Romance, Marriage, Pregnancy and having Children.

[Lurky]

I want to thank everyone who posted in this thread, yeah  I am new (and there will be other new people coming as the game gets closer to being published, so brace yourselves for more noob questions).

 

I was just interested in knowing if they would be any and to the limit at which it would go [kids – form my point a view an epic game (time wise) spanning your and others life time].

 

I hear both sides of the argument for or against it and see where both sides are coming from and can't agree with either of them, bot equally valid (imo).

 

Glad to see that you're reading both sides

 

There is no official word on children being represented in the world, as far as I know. If you mean the possibility of the PC being a father (or a mother! no matter what you might think about it, I'm certain that some female players would like that possibility too), well, if the very existence of romances is questionable, thinking about kids might be a little premature, don't you think?

 

My conclusion on the matter, I feel romance adds more to a game rather than detracts. You get more dialogue options that expand from the standard base conversation/story line and add onto it.

 

For the people who happen to be uninterested in pursuing romances, that happens to be one of the grievances I mentioned. There is no reason why expanding the standard base conversation/story line and adding onto it should be limited to a romance, is it? Platonic relationships are also possible, and they can also expand the characters and let you know more about them. If you want to deepen your relationship with a character but are not interested in a romantic relationship, the Baldur's Gate implementation gives the player no options.

 

Previous threads proposed a solution for this, which is to have two paralel, mutually exclusive relationship paths per character, the platonic and the romantic. The problems to this are several, of course. First, it means that the time of writing a character is pretty much doubled, and resources are limited. Second, it means that the early interactions have to be ambiguous enough for both paths to work, and many people are not happy with the results of that. If they're not ambiguous then either they veer towards the platonic (and the romancers don't like that they have to be the ones coming strongly to the characters), or they veer towards the romantic (and the nonromancers are uneasy at the fact that they have to turn down their friends). No good solution has been found for this.

 

I think develops aren't at the point of romance yet in the game creation (seems like an after thought to me, rather than a design focus) and don't want to talk about adding them just yet, but in all likelihood they will be in final product to some degree.

 

If you are thinking of Aerie or Viconia's romances, then I can guarantee you that they are not an afterthought. You might be thinking of the strictly romantic dialogue you encounter, but for that to look natural, the entire character and character dialogue has to be designed in a way that it fits. I'm not sure if the writers have the companion arcs and possible interactions with the PC charted already, but the decision to include a romance path or not is far earlier and has far wider repercussions than you might think.

 

If not they could pull a Bethesda Studio and hope that the modding community (“fix”) add it to the game themselves.

 

Of course. Mods will happen regardless of what the developers choose. And even if PE ends up having no romances at all, there is enough of a fanbase around them that mods will certainly cover this

Edited July 10, 2013 by Lurky

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'd like to have a companion in my group who is a father/ mother running away from family. Roleplaying should also consist of personal problems as such. Even if this reveals that my party buddy is an ****.

 

I knew Forton looked like a deadbeat dad...

[nikolokolus]

The only thing that might make any sense is knocking up a bar wench and making sure that your barbarian ensures his bloodline.  But what if the player wants to play a female character or romance a female party member?  Are you going to take nine months off from saving the world to ensure a live birth?  So in this case I take it you abandon the little tot at the nearest monastery or nunnery at the first chance, so you can get back to hacking and chopping your way across the world, facing untold horrors, delving into the darkness of Od Nua and spitting in Death's eye?  That's some grade A parenting right there.

[BruceVC]

I want to thank everyone who posted in this thread, yeah  I am new (and there will be other new people coming as the game gets closer to being published, so brace yourselves for more noob questions).

 

I was just interested in knowing if they would be any and to the limit at which it would go [kids – form my point a view an epic game (time wise) spanning your and others life time].

 

I hear both sides of the argument for or against it and see where both sides are coming from and can't agree with either of them, bot equally valid (imo).

 

My conclusion on the matter, I feel romance adds more to a game rather than detracts. You get more dialogue options that expand from the standard base conversation/story line and add onto it.

 

Take Viconia's Romance from BGII for example, you could have the standard oh your a Drow, oh your Evil, tell me about your people conversation. Then you can add love/hate to the mix (expanded dialogue options). The one side, oh your evil race, you should feel bad for who and what you are, I don't like you and your going to have to change if you want to be in my group OR the other, Oh you poor misunderstood creature, I will befriend you (romance ensues). This is fictitious, it doesn't play out like that in game but you should get my point.

