Relationship/Romance Thread IV

[Azrayel]

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

 

I never suggested the PC could do anything to save the relationship, or that it would fall apart. Besides, what you do with the characters is up to you; iDon't think P:E would tell you that a decision with them was "wrong" going by what the devs said. But do you just want slabs of meat to cast spells and swing swords?

 

Because I gotta break something to you then.

 

You can find a lot of that elsewhere, probably done with better tech and a higher budget than you will here. If you're not interested in the people, regardless of whether or not you want to be a "relationship counsellor," why exactly do you want to play an Obsidian game-- particularly this Obsidian game?

Edited December 12, 2012 by Azrayel

[Ieo]

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

 

I never suggested the PC could do anything to save the relationship, or that it would fall apart. Besides, what you do with the characters is up to you; iDon't think P:E would tell you that a decision with them was "wrong" going by what the devs said. But do you just want slabs of meat to cast spells and swing swords?

 

Because I gotta break something to you then.

 

You can find a lot of that elsewhere, probably done with better tech and a higher budget than you will here. If you're not interested in the people, regardless of whether or not you want to be a "relationship counsellor," why exactly do you want to play an Obsidian game-- particularly this Obsidian game?

 

You're going about this all wrong.

 

Think about the Kickstarter target audiences (yes, multiple)--spanning PS:T to IWD. Did you play IWD? It's a full-on tactical game. There's a considerable audience for that sort of play, and this is why Obs is adding the Adventurer's Hall. Josh is a mechanics guy. There's a considerable audience for PS:T depth as well (me, and I'm okay with a Fall-From-Grace level of implication) along with those who desperately want BG's exploratory epicness (me too, but minus the ham-fisted adolescent romance options).

 

Speaking of ham-fisted adolescent romance, I'll advise Obsidian how NOT to do romances, if they were to be added:

I've barely started BG:EE and one of the new romance options is horrific. Absolutely terrible. Flirting on the second or third banter (barely a week of in-game time), out of character for the basic NPC design even though my PC barely knows anything about the NPC outside the scripted background. There has been no development at all besides asking questions. This is not how it should work in an actual relationship, guys. No thank you, current-Bioware-style, but I'm going to send this one to a hellish death...

[Monte Carlo]

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

 

I never suggested the PC could do anything to save the relationship, or that it would fall apart. Besides, what you do with the characters is up to you; iDon't think P:E would tell you that a decision with them was "wrong" going by what the devs said. But do you just want slabs of meat to cast spells and swing swords?

 

Because I gotta break something to you then.

 

You can find a lot of that elsewhere, probably done with better tech and a higher budget than you will here. If you're not interested in the people, regardless of whether or not you want to be a "relationship counsellor," why exactly do you want to play an Obsidian game-- particularly this Obsidian game?

 

You're not the first person to ask me why I play Obsidian games when I don't like romances. Funny thing is, I've played all of their games and as far as I can figure out none of them really have romances in them. QED.

[PrimeJunta]

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.

 

[melkathi]

You're not the first person to ask me why I play Obsidian games when I don't like romances. Funny thing is, I've played all of their games and as far as I can figure out none of them really have romances in them. QED.

 

Heh, next thing you know, you'll try to convince us that Dak'kon was not a romance option even though we all know that he was an interesting character.

 

And now to wait and see if anyone feels the need to lecture me on how Dak'kon wasn't a romance option...

Edited December 13, 2012 by melkathi

[rjshae]

If you choose a nobility background for your character (or have ambitious parents), it might be amusing to have an "arranged marriage". Perhaps you get set up with a local baron's daughter, or even somebody shipped in from overseas. Dealing with the social politics of an arranged union could be entertaining. Perhaps you still need to woo her beforehand and retain her allegiance afterward, or else she'll be plotting to behind your back and you'll have no end of trouble.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Good lord will this thread never stay dead?

[rjshae]

Good lord will this thread never stay dead?

Go. Now. Before this thread plagues your dreams and saps your will to live.

[Lephys]

This thread, much like true love, IS ETERNAL!!!

 

*Rides atop Falcor*

 

Never-ending Looooooove THREEEEEEAAAADDDDD! Ahh-ahh-ahh-AHHHHHHHH-ahh-ahh-AHHH-ahh-ahhhhhh...

Edited December 17, 2012 by Lephys

[Heresiarch]

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.

Yeah, I never tell people I've played A Dance with Rogues either. Heck, did I say that out loud?

 

It was pretty good with relationships (or romance, if you wish), notwithstanding the porn part. Even though I only played the first chapter, I was advised by an experienced ADWR player, who told me all about all the developments through the whole story. The characters are really fleshed out and cover pretty much every player's taste, which I've found deeply disturbing, since the game is merely a porn module produced by a single person.

 

Now, God forbid PE being even remotely similar to ADWR in any other aspect, but characters and non-rapey situations, which were by far not as few as I prefer them, would be very welcome. A choice along the lines of cheating or not on your best friend's wife (who might also happen to be the party's pyromaniac mage) would be a nice adition to the common RPG repertoire of figth/fetch/kick-or-pet-the-dog scenarios.

