Jump to content

Romance  

431 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you define Romance in a game?

    • Love (Romance)
      359
    • Sex (Ho-mance)
      166
    • Friendship (Bro-mance)
      206
    • No (Go-dance)
      58
    • Other-mance?
      55


Recommended Posts

Platonic was a poor word choice on my part since it - in a modern context - has multiple meanings; what I meant was character interactions that aren't based on love & sex at all (see Merriam-Webster's definition 2b of Platonic; of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If it has interesting, responsive character interactions that are entirely platonic, I'm not sure how you've lost anything.

 

 

In reality i don't see an option for plationic love unless it's one sided or "child love".

 

Tell me .. can you see 100% platonic love relationshipbeteen two people that have more then 18 years old and both of you know of feeling you have for ech other and you realy "love" one another ?

 

In reality this is domething like sexual frustration (for both genders) so if you love someone .. it whoud be soo strange to make him feel good ? ( and you by the way )

 

Im only talking about reality now .. i don't want sex scenes in PE ... only a evindence that something like this occurs ... this is not porno :p

 

 

It's not possible to befriend or care about someone unless you're sexually attracted to them? How do you function in day-to-day life? Do you have no friends  or family (same-gender or otherwise) that you love but aren't sexually attracted to? Do people HAVE to turn you on just for you to want them in your life? Are you incapable of making friends unless you think you can sleep with them?

 

Because that's what platonic love is. Loving someone without it being romantic or sexual. I think emotionally healthy and well-adjusted people are capable of loving others without wanting to sleep with them, which is what many people are advocating on this thread. Having companions the player character can feel believably close or attached to without wanting to jump their bones.

 

I personally can see the merit in it as deep, meaningful relationships are hard to pull off without the crutch of sexual attraction or romance novel lines to fall back on, which are sadly very easy and common for many lazy or untalented writers. Of course, this outcry for "platonic relationships only" is accompanied by the fallacy that "romantic = shallow" and "platonic = deep," as well-written romances can have as much depth as platonic relationships and plenty of platonic relationships in various games are also shallow and poorly written.

 

However, your reasoning is very fallacious and shallow too. You seem to assume that everyone is just horny and looking for a lay. I understand many (or even most) adults have urges, but not everyone does (haven't you ever heard of asexuality?) and not everyone is looking to form attachments to people just for sexual favors.

Edited by Faerunner

"Not I, though. Not I," said the hanging dwarf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try as I might, I'm really failing to see, here, how a relationship between any NPC and your main Player Character is ANY different simply for having personal/romantic interest as a basis.

That's because you're equivocating.

 

I mean, are you suggesting that it would be fine for a character to potentially be influenced by your interactions to the point of deciding that your life is more important than theirs, and sacrificing themselves at some desperate point in the story to prevent you from dying, as long as it has nothing whatsoever to do with any amount of personal affection?

Of course not. That would be silly.

 

It just seems to me that they could spend just as much time writing oodles of stuff that amounts to the same so-called "problems" without actually having any romance or personal affection in the story, whatsoever.

Blam. That's the equivocation. "Romance" != "personal affection" and being opposed to the one in no way implies being opposed to the other.

 

The problem with romance in games -- especially multiple characters as "romance options" -- is that if you write a character as a "romance option," then you automatically do not write the relationship with that character as some other type of interaction. The one rules out the other. Perhaps not in theory, but in practice it does -- or can you name one cRPG that has (a) "romance options" and (b) meaningful interpersonal relationships with those "romance options" that are not romances or truncated romances?

 

Hell, what about family "love" relationships? Not the same thing, but OODLES of pure personal affection. The only difference is pretty much the potential for sex (which you don't even HAVE to spend resources to portray/represent in the actual gameplay/"footage," itself, really).

Yes, absolutely -- I would like to see cRPG's explore these other types of relationships with NPC's besides stale fanservice romance. "Romance options" poison and drain the blood out of all other relationships. So away with them I say. Write a game with varied, interesting, and deep interpersonal relationships of various types. Then we'll talk again.

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's not possible to befriend or care about someone unless you're sexually attracted to them? How do you function in day-to-day life? Do you have no friends  or family (same-gender or otherwise) that you love but aren't sexually attracted to? Do people HAVE to turn you on just for you to want them in your life? Are you incapable of making friends unless you think you can sleep with them?

 

Because that's what platonic love is. Loving someone without it being romantic or sexual. I think emotionally healthy and well-adjusted people are capable of loving others without wanting to sleep with them, which is what many people are advocating on this thread. Having companions the player character can feel believably close or attached to without wanting to jump their bones.

 

This is friendship and recpect not "love". Od course there is something like "familly" love, you can love someone even if he/she is not blood related but this is more like friendship+ respect + platonic love.

 

Secoundly if you have a boy and a gril and they both "love" ech other and their both have something like "sexual desire". So they can love ech other normally and have sex or they can love ech other platonicly and taking theirs ugres them selfs (i know that you know what i mean) ... with in you opinoin is more likely ?

 

 

I personally can see the merit in it as deep, meaningful relationships are hard to pull off without the crutch of sexual attraction or romance novel lines to fall back on, which are sadly very easy and common for many lazy or untalented writers. Of course, this outcry for "platonic relationships only" is accompanied by the fallacy that "romantic = shallow" and "platonic = deep," as well-written romances can have as much depth as platonic relationships and plenty of platonic relationships in various games are also shallow and poorly writte

 

 

Im not sure if im getting you right .... you say that platonic is deep but love with sex is shallow ?!

