Romance, Marriage, Pregnancy and having Children.

[decado]

 

Nobody ever says of a game, "I hope the devs include a friendship option!!"  There are no friendship mini-games and no awful friendship dialog trees and no demands from Social Justice Warriors that there needs to be a wide variety of friendship options like friendships with trees and animals otherwise specieism!!  The fact is, the quality of interaction with the NPCs is left entirely to good writing and game design. 

 

This isn't true.  There were friendship mini-games in, off the top of my head, KOTOR2, DA:O and DA2, at least insofar as if your companions had high approval of you, you got big bonuses.  The same was true to a limited extent in Planescape: Torment with some characters.  

 

I don't consider the DA:O approval system to be a friendship minigame, mostly because it was gameable with gift giving. You could not be "friends" with Alistair and still get a high approval rating with him.  In fact, this is probably why they called it an "Approval System" and not a "Friendship System."

 

Broadly speaking, I don't think you can treat this stuff as a minigame.  That's how it ends up failing.  The terrific characters in PS:T would still feel like the Nameless One's friends (the ones worthy of befriending, at any rate!) even if they dropped the meta-gaming stuff.  

Edited July 12, 2013 by decado

[Valsuelm]

I've never understood the romance thing in CRPGs.  Bioware basically turned it all into a farce.

 

It was cool in BGII, but coincidentally that was also the last time it was cool.  

 

 

I wouldn't even say it was cool then. It really didn't feel right in the game imo. But it was much more tolerable and much much less annoying than the inyourface implementations in some other games (ie: Dragon Age or The oh yea my character is a male sloot Witcher). That some have come to expect 'romance' and want them so much in their CRPG that there's as many threads in this forum about this subject.... well, to them I say go out and get a "Romance, Marriage, Pregnancy and having Children." in the real world, and perhaps you might not be clamoring so much for such things in this or any other game. There are games such as The Sims that are much better suited for folks who wish to pursue eromances and efamilies than a CRPG game, especially one that is aiming to be a really good one.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

I've never understood the romance thing in CRPGs.  Bioware basically turned it all into a farce.

 

It was cool in BGII, but coincidentally that was also the last time it was cool.  

 

 

I wouldn't even say it was cool then. It really didn't feel right in the game imo. But it was much more tolerable and much much less annoying than the inyourface implementations in some other games (ie: Dragon Age or The oh yea my character is a male sloot Witcher). That some have come to expect 'romance' and want them so much in their CRPG that there's as many threads in this forum about this subject.... well, to them I say go out and get a "Romance, Marriage, Pregnancy and having Children." in the real world, and perhaps you might not be clamoring so much for such things in this or any other game. There are games such as The Sims that are much better suited for folks who wish to pursue eromances and efamilies than a CRPG game, especially one that is aiming to be a really good one.

 

 

So by your logic if I have something in RL I wouldn't want that in an RPG?

 

Okay so lets say in RL I read history books, I hunt recreationally and I enjoy visiting exotic and foreign cities  then I shouldn't  ask for lore, interesting monsters to fight  or exciting dungeons and places to explore in PE? Yeah that makes loads of sense

 

You do know what the definition of a "fantasy RPG " means right?

[Amentep]

You do know what the definition of a "fantasy RPG " means right?

Busty elven women in chain-mail bikinis?

[decado]

Relationships were handled well in BGII, I thought. In that it really didn't have an impact on the story (except providing one tiny side quest).  But it did have an impact on party dynamics and what not.  The relationship with Viconia was really well done, interesting and not at all cookie cutter -- she was basically a half-crazy nomad/outcast suffering from PTSD, and overall a genuine and complete bi***.  But there was still good in her, you just had to help her dig it out and eventually be rewarded with her alignment change in ToB.  

 

That was pretty cool.  But it was also completely optional and, most important, well written and unobtrusive.  And yeah, realistic. Real people are complicated, effed up human beings.  Same with Aerie (even though her arc was kind of annoying) or Jaheira (also kind of annoying) or Anomen (yep, annoying!).  The focal point for all of these characters is loss: Viconia's loss of her homeland, Aerie her wings, Jaheira her husband, and Anomen his father.   Which is maybe why they're all such dark but fairly interesting and relatable characters. 

 

I haven no idea what the hell happened in DA:O or subsequent titles.  No idea at all.

[Ulquiorra]

 

I've never understood the romance thing in CRPGs.  Bioware basically turned it all into a farce.

 

It was cool in BGII, but coincidentally that was also the last time it was cool.  

