. They'll react to more stimuli and be more aware of your comings and goings. You influence them to a greater degree, and they feel the most grounded in the world. If we had characters that had as much of their backstory explored, as much of their personality revealed, as much of their opinion to a current event shown... I think my like of romances would dwindle. It would still be present because it's an interesting angle to explore in roleplaying, but honestly, I have a strong love of bromance.

 

Having a character in game who you can not only become friends with, but very good friends, would be amazing. Someone whose dialogue you can play off of, someone who you know will be there for you, even if you choose not to romance them, that would be something else. Sure, we had characters like Imoen and Mission, but they never hit the bromance mark. Both felt more like a kid-sister you constantly had to rescue from danger (Imoen especially). She felt more like someone who leaned on you for everything. You were her rock, but when it came time, it never seemed like she was yours.

 

I'd also like to see a sort of rivalry bromance or relationship develop. Someone who respects the hell out of you, but might not necessarily like you. Maybe someone you can have a battle of wits with? I usually find that opposing characters are some of my favorite, and a personal and interesting relationship with an adversary, or grudging ally could be an interesting route to explore. Which is another thing that I've noticed. Aside from romance being the preferred/only method to become thoroughly acquainted with a character, friendship is the other. Can a character not express themselves in detail while disagreeing with us? Granted, generally one is more inclined to talk with someone they're friendly with, but given their presence in the party, I generally assume they aren't completely vitriolic in their feelings for the PC. And disagreeing with you can consist of more than just whining or saying "no".

 

That being said, if bromances or rivalmances or sibling-like relationships were implemented, I would be a happy camper. Romances are all well and good and something I'd still explore with characters for whom it makes sense, but they wouldn't be the only way to sate player curiosity.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Malevolent

[Monte Carlo]

QFT:

 

To be entirely honest, I tend to enjoy them, but half of the nerdy pleasure I derive has to do with what non-romanceables lack. In general, characters that aren't being romanced have fewer dialogues, and aren't explored to the same depth.

 

One of the *many* reasons why romances gargle donkey sick.

[BruceVC]

http://dgaider.tumblr.com/post/40361886357/on-romances-in-games

 

I am vociferously supportive of Romance\Sex in my games but David Gaider, a senior writer at Bioware, makes some good points about the negative of Romance\Sex in games

[SunBroSolaire]

http://dgaider.tumbl...mances-in-games

 

I am vociferously supportive of Romance\Sex in my games but David Gaider, a senior writer at Bioware, makes some good points about the negative of Romance\Sex in games

I'm a little puzzled that he seems to be arguing against the way he himself handled romance in the DA and ME series. All the companions in ME were romance options as far as I can remember. Same for DA2, right? BioWare, and Gaider specifically, are basically the poster-child for pandering wish-fulfillment fantasies.

Edited January 15, 2013 by SunBroSolaire

[Inyourprime]

http://dgaider.tumbl...mances-in-games

 

I am vociferously supportive of Romance\Sex in my games but David Gaider, a senior writer at Bioware, makes some good points about the negative of Romance\Sex in games

 

You got a point, Gaider. But when you say things like this:

 

I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player.

 

... and was responsible for Dragon Age 2, I can't take anything you say seriously.

[Sannom]

You got a point, Gaider. But when you say things like this:

 

I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player.

 

... and was responsible for Dragon Age 2, I can't take anything you say seriously.

Only four of the companions were romance options in that game, right? That leaves three companions who weren't, and four really is the average for those games which include the option.

 

I'm a little puzzled that he seems to be arguing against the way he himself handled romance in the DA and ME series. All the companions in ME were romance options as far as I can remember. Same for DA2, right? BioWare, and Gaider specifically, are basically the poster-child for pandering wish-fulfillment fantasies.

I never played the game, but I thought there were only three romanceable companions in ME : a man and woman who were heterosexual, and an alien who was omni-sexual in almost every way, so two romance options by gender of the main character.