 

Sorry but only difrence beteen romantic with sex love and platonic is that in first their both desire ech other and have sex .. nothing more...

 

Meyby you referring to some kind of homance or "sex friends" relationships .. in that case i can agree but in this two there are no love involved (or not to much) but mostly lust, sex and desire ... with is also normal.. mayby not deep... but normal .. a shallow relationships (if theire any) if their occur in reality their also good

 

 

 

However, your reasoning is very fallacious and shallow too. You seem to assume that everyone is just horny and looking for a lay. I understand many (or even most) adults have urges, but not everyone does (haven't you ever heard of asexuality?) and not everyone is looking to form attachments to people just for sexual favors.

 

Yes for example sherlock holmes was asexual :)

 

But as a good example he NEVER lovel romanticly any one, only Irene Adler was a woman who he "admire" or "recpect" .. but he don't love her ...

 

Of course there are asexual people on the planet but how many are them ? if 1 to 100 then i whoud be suprised ....

 

And i must say that your reasoning is so deep im drowning ...

 

In you logic sex=shallow ....

 

I mey agree with you if PE was eroge when sexual scenes are at least 40% time of the game .. but in this cas when we are talking about more romantic love + sex not sex + romatic love (witch is much difrent) so i don't see the point ..

 

The only thing that platonic love and sex + love is difrent is that in secound characters have sex (becouse their are sexual and honest about them selfs) and i don't see how it is makeing them "shallow"

Edited by Ulquiorra
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nope its not dumb and it makes sense

 

I keep saying this but I'll say it again. For me if PE doesn't have Romance/Sex than the game will be lacking that deeper interaction and immersion that you get with your party members, it would be a pity. Of course the game will still be great and entertaining but for me it will be lacking something

If it has interesting, responsive character interactions that are entirely platonic, I'm not sure how you've lost anything.

 

Romantic relationships are part of the human story; I think artificially including or excluding them is a mistake - like making a painting without the color blue for no clear reason beyond not liking the color blue.

 

That said its entirely possible to create a story that is still well done without romantic relationships, just like its possible to make a painting without the color blue. The difference is between understanding how to use your tools and having a solid plan or just being arbitrary.

THANK YOU.

 

EDIT:

 

@Ulquiorra:

 

If a boy is in love with a grill, he's a very odd boy indeed.

 

(I know, I know. But I had to. :) )

Edited by Ffordesoon
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of sex: An interesting take on it is present in Baldur's Gate 2, when Viconia, in a moment of weakness, spends the night with the Bhaalspawn. It only gets more interesting from there onwards, as she tries to distance herself from your character. I thought it was a neat way to provide insight into the Drow psyche.

[ The Vault ] [ The Wasteland Wiki ] [ Pillars of Eternity Wiki ] [ Tyranny Wiki ]


 


My, that's a whole lot of wikis!


Why, thank you, I love them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, absolutely -- I would like to see cRPG's explore these other types of relationships with NPC's besides stale fanservice romance. "Romance options" poison and drain the blood out of all other relationships. So away with them I say. Write a game with varied, interesting, and deep interpersonal relationships of various types. Then we'll talk again.

Well, I dunno about "romance options," but it seems to me that romance options (the ones without quotes that aren't alleged, suspect things) are perfectly fine. If anything, it seems to me that you're equivocating "romance options" with actual romance options, as if crappily done ones that "override" things (aka "The devs just put in a romance potentiality and not a non-romance relationship potentiality... simple lopsided omission, really) are all there is, just because no one's ever done it correctly, without omitting all non-romance aspects of relationships for that character.

 

And, for what it's worth, I wasn't equivocating. Romance is a form of personal affection. That is in no way a claim that all personal affection = romance. Romance DOES = personal affection. Personal affection does not necessarily = romance.

 

Yeah, I could write a game with varied, interesting, and deep interpersonal relationships of various types. But, while we're waiting on that (which could take a while, since I'd need to do a GREAT deal of studying to learn the coding on all that, THEN raise enough money to actually have the time and resources to code all that, from scratch), it could, perchance, be prudent to suggest that this already-in-development game, in whose forums we are currently discussing, make such an attempt. I don't think that's crazy. Really, I'm not even asking them to attempt it. I'm merely saying "Hey, if you're gonna do romance options, lets make sure they aren't 'romance options,' and that they are literally what the name suggests."

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

his is friendship and recpect not "love". Od course there is something like "familly" love, you can love someone even if he/she is not blood related but this is more like friendship+ respect + platonic love.

 

Secoundly if you have a boy and a gril and they both "love" ech other and their both have something like "sexual desire". So they can love ech other normally and have sex or they can love ech other platonicly and taking theirs ugres them selfs (i know that you know what i mean) ... with in you opinoin is more likely ?

 

And you think they're incapable of loving each without wanting to act out their sexual desire with each other? 

 

Maybe they're just not attracted to each other. Maybe one or both are gay. Maybe they're just not each other's type. Maybe one/both are already attracted to or in a relationship with someone else but still care very deeply enough about each other to feel love. You think men and women are physically and psychologically incapable of loving each other without also being sexually attracted to each other? It's not possible to care about a friend deeply enough to love them without being in love or in lust? Is that what you're saying? 