 

 

I wouldn't even say it was cool then. It really didn't feel right in the game imo. But it was much more tolerable and much much less annoying than the inyourface implementations in some other games (ie: Dragon Age or The oh yea my character is a male sloot Witcher). That some have come to expect 'romance' and want them so much in their CRPG that there's as many threads in this forum about this subject.... well, to them I say go out and get a "Romance, Marriage, Pregnancy and having Children." in the real world, and perhaps you might not be clamoring so much for such things in this or any other game. There are games such as The Sims that are much better suited for folks who wish to pursue eromances and efamilies than a CRPG game, especially one that is aiming to be a really good one.

 

dungeon troller ... go play diablo if you don't want character inteaction...good bye

Edited July 12, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[Ulquiorra]

 

You do know what the definition of a "fantasy RPG " means right?

Busty elven women in chain-mail bikinis?

 

 

An wats "WRONG" with that ? Being sexal id suddenly started to be a crime ?

[BruceVC]

 

You do know what the definition of a "fantasy RPG " means right?

Busty elven women in chain-mail bikinis?

 

That's just part of it

[Amentep]

 

 

You do know what the definition of a "fantasy RPG " means right?

Busty elven women in chain-mail bikinis?

 

 

An wats "WRONG" with that ? Being sexal id suddenly started to be a crime ?

 

Wasn't saying anything was wrong with it, making a joke based on the use of the word "Fantasy"

[Ulquiorra]

 

 

 

You do know what the definition of a "fantasy RPG " means right?

Busty elven women in chain-mail bikinis?

 

 

An wats "WRONG" with that ? Being sexal id suddenly started to be a crime ?

 

Wasn't saying anything was wrong with it, making a joke based on the use of the word "Fantasy"

 

ii se chainmail bikini only when someone says LINEAGE 2 .. not fantasy in general.In all obsidian games even fantasy their were fully

clothed

 

even if busty

Edited July 12, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[Tsuga C]

Unless these questions are answered and someone can tell me why this is also how it should be in RPGs, I'll continue to view CRPG romance as highschool fantasy roleplaying.

When you put a number of young, fit men and women together what happens is a whole lot of he-ing and she-ing goes on and there are undeniable consequences, even in the modern era.

 

I wouldn't mind romance in the game, but it'd need to be written by someone who actually cares to do the job right instead of like the assignment was fingernails on the chalkboard of his soul. Yeah, I'm lookin' at you, C. Avellone!

[Lurky]

I'm feeling talkative today.

 

Nobody ever says of a game, "I hope the devs include a friendship option!!"  There are no friendship mini-games and no awful friendship dialog trees and no demands from Social Justice Warriors that there needs to be a wide variety of friendship options like friendships with trees and animals otherwise specieism!!  The fact is, the quality of interaction with the NPCs is left entirely to good writing and game design. 

 

Romances should be done the exact same way.  Stop thinking about them as a feature or a mini game -- make them part of the story, and that's it.    That's how they are going to be the most effective. 

 

Also, they need to get someone other than frustrated neckbeards to write the characters.  I swear to christ, every single gay/bi character in DA:O or DAII was a stereotype, a flightly hare-brained flirt or a sex fiend or some other dumb trope.  NEWSFLASH: Gay people are just like you and me, they don't act all weird just because they happen to want to bang a certain section of the population. Crazy, I know!

 

Well said.

 

Of course, intertwining romances with the story has the side effect of needing a story that allows that kind of development. Not all stories allow that, and if they don't, this also means that a romance would not be a good fit for them.

 

Considering that PE will be designed so that companions are helpful but completely optional, I wonder if PE will have one of these stories.

 

(That said, I do get where the SJW come from when they ask for diverse romance options. Nobody likes feeling excluded, and seeing how fans enjoy them and wax poetics about their emotional engagement to certain characters while they have nothing of that because their preferences aren't included does kind of suck. But this is also the reason behind the increased focus on romance breadth at the cost of depth, and the invention of playersexuality, so a line clearly needs to be drawn.)

 

 

 

 

You do know what the definition of a "fantasy RPG " means right?

Busty elven women in chain-mail bikinis?

 

An wats "WRONG" with that ? Being sexal id suddenly started to be a crime ?

 

Nothing wrong with having sexual urges, as long as their fulfillment is not a part of the general writing and art direction of the game. Not saying sexiness should be banned, but it should be appropiate to the context, just like romances. And that does not include stretching the contexts to make them fit

 

 

 

I've never understood the romance thing in CRPGs.  Bioware basically turned it all into a farce.