 

I think develops aren't at the point of romance yet in the game creation (seems like an after thought to me, rather than a design focus) and don't want to talk about adding them just yet, but in all likelihood they will be in final product to some degree. If not they could pull a Bethesda Studio and hope that the modding community (“fix”) add it to the game themselves.

 

Edit: On a side note, found this, found it an interesting summery of the romance.

http://www.gamebanshee.com/baldursgateii/npcs/viconia.php

 

I have to say I thought that Viconia was smoking hot and I really enjoyed the whole Romance arc with her. That type of relationship is exactly what I am looking for in PE, it can be optional but allowed you to build a deep understanding and emotional bond with her. Really important when you are trying to save the world that you can experience a little Romance

[BruceVC]

The only thing that might make any sense is knocking up a bar wench and making sure that your barbarian ensures his bloodline.  But what if the player wants to play a female character or romance a female party member?  Are you going to take nine months off from saving the world to ensure a live birth?  So in this case I take it you abandon the little tot at the nearest monastery or nunnery at the first chance, so you can get back to hacking and chopping your way across the world, facing untold horrors, delving into the darkness of Od Nua and spitting in Death's eye?  That's some grade A parenting right there.

 

 

 

That post made me laugh. But somehow I think living in a fantasy world and dealing with dragons, demons and demi-gods I would think the perception that people would have of your parenting skills is probably not a high priority

[nikolokolus]

I can see it now, the combo sword-baldric-child-carrier.  Maybe the littler piker could toss vials of holy water at the zombies hot on your tail?

[khango]

As someone who enjoys the works of Charles Dickens, I can't say that I think a spot of romance ought to be left out.

[Cultist]

I can see it now, the combo sword-baldric-child-carrier.  Maybe the littler piker could toss vials of holy water at the zombies hot on your tail?

I can actually remember some asian film where a guy fought vs a dozen ninjas holding his newborn toddler, tossing and throwing him left and right when he cut another ninja in two and then cathing son in acrobatic jumps.

Before that he put toddler near his mother's corpse and put a sword nearby. The idea was that if toddler would reach for his mother then father will kill him to reunite their spirits, and if his son would reach for sword then he'll raise and train him to get revenge.

It turned out his son was a typical misogynist.

[BruceVC]

I can see it now, the combo sword-baldric-child-carrier.  Maybe the littler piker could toss vials of holy water at the zombies hot on your tail?

 "little piker"

 

The thought of a baby tossing holy water at zombies makes me laugh

[JFSOCC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IszW6GL82U&t=00s01m

 

1 minute in

Edited July 10, 2013 by JFSOCC

[Amentep]

I was thinking more "Lone Wolf and Cub"...

 

 

...although I can't find the actual scene where they use the bladed babycart...

[Ulquiorra]

Romance YES

Sex acts YES

Marriage MAYBY

Pregnancy NO

Having Children YES

 

I whoud more see it like "after defiting archdevil, "Char name" and  "Chick name" become lovers, and after some yers they have child" etc as possibly ending.

 

This require few more dialogs and ending so i don't understand why not make some people happy if it costs so little, i even think that Aribeth type of romane from original campain but with good ending whoud be ok.

 

Beside what about romancing arch enemy, for example:

 

Evil Aribeth, Valsharess, Woman Demon, Vampire etc. and im talking about realy "Evil" ones ...

 

If you are evil then some activitis like rapeing, romancing someone to gain something (power for exampe) or even flirt with someone to make him ally to you cose ... whoud be normal part of your personality ... of course if someone see evil not only as "Joker" type of psychopath .. and serial killer ...

 

Look at BORGIAS they kill, poisoning, assasinaiting, romanceing, sexing, etc .... and they like it hahaha

Edited July 10, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[BruceVC]

Romance YES

Sex acts YES

Marriage MAYBY

Pregnancy NO

Having Children YES

 

 

 

I admire the way you can simplify these discussions Ulquiorra. And its good to have you back and commenting, I was getting outnumbered by the anti-romance people 

[Amentep]

I admire the way you can simplify these discussions Ulquiorra. And its good to have you back and commenting, I was getting outnumbered by the anti-romance people 

I'm not anti-romance.

 

I'm not romance has to be in the game either.

 

If romances are included, I want them to fit the game and the characters and not limit the viability of not romancing NPCs.

 

If they're not there I still expect robust NPCs to have other kinds of human relationships with.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Amentep

[BruceVC]

 

I admire the way you can simplify these discussions Ulquiorra. And its good to have you back and commenting, I was getting outnumbered by the anti-romance people 

I'm not anti-romance.