 

Im not sure if im getting you right .... you say that platonic is deep but love with sex is shallow ?!

 

No, that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Please read for context. 

 

Sorry but only difrence beteen romantic with sex love and platonic is that in first their both desire ech other and have sex .. nothing more...

 

Love is love. Whether you feel romantic or sexual attraction on top of it determines whether it's romantic love, sexual love, or platonic love.

 

My issue is you seem to believe that grown people are incapable of loving each other without wanting sex from each other, which I find fallacious.

 

Yes for example sherlock holmes was asexual  :)

 

But as a good example he NEVER lovel romanticly any one, only Irene Adler was a woman who he "admire" or "recpect" .. but he don't love her ...

 

One fictional character is not the one all-encompassing example of what asexuality is. Please educate yourself on real asexual people.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VicXQ7ZAF84

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOiPGqQUV2A

 

Of course there are asexual people on the planet but how many are them ? if 1 to 100 then i whoud be suprised ....

 

Actually, 1 to 100 IS the estimated percentage of asexual people. 1% of the population. That may not seem like much, but add it up and it becomes a lot of people very quickly. Walk into a crowd of a few hundred people and odds are a few of them are asexual. Walk into a city of a few hundred thousand and a few hundred of them are asexual. There are over 300 million people in the United States, which means there are over 3 million estimated asexuals in the United States alone.

 

However, even when you leave out asexuality, not everyone wants to jump the first person they get to know. There are people with naturally low sex drives. There are people who are afraid of love or sex (erotophobia), often due to traumatic experiences. There are people who are just not mentally or emotionally in a place where they want it. There may be people who acknowledge that another person is attractive intellectually but just not be interested in them physically.

 

There are so many other factors besides "We're close + I have a sex drive = I want to have sex with you."

 

I mey agree with you if PE was eroge when sexual scenes are at least 40% time of the game .. but in this cas when we are talking about more romantic love + sex not sex + romatic love (witch is much difrent) so i don't see the point ..

 

The only thing that platonic love and sex + love is difrent is that in secound characters have sex (becouse their are sexual and honest about them selfs) and i don't see how it is makeing them "shallow"

 

Again, I never said that. In fact, I said the opposite of that. I said meaningful platonic relationships are harder to pull off than romantic relationships because there are so many stock romantic lines, situations and formulas that are easy to fall into. It's easy to depict two characters as being deeply attached when there's sexual attraction, love at first sight, etc. It's harder to create situations and conversations that make people believably close without resorting to "they were in love" or "sparks were flying in the air." Therefor, I can see why many people feel that more platonic relationships would benefit to the game, though I don't agree with the extreme belief that romance would hurt it.

 

I believe that the belief that "platonic = deep, romantic = shallow" of other posters is just as incorrect as your belief that "two people who care about each other and have sex drives = they must want to have sex with each other." I find both reasoning to be equally incorrect. A romantic relationship can be deep, a platonic relationship can be shallow, and two characters can love or care about each other deeply without wanting to jump into bed with each other.

Edited by Faerunner

"Not I, though. Not I," said the hanging dwarf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If a boy is in love with a grill, he's a very odd boy indeed.

 

(I know, I know. But I had to. :) )

 

 

What you dont like barbecue ? I love them hehe :devil:

 

 

 

:grin:

"Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss”

John Milton 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

his is friendship and recpect not "love". Od course there is something like "familly" love, you can love someone even if he/she is not blood related but this is more like friendship+ respect + platonic love.

 

Secoundly if you have a boy and a gril and they both "love" ech other and their both have something like "sexual desire". So they can love ech other normally and have sex or they can love ech other platonicly and taking theirs ugres them selfs (i know that you know what i mean) ... with in you opinoin is more likely ?

 

And you think they're incapable of loving each without wanting to act out their sexual desire with each other? 

 

Maybe they're just not attracted to each other. Maybe one or both are gay. Maybe they're just not each other's type. Maybe one/both are already attracted to or in a relationship with someone else but still care very deeply enough about each other to feel love. You think men and women are physically and psychologically incapable of loving each other without also being sexually attracted to each other? It's not possible to care about a friend deeply enough to love them without being in love or in lust? Is that what you're saying? 

 

Im not sure if im getting you right .... you say that platonic is deep but love with sex is shallow ?!

 

No, that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Please read for context. 

 

Sorry but only difrence beteen romantic with sex love and platonic is that in first their both desire ech other and have sex .. nothing more...

 

Love is love. Whether you feel romantic or sexual attraction on top of it determines whether it's romantic love, sexual love, or platonic love.

 

My issue is you seem to believe that grown people are incapable of loving each other without wanting sex from each other, which I find fallacious.

 

Yes for example sherlock holmes was asexual  :)

 

But as a good example he NEVER lovel romanticly any one, only Irene Adler was a woman who he "admire" or "recpect" .. but he don't love her ...

 

One fictional character is not the one all-encompassing example of what asexuality is. Please educate yourself on real asexual people.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VicXQ7ZAF84

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOiPGqQUV2A

 

Of course there are asexual people on the planet but how many are them ? if 1 to 100 then i whoud be suprised ....

 

Actually, 1 to 100 IS the estimated percentage of asexual people. 1% of the population. That may not seem like much, but add it up and it becomes a lot of people very quickly. Walk into a crowd of a few hundred people and odds are a few of them are asexual. Walk into a city of a few hundred thousand and a few hundred of them are asexual. There are over 300 million people in the United States, which means there are over 3 million estimated asexuals in the United States alone.