 

And if anything, Obsidian is guiltier than Bioware on that topic if only for the inclusion of Scarlett as a romance option in Alpha Protocol : she panders to a lot of wish-fulfillment fantasy with her fiery red-head who's also an intrepid reporter status, and the main mechanic of her romance is gift-giving, a mechanic which was disqualified when Dragon Age went too far with it!

 

I sometimes feel like Bioware's love of romance is really, really overblown by everyone.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Sannom

[Sylvanpyxie]

I never played the game, but I thought there were only three romanceable companions in ME :

Kaidan, Ashley, Liara - Three in Mass Effect.

Jacob, Jack, Miranda, Thane, Garrus, Tali, Kelly (Plus Liara in Lair of the Shadowbroker, or Kaidan/Ashley carrying over) - Seven(/eight/nine/ten) in Mass Effect 2.

Ashley, Kaidan, Liara, Garrus, Tali, Miranda, Jack, Kelly, Traynor, Cortez (Thane and Jacob were neglected or ended) - Ten(/twelve) in Mass Effect 3.

 

The number escalated dramatically. The quality declined rapidly.

 

Only four of the companions were romance options in that game, right? That leaves three companions who weren't

So just over half were romantic options.

 

Overbearing, overwhelming, unnecessary.

 

At least, in my opinion.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Sylvanpyxie

[Sannom]

So just over half were romantic options.

 

Overbearing, overwhelming, unnecessary.

 

At least, in my opinion.

And it isn't mine. For me, 'too many love interests' is a discrete thing, not a percentile thing. Four love interests match the numbers of Baldur's Gate 2, the planned number for Neverwinter Nights 2 before they dropped to two, the number in Alpha Protocol, the number in Dragon Age, etc. In fact, I would argue that if you include 'role-playing' romance in your RPG, four love interests is the bare minimum, so that even if you go the 'all heterosexual' route, there is at least a choice... and we don't end up with the KOTOR or NWN2 situation. Brr.

 

Do Kelly even count as a love interest in Mass Effect 2? And Jack and Miranda weren't companions in Mass Effect 3, their romances were just the continuation of the ones from the previous game, and from what I understand, they were rather light in content.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Sannom

[Inyourprime]

Only four of the companions were romance options in that game, right? That leaves three companions who weren't, and four really is the average for those games which include the option.

 

Ahhh. I forgot about Varric and Aveline. Who's the third?

 

.

.

It doesn't matter. The name escapes me.

[Sylvanpyxie]

from what I understand, they were rather light in content.

So were Traynor and Cortez, they still count. They aren't companions either.

 

And it isn't mine. For me, 'too many love interests' is a discrete thing, not a percentile thing.

And that's perfectly fine, but with a limited number of companions available I'm of the opinion that too many "options" could cause romances to become overbearing to interactions. In and of itself it might be too damaging, despite the small number of companions that we will be receiving, four potential romantic options might not become too overbearing - Assuming that it's handled with a delicate hand and not the clumsy oafish writing techniques that "Anti-Romancers" are afraid of.

 

I myself am not in the "Anti-Romancer" camp, I sit quite firmly on the fence, trying to see the positives and negatives - Options can be a huge positive, offering opportunity to the more picky players. But it can easily become a negative, especially if it's coupled with other failings. Romance itself requires a very delicate balance, but the expectations of romance coupled with the reasonable number of four options could quite easily be the downfall of character interactions and integrity.

 

As I said though, this is my view and we're not so much in agreement - I just hope you can understand how precarious the balance is.

 

Edit: Don't take this the wrong way or anything, but I have to admit that I find it quite funny how you used Baldur's Gate 2 as an example, considering not only the insanely large number of available followers, but the fact there weren't really any "options". Not for Lady-Players at least. *Grin*

 

I forgot about Varric and Aveline. Who's the third?

Hawke's Sibling. Bethany or Carver.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Sylvanpyxie