 

I'm not romance has to be in the game either.

 

If romances are included, I want them to fit the game and the characters and not limit the viability of not romancing NPCs.

 

If they're not there I still expect robust NPCs to have other kinds of human relationships with.

 

 

I know you aren't, I didn't mean to suggest you were with that generalization. Besides I use the term "anti-romance" more tongue and cheek as I have heard many good arguments around how Romance should be implemented from you and others

[Ulquiorra]

In general i think that it is not an option for PE to not haveing any type of romantic/sexual interaction. Even if player is not involved in this, we will see some people that have some kind of romantic/sexual relationship. So why not player ?

 

If i play a game where i can be mage, paladin, barberian, cypher, rogue, fighter, druid, priest, ranger and mayby something else, and in ech i have possibillity to play 1 of 5 races it is a lot of opitons.

 

In that case human mage will act difrently then aumamaua barberian and he will difrently then elfish cypher etc. Thirdly we have backgrouds that gives as even more possibilitys of roleplay.

 

fourtly we have possiblitys to act difrently dyrng the game play and even propably end this game in difrent way....

 

so....

 

If we have so much possibiltys for role play, then why all thes romance-haters want to force those who want romances to THEIR one RIGHT way for playing. I don't want another NWN2 oficial campain in with if you play a fighter or mage you see no difrences beside mechanics....

 

if i want to play anti-sexual monk aumaua i want to see options with can grant me that and i don't want to be forced to flirt that character, but if i want sexual elfish cypher i also want to see that option....

 

we have so mych options for developing character form mechanical point of view, why not from other.... or you guys want to play mage and fighter and discover that there are no difrences in those ...?

 

i sudgest diablo 2

 

No romances

 

Good fight

 

Good Mechanics

 

Loots of looting

 

No character psychical developing ....

[LadyCrimson]

*thinks about making a Diablo2 desert mercenary spear-jabbing joke*

*better not*

[Ulquiorra]

*thinks about making a Diablo2 desert mercenary spear-jabbing joke*

*better not*

 

What ?! :/

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I admire the way you can simplify these discussions Ulquiorra. And its good to have you back and commenting, I was getting outnumbered by the anti-romance people 

I'm not anti-romance.

 

I'm not romance has to be in the game either.

 

If romances are included, I want them to fit the game and the characters and not limit the viability of not romancing NPCs.

 

If they're not there I still expect robust NPCs to have other kinds of human relationships with.

 

That is exactly how I feel. IMO, the biggest problem with romances isn't the content itself, but rather the expectation some players have for the content. I don't think that a romance(in any work of fiction or IRL) needs to be deeper, more complex, and more content-rich than other types of inter-personal relationships to be considered valid. When people argue for making romance more content-rich and deeper than other relationships(because they believe that romances are the deepest inter-personal relationship possible) in games it is perfectly understandable that someone may not want to see them included if they overshadow all other types of relationships.

Edited July 11, 2013 by KaineParker

[Lurky]

I don't see why you are ranting about romance haters, Ulquiorra. Nobody is hating on romances here, merely dissecting what makes them work and what doesn't. It is a necessary step to understanding how to integrate them into the game in a way that everyone is pleased, after all.

 

You know, I was going to examine your posts and try to show the many ways in which you consistently misrepresent what is being said in these threads. I was going to explain why "I don't understand why not make some people happy if it costs so little" is a load of bollocks. I was going to detail what these costs and difficulties are, and why romances are so damn complicated if you truly want to do them well. But what's the point? People have already done so in the several dozens of discussion around this subject, and they have been repeatedly ignored.

 

 

So let me state my point of view in a different way.

 

 

I've been lumped with the group of the antiromancers several times. I find this to be laughable, because, when it comes down to it, I have nothing against them. I have played several games that had them, and you know, there have been one or two cases where a romance did resonate with me, and succeded in making me more emotionally invested into a character in a memorable way.

 

One or two romances, out of the several dozen options available that I've seen in different games of different companies. This is a terrible success ratio. But that's not the point.

 

The point is that, thanks to this, I actually do understand where you guys are coming from. When you talk about how the romance with a certain character touched you, I can relate, because I've been there. When you say that a romance can provide unique roleplaying possibilities, I can understand, because I've had the chance to appreciate them. Do not assume that I'm against you, because I really do get your position.