 

However, even when you leave out asexuality, not everyone wants to jump the first person they get to know. There are people with naturally low sex drives. There are people who are afraid of love or sex (erotophobia), often due to traumatic experiences. There are people who are just not mentally or emotionally in a place where they want it. There may be people who acknowledge that another person is attractive intellectually but just not be interested in them physically.

 

There are so many other factors besides "We're close + I have a sex drive = I want to have sex with you."

 

I mey agree with you if PE was eroge when sexual scenes are at least 40% time of the game .. but in this cas when we are talking about more romantic love + sex not sex + romatic love (witch is much difrent) so i don't see the point ..

 

The only thing that platonic love and sex + love is difrent is that in secound characters have sex (becouse their are sexual and honest about them selfs) and i don't see how it is makeing them "shallow"

 

Again, I never said that. In fact, I said the opposite of that. I said meaningful platonic relationships are harder to pull off than romantic relationships because there are so many stock romantic lines, situations and formulas that are easy to fall into. It's easy to depict two characters as being deeply attached when there's sexual attraction, love at first sight, etc. It's harder to create situations and conversations that make people believably close without resorting to "they were in love" or "sparks were flying in the air." Therefor, I can see why many people feel that more platonic relationships would benefit to the game, though I don't agree with the extreme belief that romance would hurt it.

 

I believe that the belief that "platonic = deep, romantic = shallow" of other posters is just as incorrect as your belief that "two people who care about each other and have sex drives = they must want to have sex with each other." I find both reasoning to be equally incorrect. A romantic relationship can be deep, a platonic relationship can be shallow, and two characters can love or care about each other deeply without wanting to jump into bed with each other.

 

 

 

@ Faerunner

 

I appreciate your  posts and the effort you are putting in to explain your point. As you probably gathered I am one of those that expects and wants Romance\Sex in PE. I have mentioned this before but in the interests of you understanding this perspective I am going to summarize my view again

 

  • Of course we all know that you can have a meaningful relationship without sex but we are talking about a party of people involved in a heroic and epic quest to kill dragons, banish demons and save the world. If there is an attraction and an emotional connection between party members it is highly unlikely that during the many nights of people camping together and facing death on a daily basis people wouldn't have sex. I argue that this absolutely reflects realistic and immersive behaviour and in fact to not expect some sexual conduct is unrealistic
  • People are quite happy and comfortable to have Obsidian implement features where the party members learn multiple  spells, explore complex  dungeons, travel to exotic lands, go on challenging quests but the thought of them including Romance\Sex is anathema? I don't get this  as I question how difficult this would be considering all the other expectations on Obsidian
  • Finally as usual the implementation of Romance\Sex is optional. So if you are opposed to it you don't need to follow this type of plot development. But I don't see why it should be blocked  for those that enjoy it?

That's my view in summary :)

Edited by BruceVC

"Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss”

John Milton 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

two characters can love or care about each other deeply without wanting to jump into bed with each other.

 

Mayby they can and i give you credit that this "can" be possibly becouse of asexualiti, or sexual difrences or wery deep deeep form or friendship.

 

But still i don't get a point with "jumping intu a bed" or "jumping on a bowner" type of logic ... the sexual act between two people who love ech other is not just "get laid" becouse their horny ...

 

A sexual act between two loving people is another way to show your love to ech other. So beisaclu two people that are atracted to ech other, are deeply in love and don't have other issues like "rape victim" or other things. Their will do what thay can to show their intrests and their love. With in that case sex is just another part of shownig another one that you love him/her .. and it complatly difrent then sex between two people that don't love ech other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I dunno about "romance options," but it seems to me that romance options (the ones without quotes that aren't alleged, suspect things) are perfectly fine. If anything, it seems to me that you're equivocating "romance options" with actual romance options, as if crappily done ones that "override" things (aka "The devs just put in a romance potentiality and not a non-romance relationship potentiality... simple lopsided omission, really) are all there is, just because no one's ever done it correctly, without omitting all non-romance aspects of relationships for that character.

More like conflating than equivocating, methinks.

 

Thing is, as you say, it's never been done right. That means that the people who want romance options are talking about the stuff that's been done wrong. I do not want any of that stuff.

 

I'm also something of an empiricist, and I understand at least something about what it's like to write stuff. Based on this, I think you're being, frankly, unrealistic. You want something that probably can't be done -- at least not by the people making these things, within the constraints under which they're operating. Attempting something that can't be done usually doesn't turn out well. I would prefer to avoid that.

 

And, for what it's worth, I wasn't equivocating. Romance is a form of personal affection. That is in no way a claim that all personal affection = romance. Romance DOES = personal affection. Personal affection does not necessarily = romance.

You do know that = is commutative? If a = b, then b = a. So you are equivocating, and you most definitely were equivocating when you claimed that my opposition to in-game romance implies that I must also be opposed to all forms of in-game personal affection-

 

Yeah, I could write a game with varied, interesting, and deep interpersonal relationships of various types.

Could you? Wow.

 

But, while we're waiting on that (which could take a while, since I'd need to do a GREAT deal of studying to learn the coding on all that, THEN raise enough money to actually have the time and resources to code all that, from scratch), it could, perchance, be prudent to suggest that this already-in-development game, in whose forums we are currently discussing, make such an attempt. I don't think that's crazy. Really, I'm not even asking them to attempt it. I'm merely saying "Hey, if you're gonna do romance options, lets make sure they aren't 'romance options,' and that they are literally what the name suggests."