[clippedwolf]

Good lord will this thread never stay dead?

 

People have different interest than me? Dammit!

Dude, be chill and laugh along.

[SGray]

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

Could argue that. Final "I'll find you." was pretty much worth it. Even if you hadn't any feelings except friendship to her. Btw, more memorable when it's so, imo.

Edited December 17, 2012 by SGray

[Malcador]

Good lord will this thread never stay dead?

 

What happened to that guy who said he wanted to be able to MC people into loving him and all that other deviant stuff ? He was good for killing these off.

[TMTVL]

The romance's gonna get cut out anyway.

[Shadowless]

There should be one very obvious romance that has you court a woman from a main city. After you have sex with her, her husband comes home (whom you did not know about) and challenges you to the thunderdome. He is very easy to murder and you think whew thank god thats over...except it isn't. He it turns out was one of the most prominent members of that cities merchant guild and as such you no longer have access to any of the cities shops, routinely have people hired to capture you and should you fail in killing them get knocked out and wake up castrated. The woman you also romanced happens to be pregnant now and you are forced to split half of your loot with her. In the epilogue the love affair is mentioned as is the fact that your child became a sadistic serial killer who ends up torturing, mutilating and murdering each and every one of your companions after they are retired because they kept you from staying at home and showering the bastard with fatherly love.

 

I enjoy romances that are well done, if they are not it simply detracts from the game IMO.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Shadowless

[Umberlin]

I've said my piece on this before, and I don't really need relationships in a game. If such things are there, they need to be quality. I don't care about the genders or types of romances, I don't care if they're a negative or a positive that has negative or positive fallout. The quality is the matter of important, not the particular takes.

 

I do think, as someone noted (much much) earlier, that, rather from a romantic point of view it would be interesting to see a game, one day, from the perspective of a main character, in a setting, where the driving points of the story were a romance that they did not want to be in. Usually in games, the few where we have a romance that isn't dictated as an absolute, the romance is one where the PC pursues. It could be interesting where, for better or worse, in the end of said story, the PC was pursued, and not by someone that game drives you to like - especially if it was put up against a background that the relationship, while not wanted, could be beneficial within the contexts of the game's story, cultures, peoples, nation, etc etc etc . . .

 

Still, this is P:E, and, while it would, or, at least, could be . . . interesting to explore in a game dedicated to it, such an idea does in fact require such a game - mainly 'dedicated' to it. In P:E romances, of any kind, could be absent, and I don't think the game would suffer at all for it. I only think it will suffer if romances are badly done or shoehorned into it. Things that 'fit' and things that are of 'quality' are what matter, and, really, I'm no judge for what fits, and I won't know quality until I play through it (which I may never, since I don't tend to pursue romatic situations in games). So, really, whatever Obsidian decides, I'll trust, if they decide to add romances I'll trust that they are fitting, and, as for quality, I'll decide, or not, for myself on my own terms once the game is released.

[Ieo]

I'm constantly reminded that it's great that Project Eternity isn't targeting an audience like a friend of mine who says a CRPG isn't worth playing if it doesn't have romances in it. Granted, she also has exceptionally low self esteem. She also once repeated the same completely fallacious argument that "romance is the highest form of love and gives so much more depth in character development." I easily countered with "Oh, so if the building was burning and you had to choose between your spouse and your child, you'd choose your spouse every single time without blinking an eye." "Romanticized romance" is so stupid....

 

Anyway, why hasn't anyone quoted Josh's most recent Gamers.de interview with a question about game romances?

 

G: Regarding romances, relationships were always important elements in the IE-Games, especially in "Baldur's Gate 2". Will it be possible for our PC to engage in a relationship?

 

JS: We aren't currently focusing much attention on romances on Project Eternity. I would only want to include them if they feel like a natural fit. As we develop the companion characters, we'll see where their plot arcs take them.

 

So if it should happen, so long as Obsidian doesn't go the route of BGEE/BG2 where, if you don't/can't romance a character, that NPC has absolutely nothing else to say to you, I'm fine with it... (Because being unable to be close friends with someone with whom you tromp about for months, as opposed to having sex in a tent, is totally realistic. Not.)

[Umberlin]

. . .

 

I agree that romance does not have to be the only possible resolution to a forming relationship. Friendship is definitely a possibility, as you noted, but so are other forms of relationship, even negative ones (your interactions resulting in competition or rivalry or even resulting in a nemesis, just as a few random examples). Then the always popular, heh, 'they just get sick of you and leave or attack.betray you.' Sure, other positives, besides friendship, are possible as well, still discounting romance because, as I said, it doesn't have to be the final solution to a relationship.

 

When games force that on you it gets awkward, anyone that played ME2 or DA2 knows that it can even be very . . . unfortunate . . . when a character baselessly starts hitting on you, as if you've been flirting, when you tell your character to say something . . . supposedly harmless and all of a sudden they're coming onto a character like no one's business. Just trying to talk to Jacob casually, in ME2, could easily result in the most awkward flirting, when all you were trying to be was nice. I cannot stand such things. At all. That's not quality, to me, and, as I say too often probably, "I like quality," what's there is less important than the quality, the cohesion and chemistry of what's there in a game, in regard to any element. If it's just 'there' then . . . it falls flat, at least for me.