 

But seeing so many romances means that I've also seen a lot of their failings. I have seen how the romances that did resonate with me also alienated a lot of players and turned them off from the character, because that same romance didn't feel meaningful to them, quite the contrary. I have seen a lot of cringeworthy romances, and have experienced that alienation myself. I have noticed many times how certain romanceable characters felt limited, because their non-romance content either was lacking or it simply did not offer anything comparable to their romance. I have seen how, in the same circumstances, a character that did not bother with a romance path felt more complete, more reactive, and enjoyed a lot more success with the general player population. I know what romances try to achieve, but that doesn't diminish the fact that, in many cases, I have lamented the effect their presence had.

 

 

The truth is, romances are incredibly hit or miss, and there are far, far more misses than there are hits. On top of that, PE will only have 8 companions, for a party of 5+PC, so the margin for misses is even lower. This is a reality that should not be ignored in any way when deciding on what kind of companion interactions should be, and that is what annoys me the most. Even if we don't consider the difficulties of implementing a romance well, people also ignore the risk romances carry.

 

Personally, in the case of PE, I'm of the opinion that the risks and failings are not worth it, especially when the modding community can, and probably will, add lots of romances for everyone. If you have thought critically about this topic and have come to the conclusion that the complications, the resource drain, the risks and the consequences of failure are worth the small chance of having a virtual romance that appeals to you, then I can accept that. But, from all the people I've seen that support romance, do you know how many of them I've seen with that stance, in the entire run of discussion on this subject? I can count them with less than the fingers of one hand.

 

And if you think that I continue posting in these threads because I hate romances, or the people who like them? You are mistaken. I continue posting because romances need to be treated with the gravitas they have, and for this, they desperately need some critical thinking put into them. This will not be achieved if any criticism made about romances is painted as hating. This will not lead to good writing or good romances at all.

[Ieo]

 

I admire the way you can simplify these discussions Ulquiorra. And its good to have you back and commenting, I was getting outnumbered by the anti-romance people 

I'm not anti-romance.

 

I'm not romance has to be in the game either.

 

If romances are included, I want them to fit the game and the characters and not limit the viability of not romancing NPCs.

 

If they're not there I still expect robust NPCs to have other kinds of human relationships with.

 

Bolded, my feeling about it.

 

PE doesn't have enough companions compared to BG1/2 for a bunch of them to have significant romance content and no/very little non-romance content. I mean, then what would be the point of taking those characters if you didn't intend to romance them, rather than one of the adventure hall mercenaries... The BG2 romances failed because there was minimal content for female characters--not even friendship paths. I think there was a friendship mod for Viconia that would work for both male/female PCs, but I didn't try it. And Anomen, well, when I was going to try his content out of curiosity, I killed him after the first conversation.

 

My romance implementation suggestion in sig that should make everyone happy...the trick to that is how much time/money Obsidian is willing to invest into the requisite content writing.

 

I want to see some honest bromance/womance/adoptive-brother-or-sister/family content. That's a content area in which Obsidian can make real inroads because most games don't have that kind of textual nuance, besides PS:T. Like Lurky and others would say, there's too much risk for "miss" when there are only 8 companions that are supposed to have PS:T depth.

 

Leave romances to modders.

[Pshaw]

If they choose to add romances (which I'm for) I'd only want them to add children if it made sense in terms of the time the adventure is supposedly taking place over. I honestly don't believe that PE will take place over an amount of time long enough to make having a child a worthwhile addition to the game. If there is some sort of epilogue sequence that would like to site that the player had a kid with so-and-so then by all means include such a thing. Beyond that though I can't really imagine a good way to include having a child in any reasonable way that wouldn't be some silly managament minigame forced into the game.

As for child killing I don't really mind it. Give it consquences and there's no reason to not include it. Fallout had child killing and certain party members like Sulik wouldn't join you if you were a child killer.

[BruceVC]

I don't see why you are ranting about romance haters, Ulquiorra. Nobody is hating on romances here, merely dissecting what makes them work and what doesn't. It is a necessary step to understanding how to integrate them into the game in a way that everyone is pleased, after all.

 

You know, I was going to examine your posts and try to show the many ways in which you consistently misrepresent what is being said in these threads. I was going to explain why "I don't understand why not make some people happy if it costs so little" is a load of bollocks. I was going to detail what these costs and difficulties are, and why romances are so damn complicated if you truly want to do them well. But what's the point? People have already done so in the several dozens of discussion around this subject, and they have been repeatedly ignored.

 

 

So let me state my point of view in a different way.