In that case, I would humbly submit that we have reached an impasse. You believe that it's a realistic proposition. I do not. We have both made our preferences clear. Given the stage the game is in (nearing production), I would expect these decisions have already been made in any case, so all we can do is wait and see.

 

If they do manage to put in romance options that aren't 'romance options' and do not eclipse non-romantic interpersonal relationships, then I will be duly chastised and salute them for their writing skills. Until then, I remain skeptical.

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with romance in games -- especially multiple characters as "romance options" -- is that if you write a character as a "romance option," then you automatically do not write the relationship with that character as some other type of interaction. The one rules out the other.

Using this logic, any type of relationship with a character(from friendship to rivalry) that is written for a character supersedes any other possible relationship. Doing so is bad design because it restricts content to particular types of PCs who want to pursue a particular relationship with an NPC, which was one of the main complaints(and something I agree with) about romances. Now IMO, the actual problem is that most games use a binary influence system that registers that the NPC likes or dislikes the PC instead of attempting to implement a system that includes complex and "deep" relationships rather than the "friendship/romantically involved" that has become the stale standard. I would rather see PE explore more negative or impersonal relationships that have rarely been done well in PE(like rivalries and "two people who work together but are cold towards each other"(not sure of a proper word)) than the ones that have been done over and over(like friendships and romances).

 

I think the best solution is Ieo's suggestion of having branching paths for relationships with similar amounts of exclusive content for each type of relationship possible with the NPC. Implementing it in PE will be much easier than implementing a similar system in previous Obsidian games, seeing as they do not have to shell out money for voice actors and animated conversations.

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlsnot

"You need to be careful, lest I write another ten page essay on mythology and how it relates to Sailor Moon." - majestic

"I won't say what just in case KaineParker is reading" - Bartimaeus

"Oh no! Is there super secret ending as well? I don’t care." - Wormerine

Link to post
Share on other sites

Schwingers aside, when it comes to NPC relationships I have no particular preference either way. I think the writers should be the ones to decide whether there should be NPC romances or not. What I do want though, is some sort of a dialogue, acknowledgement, or growing relationship of approval or disapproval depending on how various situations are handled by the player character. Give the NPCs some life, but don't throw in a romance just because it's the cliché thing to do! If there IS a romance of some sort, consider alluding to it at the end of the whole shebang, after the BBEG is defeated, the world is saved, yada, yada. Then we can talk about the PC being toight like a tiger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, as you say, it's never been done right. That means that the people who want romance options are talking about the stuff that's been done wrong. I do not want any of that stuff.

A) I'm a person advocating romance options, and I'm not talking about any specific existing-game things that is comprised of "the stuff that's been done wrong."

 

B) If someone builds a shed out of wood, and they engineer it incorrectly, and it collapses in a light rain storm, do you jump to the conclusion that wood is not a useful material in building a shed? When something's done wrong, it's very rarely done 100% wrong. I can cook a delicious recipe, then put 2 tablespoons of ghost-pepper sauce into it, and make the whole thing spicy beyond consuming for most people. Yet, 98% of the recipe was completely unproblematic.

 

 

I'm also something of an empiricist, and I understand at least something about what it's like to write stuff. Based on this, I think you're being, frankly, unrealistic. You want something that probably can't be done -- at least not by the people making these things, within the constraints under which they're operating.

 

While I recognize that collecting data from existing attempts is valuable, I hardly believe it provides conclusive evidence, in any capacity, as to the possibility of something being done properly.

 

 

You do know that = is commutative? If a = b, then b = a. So you are equivocating, and you most definitely were equivocating when you claimed that my opposition to in-game romance implies that I must also be opposed to all forms of in-game personal affection-

 

This one's on me, and I apologize. I shouldn't have used "=" signs to say what I was trying to. What I meant was, that whole "all romance is personal affection, but not all personal affection = romance" thing. In other words, romance is a form of personal affection, rather than being an entirely separate entity. You are very correct that, in mathematical expression, the sign I used is commutative. Again, my mistake.

 

 

Could you? Wow.

 

Yup. As I said, I'm certain it would take me quite a while. I'm confident, however, that I possess the capability to do so, with the right amount of time and resources. People write books of the same nature, all the time. The only difference is divergent possibility. Actually, that wasn't a specified criteria, so I could make a purely linear game that just so happened to have interesting and varied inter-character relationships. :). But, I'm mainly being silly with that, for what it's worth. I know you meant it to be understood that the game wasn't simply a book you play through.

 

 

In that case, I would humbly submit that we have reached an impasse. You believe that it's a realistic proposition. I do not. We have both made our preferences clear. Given the stage the game is in (nearing production), I would expect these decisions have already been made in any case, so all we can do is wait and see.

 

If they do manage to put in romance options that aren't 'romance options' and do not eclipse non-romantic interpersonal relationships, then I will be duly chastised and salute them for their writing skills. Until then, I remain skeptical.