 

It was cool in BGII, but coincidentally that was also the last time it was cool.  

I wouldn't even say it was cool then. It really didn't feel right in the game imo. But it was much more tolerable and much much less annoying than the inyourface implementations in some other games (ie: Dragon Age or The oh yea my character is a male sloot Witcher). That some have come to expect 'romance' and want them so much in their CRPG that there's as many threads in this forum about this subject.... well, to them I say go out and get a "Romance, Marriage, Pregnancy and having Children." in the real world, and perhaps you might not be clamoring so much for such things in this or any other game. There are games such as The Sims that are much better suited for folks who wish to pursue eromances and efamilies than a CRPG game, especially one that is aiming to be a really good one.

 

So by your logic if I have something in RL I wouldn't want that in an RPG?

 

Okay so lets say in RL I read history books, I hunt recreationally and I enjoy visiting exotic and foreign cities  then I shouldn't  ask for lore, interesting monsters to fight  or exciting dungeons and places to explore in PE? Yeah that makes loads of sense

 

You do know what the definition of a "fantasy RPG " means right?

 

I'm not sure if Valsuelm was trolling or not, but he does kind of have a point in his post. Namely, the fact that romance should be experienced in real life, and not in a videogame.

 

(I'm kind of omitting here the perspective of a roleplayer that doesn't engage in self-identification with the PC and considers romances as merely another tool of playing, yeah. That's because the statement I'm about to write doesn't really apply to that kind of player.)

 

I don't think I have to point out that fictional characters can't react to the player's real mood, nor can they touch or hug a physical person (let alone have sex, which is something that a lot of romancers want to see, ironically enough), but it's good to put a reminder of the obvious truth. For all the hype around romances and their power to immerse the players and draw them into the story, they should be taken as what they are: an illusion, and an extremely limited one at that. Forgetting about this is something that the creepy fanbase of BioWare does routinely, so it's not that bad to put the obvious reminder from time to time.

 

I can already hear someone saying "But that's the same for all character interactions! All of them are illusions, why aren't you picking on them?". To this I can say that the absence of physical presence in the real world is much more noticeable and lamented for a lover than for other kinds of relationships (there's a reason why long distance relationships usually don't survive, after all). I think it's fair to say that fictional romances do feel more limited than, say, fictional friendships.

 

 

So far, we know that romances are much harder to implement well, are subjected to much higher expectations, and have a much greater risk of failure, both in terms of emotional resonance and in terms of feeling real. I'm not a fan on making artistic choices based on what's easy to do or not, but damn, videogame romances seem like an especially ruinous investment of time, considering the alternatives. And you can't even be poetic and say that's what makes them worth it, because the things that make real world romances worth it cannot really be done in the games.

 

(No, Bruce, I did not say that "profitable investments of time" should be the primary and overriding criterion for making artistic choices. Just anticipating your response.)

 

[Lephys]

What about evil characters? Shouldn't we be able romance, marry, and halve children?

 

[Bos_hybrid]

 

 

I've never understood the romance thing in CRPGs.  Bioware basically turned it all into a farce.

 

It was cool in BGII, but coincidentally that was also the last time it was cool.  

 

 

I wouldn't even say it was cool then. It really didn't feel right in the game imo. But it was much more tolerable and much much less annoying than the inyourface implementations in some other games (ie: Dragon Age or The oh yea my character is a male sloot Witcher). That some have come to expect 'romance' and want them so much in their CRPG that there's as many threads in this forum about this subject.... well, to them I say go out and get a "Romance, Marriage, Pregnancy and having Children." in the real world, and perhaps you might not be clamoring so much for such things in this or any other game. There are games such as The Sims that are much better suited for folks who wish to pursue eromances and efamilies than a CRPG game, especially one that is aiming to be a really good one.

 

dungeon troller ... go play diablo if you don't want character inteaction...good bye

 

 

Typical otaku, go play Japanese VN if you want romance.

 

You do know what the definition of a "fantasy RPG " means right?

 

Well it's not romance playing game....

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

What about evil characters? Shouldn't we be able romance, marry, and halve children?

 

Are you saying that evil characters are all pedos?

[Lephys]

 

What about evil characters? Shouldn't we be able romance, marry, and halve children?

 

Are you saying that evil characters are all pedos?

 

Not at all. Just that all evil characters are King Solomon.