 

 

I've been lumped with the group of the antiromancers several times. I find this to be laughable, because, when it comes down to it, I have nothing against them. I have played several games that had them, and you know, there have been one or two cases where a romance did resonate with me, and succeded in making me more emotionally invested into a character in a memorable way.

 

One or two romances, out of the several dozen options available that I've seen in different games of different companies. This is a terrible success ratio. But that's not the point.

 

The point is that, thanks to this, I actually do understand where you guys are coming from. When you talk about how the romance with a certain character touched you, I can relate, because I've been there. When you say that a romance can provide unique roleplaying possibilities, I can understand, because I've had the chance to appreciate them. Do not assume that I'm against you, because I really do get your position.

 

But seeing so many romances means that I've also seen a lot of their failings. I have seen how the romances that did resonate with me also alienated a lot of players and turned them off from the character, because that same romance didn't feel meaningful to them, quite the contrary. I have seen a lot of cringeworthy romances, and have experienced that alienation myself. I have noticed many times how certain romanceable characters felt limited, because their non-romance content either was lacking or it simply did not offer anything comparable to their romance. I have seen how, in the same circumstances, a character that did not bother with a romance path felt more complete, more reactive, and enjoyed a lot more success with the general player population. I know what romances try to achieve, but that doesn't diminish the fact that, in many cases, I have lamented the effect their presence had.

 

 

The truth is, romances are incredibly hit or miss, and there are far, far more misses than there are hits. On top of that, PE will only have 8 companions, for a party of 5+PC, so the margin for misses is even lower. This is a reality that should not be ignored in any way when deciding on what kind of companion interactions should be, and that is what annoys me the most. Even if we don't consider the difficulties of implementing a romance well, people also ignore the risk romances carry.

 

Personally, in the case of PE, I'm of the opinion that the risks and failings are not worth it, especially when the modding community can, and probably will, add lots of romances for everyone. If you have thought critically about this topic and have come to the conclusion that the complications, the resource drain, the risks and the consequences of failure are worth the small chance of having a virtual romance that appeals to you, then I can accept that. But, from all the people I've seen that support romance, do you know how many of them I've seen with that stance, in the entire run of discussion on this subject? I can count them with less than the fingers of one hand.

 

And if you think that I continue posting in these threads because I hate romances, or the people who like them? You are mistaken. I continue posting because romances need to be treated with the gravitas they have, and for this, they desperately need some critical thinking put into them. This will not be achieved if any criticism made about romances is painted as hating. This will not lead to good writing or good romances at all.

 

Good points, I am moving you out of my  " I hate romancers on the Obsidian forums " group

[Ulquiorra]

I don't see why you are ranting about romance haters, Ulquiorra. Nobody is hating on romances here, merely dissecting what makes them work and what doesn't. It is a necessary step to understanding how to integrate them into the game in a way that everyone is pleased, after all.

 

I am not taling about logical and at thinkings people like you who have theirs opinion and some reason behind it. Im talking about people that are more consern about looting dungeons, and spear swinging mechanics then characters "psychical" and "inner develop" with is the core of RPG games.

 

We have games like diablo 2 where you have only fights and looting and it's ok, even i play this type of games if i don't want to think to much.

 

But some people ar opposite to romance without any good reason.

 

 

 

About misses and hits on romance ... you see i know a person who is likeing even Elanee romance from NWN2 with in my opinion was the worst. A good example is "Aiere" (i don't remember name but she was winged elf from BG) some people love tis romance some hate ...

 

The most mises where made nowadays by bioware studio and their way of makeing shallow romances with special efects but they where never good at writhing.

 

the only obsidian romances that i hate is that for Elanee becose she was in general badly desined and don't even compare her to Jaheira ....

 

My personal favorite id Aribeth from NWN1 original, why ? Becose it was one of the most complexed ones,bah ... you even fight with her at the end ...

 

I think that there is not 100 good romances and 100 bad (beside this elanee) most of romance ar something beetwen.

 

For example Morrigan romance from DAO was good in my opinion but becose of EA pushing Biowere to finish erly, it was unfinished ...

Edited July 11, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[quechn1tlan]

Romances in PRGs are stupid, pointless and time\resource consuming for the team. But good luck proving it to Bioware fans and trolls that are plentiful. Maybe I just didn't receive the memo about changing PRGs to Awkward Life Simulators.(Probably came with the one mentioning that FPS are now story-driven corridor shooters)

Don't know why mods consider some romance threads to be the blight that they are, while letting others run amok for pages.