I humbly acknowledge this. I have no interest in dictating what you should and should not decide. I simply enjoy analysis of the objective bases (basises?) of such decisions. In this one, there is no conclusive answer, either way, so far be it from me to say that it's definitely possible. It would be just as silly to tell you you cannot believe it's not possible as it would be for you to tell me that I cannot believe it IS possible. :)

 

Thanks for co-opping the topic with me, though. For realsies. I understand your perspective better than I did before all this. Just because I still believe it's possible doesn't mean that development of understanding is meaningless. I await with you, to see what does come of all this in Obsidian's game.

Edited by Lephys

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not Faerunner, but I'd like to give my view on your view, BruceVC. I hope you don't mind.

 

Of course we all know that you can have a meaningful relationship without sex but we are talking about a party of people involved in a heroic and epic quest to kill dragons, banish demons and save the world. If there is an attraction and an emotional connection between party members it is highly unlikely that during the many nights of people camping together and facing death on a daily basis people wouldn't have sex. I argue that this absolutely reflects realistic and immersive behaviour and in fact to not expect some sexual conduct is unrealistic

 

Well, I argue that, when people have things to do in camp (such as spell memorization, or duties like cooking, night watches and stuff like that), when they are physically and mentally exhausted from facing death on a daily basis, when there's a lot of factors that can make a person think "maybe another day", the realistic and immersive thing to do would be to NOT expect sexual conduct. Sexual needs are simply a pretty low priority, and not even everyone has needs that have to be relieved, as Faerunner detailed.

 

Even if there were characters that absolutely had needs to relief, the realistic and immersive thing to expect would be to NOT do that with each other. That takes a lot more time and care to pull off than just doing it yourself.

 

So there you have it: two different views of a situation, where both can feel authentic. Perhaps the former is more relatable to you, but for many others it will be what I said. Who is more right? That is for the developers to decide, according to the feel they want to give the story. But there is something I can say: if directly opposite approaches can feel realistic for people, then it means that this argument is pointless. Remember: the story comes first. What matters is that what is in the game feels appropiate to the situation, and that can happen with both.

 

Now, you could argue "but Lurky, I play RPGs because I like indulging in the things you say are unlikely, such as getting laid with hot women that totally desire me. Don't I have the right to such fantasies?". In which case I can say "sure, but my fantasies involve not having to deal with the kind of situation you describe, because it really does not appeal to me at all". You want sexualized women with fleshed out romances in your party, I want professional women with fleshed out personalities in my party. So we're not going to be in agreement with this either, because both situations are mutually exclusive.

 

People are quite happy and comfortable to have Obsidian implement features where the party members learn multiple  spells, explore complex  dungeons, travel to exotic lands, go on challenging quests but the thought of them including Romance\Sex is anathema? I don't get this  as I question how difficult this would be considering all the other expectations on Obsidian

 

People are quite happy and content expecting that from Obsidian because 1) they pretty much promised they would do so, and 2), they have a reasonably good track record on being able to do it successfully. In the case of romance, none of the points I said apply.

 

Why do you keep mentioning sex, by the way? Do you expect Obsidian to animate isometric sex scenes with tiny humanoid figures getting it on or something? This is not a cinematic experience like recent Bioware games :huh:

 

Finally as usual the implementation of Romance\Sex is optional. So if you are opposed to it you don't need to follow this type of plot development. But I don't see why it should be blocked  for those that enjoy it?

 

I don't think it's a matter of actively blocking this kind of content. It's a matter of priorizing content and romance not making the cut.

 

In a world with infinite money, infinite time, infinite computing power and infinite human intelligence to implement it, I don't see why the attempt shouldn't be made. That's because a world with infinite resources would mean things like infinite numbers of lifelike potential party members with an infinity of fully fleshed out relationships routes that accounted for an infinity of NPC likes and dislikes, so having fleshed out romance paths would not diminish other parts of the game at all.

 

(Of course, if a game was done like this, people would not like it because a lot of highly complex and mutually exclusive choices would mean that romances would be as complicated as in the real world. But that's another thing.)

 

Alas, PE is not a project with infinite resources. In fact, they don't even have abundant resources, like AAA studios. Their resources are limited, which means that they have to prioritize. They already limited the number of companions to 8 during the Kickstarter campaign, because writing companions is an incredible amount of work. Do you know how much more work do romances take to make? Can you imagine how costly it would be to make them well? That is the reason why they get so much opposition. In order to make them justice, they would need a big effort, which would impact other writing areas. For people with romance on a low priority, it's not worth it.

 

Of course, if romance has a high priority for you, this decision will probably bum you out. But hey, I've already accepted that the game will not push all my buttons. I'm sure you could handle that if you had to, too. And if not, you can always try mods.

 

Speaking about mods: I'll hold you to your claim that you can do romances well, Lephys. When PE comes, I want to see what you can do there :biggrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@ Faerunner

 

I appreciate your  posts and the effort you are putting in to explain your point. As you probably gathered I am one of those that expects and wants Romance\Sex in PE. I have mentioned this before but in the interests of you understanding this perspective I am going to summarize my view again

 

  • Of course we all know that you can have a meaningful relationship without sex but we are talking about a party of people involved in a heroic and epic quest to kill dragons, banish demons and save the world. If there is an attraction and an emotional connection between party members it is highly unlikely that during the many nights of people camping together and facing death on a daily basis people wouldn't have sex. I argue that this absolutely reflects realistic and immersive behaviour and in fact to not expect some sexual conduct is unrealistic

 

I'm not saying the presence of any love or sex is unrealistic. I simply got the impression that Ulquiorra was implying that men and women can't be friends or love each other without being sexually attracted to each other, or wanting to act on that attraction, which I refuted. I got the impression that it's like that all too common saying: "Men and women can't be friends because the sex would get in the way," which I find this attitude demeaning to both genders. To me, it implies that men are incapable of emotionally bonding with a woman without it being physical, women are incapable of being liked unless they're giving physical pleasure, and vice-versa.