[Lephys]

So if it should happen, so long as Obsidian doesn't go the route of BGEE/BG2 where, if you don't/can't romance a character, that NPC has absolutely nothing else to say to you, I'm fine with it... (Because being unable to be close friends with someone with whom you tromp about for months, as opposed to having sex in a tent, is totally realistic. Not.)

 

Haha.

 

"Introducing the What Is Love DLC for Project Eternity! Adds in 12 exciting new NPCs, all with their very own romance dialogue options! You get an achievement for hooking up with all 12! 8D"

 

I'd say if it's sprinkles on the cake, it's definitely not worth it. If it's a different ingredient in the batter recipe, then go for it.

[Lurky]

We aren't currently focusing much attention on romances on Project Eternity. I would only want to include them if they feel like a natural fit. As we develop the companion characters, we'll see where their plot arcs take them.

 

Makes sense. They still have so much to build that the particular subset of interpersonal relationships that are player-companion romances aren't even a blip in the radar for them right now. Hell, with so much world stuff they have to create, companions are probably very low in Sawyer's priorities right now.

 

Then again, even if Sawyer isn't dismissing romances outright, I still think that the odds of them being included aren't good. I mean, Alpha Protocol and PS:T might have had romances or sort-of-romances, but they had a pretty fixed PC too. In PE, the PC is completely variable, so different races, genders, cultures, moralities, ideologies and attitudes would have to be acknowledged in the romances. Not to mention than any of those can be a deal breaker for people IRL, moreso in terms of romanceability (and in a world as diverse as I expect PE to be, with all its many cultures and subcultures and factions and the tensions that will come beween them, they probably should be deal breakers). And there's Avellone in the team too, who will probably have some say in character creation too and is not fond of romances.

 

Unless they have a good idea for it, I'm not seeing them. Good luck providing romances that acknowledge all that variability the PC can have without romance becoming a major part of their interactions, so that choosing between romance and non-romance is actually a choice worth thinking (in terms of content at least). While ensuring that character creation choices aren't too limiting in terms of letting players access those romantic interactions (and if romances enhance the story and the experience significantly, their access shouldn't be too limited, I think). While mantaining a diversity that properly represents many aspects of the world and makes all companions distinct and with their own set values (no bending to the player's will please, there's some posts covering this already). All these contradicting goals, and with only 8 companions. Ouch.

 

So if it should happen, so long as Obsidian doesn't go the route of BGEE/BG2 where, if you don't/can't romance a character, that NPC has absolutely nothing else to say to you, I'm fine with it... (Because being unable to be close friends with someone with whom you tromp about for months, as opposed to having sex in a tent, is totally realistic. Not.)

 

Yes. I agree with this, and I still think that this is the crux of the complaints against romances: the ability to choose if you want to engage in it. If the character is written with romance as an integral part of them, what happens if you don't want that? Is it forced on the player anyway? Do you miss important character interactions? It doesn't necessarily have to be the case where both routes are oh my god so perfectly balanced I can't choose (though I'd like that), but there should be something of an alternative, so that it is a proper choice. Which means that romance cannot be an integral part of them.

 

By the way Ieo, your comment about your friend reminded me of the DA3 boards on the BSN. The other day I found this post. The utter confusion some people show for the notion of someone not wanting to do romances is pretty telling, I think. The OP is asking for that choice to be acknowledged and rewarded with something, and even the lead writer tells him it's not going to happen. Some strange perspective, there.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Lurky

[AGX-17]

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.

 

 

Infinite possiblity? Unexplored area? It's been done in Bioware games. Recent Bioware games. ME2-3 and DA2.

[TMTVL]

It hasn't been explored by people with a decent writing staff.

[Farbautisonn]

Infinite possiblity? Unexplored area? It's been done in Bioware games. Recent Bioware games. ME2-3 and DA2.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Farbautisonn

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It doesn't necessarily have to be the case where both routes are oh my god so perfectly balanced I can't choose (though I'd like that), but there should be something of an alternative, so that it is a proper choice.

 

You know, this sounds almost exactly like what Sawyer said about classes except for the statement in ().

 

 

 

[To the thread in general]Anyways, I think the general sentiment on romances here is "If you do them, do them well, make sure the other alternatives have enough character interaction where they don't seem shallow in comparison, and make it more than about boning the character in question", essentially, do not do them like Bioware does them.

 

Can we move on to other types of personal relationships now? I think the dead horse has been beaten enough already.

[Monte Carlo]

^ OTOH the Promancers have been contained in this thread, and some of the less crazy ones seem to have wandered off (now that it is clear that romances aren't pinging on the dev's design radar).

 

Except for the dude who quoted a mod where you could intervene in an existing NPC relationship, and said mod turned out to be virtual pr0n.

 

LOL.

 

Promancers: Promancers never change.