 

Not saying sex can't or shouldn't happen in this game, but I don't agree with the implication that it has to happen because people can't bond without sex.

  •  

    People are quite happy and comfortable to have Obsidian implement features where the party members learn multiple  spells, explore complex  dungeons, travel to exotic lands, go on challenging quests but the thought of them including Romance\Sex is anathema? I don't get this  as I question how difficult this would be considering all the other expectations on Obsidian

This is something I don't understand either. I would love to have romance and sex too... as long as it's optional for the player character. If some companions flirt or bed each other in a realistic manner, I'm completely fine with it. (In fact, I think it should occur in more games. BioWare has toyed with companions that are not romanced by the PC falling for each other in alternate situations, like DA:O's Alistair and Leliana being rumored to be lovers in an AU DLC and DA2's Isabela and Fenris having a casual fling if the PC never romances either... and the majority of the fanbase flipped their ****. The amount of people who are apauled that their companions dare get involved with anyone but their protagonist - even if their said protagonist doesn't show interest in them - is rather disgusting.) As long as my character doesn't have to show interest or break someone's heart (because I don't like the implication that people have to be physically attracted to others for some arbitrary assumption like "You're hot + all people have a sex drive = let's test it out together"), I don't mind.

  •  

    Finally as usual the implementation of Romance\Sex is optional. So if you are opposed to it you don't need to follow this type of plot development. But I don't see why it should be blocked  for those that enjoy it?

This, I agree with. Sorry if it seemed like I was saying the opposite. The truth is I've been advocating for optional romance all along. I think it would be prudent to have the option to romance for those who want it (since I think enough people do that it would be worth the time and resources) but also to have the option not to romance for those that don't want it (because I also think enough people don't want it that it shouldn't be required or come with gameplay and roleplay penalties, like losing influence, buffs, items, losing access to parts of companion quests or character arcs like Jack from ME2, etc.)

Edited by Faerunner
  • Like 1

"Not I, though. Not I," said the hanging dwarf.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Of course we all know that you can have a meaningful relationship without sex but we are talking about a party of people involved in a heroic and epic quest to kill dragons, banish demons and save the world. If there is an attraction and an emotional connection between party members it is highly unlikely that during the many nights of people camping together and facing death on a daily basis people wouldn't have sex. I argue that this absolutely reflects realistic and immersive behaviour and in fact to not expect some sexual conduct is unrealistic
  • Finally as usual the implementation of Romance\Sex is optional. So if you are opposed to it you don't need to follow this type of plot development. But I don't see why it should be blocked  for those that enjoy it?

  1. One of the arguments against romance is that - how it has been implemented so far - is that you don't have a very interesting companion UNLESS you pursue the romance.  Therefore for many people this isn't a "well I won't use the feature so its development is a neutral issue" to "this feature could actively nerf joinable companions"
  2. Facing death on a daily basis might lead the party to actually want to get some rest instead of copulate.  To be honest this is one of those things that is going to be HIGHLY dependent on the PC and NPCs and the situation IMO.
  3. You used the word "immersive", therefore I have a mild hate of you now.   :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

  • Of course we all know that you can have a meaningful relationship without sex but we are talking about a party of people involved in a heroic and epic quest to kill dragons, banish demons and save the world. If there is an attraction and an emotional connection between party members it is highly unlikely that during the many nights of people camping together and facing death on a daily basis people wouldn't have sex. I argue that this absolutely reflects realistic and immersive behaviour and in fact to not expect some sexual conduct is unrealistic
  • Finally as usual the implementation of Romance\Sex is optional. So if you are opposed to it you don't need to follow this type of plot development. But I don't see why it should be blocked  for those that enjoy it?
  • One of the arguments against romance is that - how it has been implemented so far - is that you don't have a very interesting companion UNLESS you pursue the romance.  Therefore for many people this isn't a "well I won't use the feature so its development is a neutral issue" to "this feature could actively nerf joinable companions"
  • Facing death on a daily basis might lead the party to actually want to get some rest instead of copulate.  To be honest this is one of those things that is going to be HIGHLY dependent on the PC and NPCs and the situation IMO.
  • You used the word "immersive", therefore I have a mild hate of you now.   :)

I would agree, but ever since you changed your avatar from the blonde, I feel a bit angry every time I see you post.

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlsnot

"You need to be careful, lest I write another ten page essay on mythology and how it relates to Sailor Moon." - majestic

"I won't say what just in case KaineParker is reading" - Bartimaeus

"Oh no! Is there super secret ending as well? I don’t care." - Wormerine

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not Faerunner, but I'd like to give my view on your view, BruceVC. I hope you don't mind.

 

Of course we all know that you can have a meaningful relationship without sex but we are talking about a party of people involved in a heroic and epic quest to kill dragons, banish demons and save the world. If there is an attraction and an emotional connection between party members it is highly unlikely that during the many nights of people camping together and facing death on a daily basis people wouldn't have sex. I argue that this absolutely reflects realistic and immersive behaviour and in fact to not expect some sexual conduct is unrealistic

 

Well, I argue that, when people have things to do in camp (such as spell memorization, or duties like cooking, night watches and stuff like that), when they are physically and mentally exhausted from facing death on a daily basis, when there's a lot of factors that can make a person think "maybe another day", the realistic and immersive thing to do would be to NOT expect sexual conduct. Sexual needs are simply a pretty low priority, and not even everyone has needs that have to be relieved, as Faerunner detailed.

 

Even if there were characters that absolutely had needs to relief, the realistic and immersive thing to expect would be to NOT do that with each other. That takes a lot more time and care to pull off than just doing it yourself.

 

So there you have it: two different views of a situation, where both can feel authentic. Perhaps the former is more relatable to you, but for many others it will be what I said. Who is more right? That is for the developers to decide, according to the feel they want to give the story. But there is something I can say: if directly opposite approaches can feel realistic for people, then it means that this argument is pointless. Remember: the story comes first. What matters is that what is in the game feels appropiate to the situation, and that can happen with both.

 

Now, you could argue "but Lurky, I play RPGs because I like indulging in the things you say are unlikely, such as getting laid with hot women that totally desire me. Don't I have the right to such fantasies?". In which case I can say "sure, but my fantasies involve not having to deal with the kind of situation you describe, because it really does not appeal to me at all". You want sexualized women with fleshed out romances in your party, I want professional women with fleshed out personalities in my party. So we're not going to be in agreement with this either, because both situations are mutually exclusive.

 

People are quite happy and comfortable to have Obsidian implement features where the party members learn multiple  spells, explore complex  dungeons, travel to exotic lands, go on challenging quests but the thought of them including Romance\Sex is anathema? I don't get this  as I question how difficult this would be considering all the other expectations on Obsidian

 

People are quite happy and content expecting that from Obsidian because 1) they pretty much promised they would do so, and 2), they have a reasonably good track record on being able to do it successfully. In the case of romance, none of the points I said apply.

 

Why do you keep mentioning sex, by the way? Do you expect Obsidian to animate isometric sex scenes with tiny humanoid figures getting it on or something? This is not a cinematic experience like recent Bioware games :huh:

 

Finally as usual the implementation of Romance\Sex is optional. So if you are opposed to it you don't need to follow this type of plot development. But I don't see why it should be blocked  for those that enjoy it?

 

I don't think it's a matter of actively blocking this kind of content. It's a matter of priorizing content and romance not making the cut.

 

In a world with infinite money, infinite time, infinite computing power and infinite human intelligence to implement it, I don't see why the attempt shouldn't be made. That's because a world with infinite resources would mean things like infinite numbers of lifelike potential party members with an infinity of fully fleshed out relationships routes that accounted for an infinity of NPC likes and dislikes, so having fleshed out romance paths would not diminish other parts of the game at all.

 

(Of course, if a game was done like this, people would not like it because a lot of highly complex and mutually exclusive choices would mean that romances would be as complicated as in the real world. But that's another thing.)

 

Alas, PE is not a project with infinite resources. In fact, they don't even have abundant resources, like AAA studios. Their resources are limited, which means that they have to prioritize. They already limited the number of companions to 8 during the Kickstarter campaign, because writing companions is an incredible amount of work. Do you know how much more work do romances take to make? Can you imagine how costly it would be to make them well? That is the reason why they get so much opposition. In order to make them justice, they would need a big effort, which would impact other writing areas. For people with romance on a low priority, it's not worth it.

 

Of course, if romance has a high priority for you, this decision will probably bum you out. But hey, I've already accepted that the game will not push all my buttons. I'm sure you could handle that if you had to, too. And if not, you can always try mods.

 

Speaking about mods: I'll hold you to your claim that you can do romances well, Lephys. When PE comes, I want to see what you can do there :biggrin:

 

Thanks for the detailed response Lurky, I appreciate your view :)

 

We will just have to agree to disagree. I think Romance/Sex should and can be implemented without too much effort. I am talking about either a DA or BG2 Romance/Sex so you don't need to show movies like in DA. Another reason I want Romance/Sex is that I always imagine and try to identify with my characters and there trials and tribulations. A journey where you have to save the world, meet people who are prepared to die for you and you are attracted to but somehow you can't date them or have sex with them would be a journey that is lacking something. Something normal and evocative. So that's why I want Romance\Sex in PE

"Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss”

John Milton 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just thought of something. I know theres supposed to be 1 or 2 more NPC's that haven't been revealed yet but so far the only two females are the dwarf and cleric, right? Kinda slim pickings for the M/F and F/F relationships.

 

You've raised a concerning point, I hope there will be a few  characters we don't know about.

"Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss”

John Milton 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the issue is whether it's "realistic" or believable that the characters become romantically attached during the story. It's whether portraying this is central enough to the game to include, especially at the expense of other important aspects of the characters/setting. Games usually don't give deep portrayals of the characters' philosophical or artistic inclinations, or of their faith or health issues, although these are often of the greatest importance to one's life. P:E might include some such themes, but whether romance is important enough for the game, for reasons other than the fact that some people (myself included, admittedly) enjoy playing dating sim in RPGs, is separate from whether it's believable that romance could happen during the story.

 

It's also a separate question whether the game would be improved by including romance - you know, whether Marlow falling in love with the native princess for the sake of having a romance aspect to the story would make Heart of Darkness better...

Edited by centurionofprix
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...