[Greydragon]

A story without romance is a very dry thing. Sex scenes are unnecessary as anything more than a fade to black. As is children and marriage in anything more than a brief epilogue wrapping up events, unless they are central to the storyline. However is it realistic to ignore the attractive and available person you spend months around? Are you roleplaying a eunuch? As long as it is tasteful and completely optional then romance would only enhance the game.

 

I for one prefer interacting with NPCs than having a party of puppets that have no motivation. That is always an option for those vehemently opposed to relationships, romantic or otherwise. 

 

Besides roleplaying and romance are linked. Sex is integral to life, real or fictional. I at least want the option to allow my character to exist beyond schemes, power, money, exploration and violence. I can understand why a lot of people loathe it; but really it at the very least it shouldn't be overly intrusive or penalize you to merely reply 'I just want to be friends' to a single line of dialogue, right? NPC's still chat and may still offer their personal quests. Just don't expect to understand them, their motivations or their secrets in a way that a lover would. It is only natural.  

 

Also to Bos_hybrid: There are plenty of JRPGs that focus on romance as a primary theme, no need to reach for a VN. In a sense being here makes makes you an RPG otaku. It has no meaning beyond being obsessive about a subject, although there are negative connotations in Japan (because a story involved a one as a murderous stalker when the term was in early use). Outside of Japan there is no negative association. I am an otaku too; of games. 

[Cultist]

A story without romance is a very dry thing.

 

I am an otaku too

That explains a lot.

[Sacred_Path]

When you put a number of young, fit men and women together what happens is a whole lot of he-ing and she-ing goes on and there are undeniable consequences, even in the modern era.

If it was inevitable, it would not make the news, I think

[JFSOCC]

Romances a means for character development, and from that perspective I'm not opposed to it.

Romances tend to be corny and either over or underdone, so from that aspect, I am opposed to it.

Romances may give interesting content or choices, so from that aspect I'm not opposed to it. (in M:E I choose to let someone die because I had to choose between her and my character's boyfriend)

Romances may not be likely in the narrative setting. A party which is always under way may not have space for romance to bloom, it may simply not make sense. From that sense I'm opposed to it.

Romances developing in the worst opposition shows a message of hope that life can thrive even in the darkest of times, depending on the game, that may or may not be a message you want to send, so from that aspect, I'm ambiguous about it.

 

There is a significant group of players who have the desire to see romances included, since players who don't care for it can ignore it, I don't see why they can't get what they like.

Romances might take some work to get into the game, but I also don't think the team is a afraid of work.

[Karkarov]

I have nothing wrong with romance options in the game as long as they extend beyond just party members and make some modicum of sense.  I have nothing wrong with getting married in game.  I don't have a problem with kids either.  So long as it plays out over the course of a long time.... like more than one game, and it is built in as a concept from the beginning.  Like in PE:3 your main character from 1-2 is now older and no longer adventures and is teaching their kid/orphan kid they look after about their trade etc etc and the kid becomes your protagonist in PE:3 with the torch effectively being "passed on".  That would be kinda cool, but the kid does not need to be a plot device in either of the first two games, unless it explains why someone has to leave your party for the rest of the game, much less an inventory item.

 

Oh there is one other thing that romance has to have.  It must be 100% optional, should not be forced by any means.  Even if marriage is forces for some story reason you should have the option of not getting along with your spouse and you are married in name only.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Karkarov

[Lurky]

Aw, this was going fairly well for a romance thread. I thought we had some understanding going on, guys

 

A story without romance is a very dry thing. Sex scenes are unnecessary as anything more than a fade to black. As is children and marriage in anything more than a brief epilogue wrapping up events, unless they are central to the storyline. However is it realistic to ignore the attractive and available person you spend months around? Are you roleplaying a eunuch? As long as it is tasteful and completely optional then romance would only enhance the game.

 

I for one prefer interacting with NPCs than having a party of puppets that have no motivation. That is always an option for those vehemently opposed to relationships, romantic or otherwise. 

 

Besides roleplaying and romance are linked. Sex is integral to life, real or fictional. I at least want the option to allow my character to exist beyond schemes, power, money, exploration and violence. I can understand why a lot of people loathe it; but really it at the very least it shouldn't be overly intrusive or penalize you to merely reply 'I just want to be friends' to a single line of dialogue, right? NPC's still chat and may still offer their personal quests. Just don't expect to understand them, their motivations or their secrets in a way that a lover would. It is only natural.  

 

Also to Bos_hybrid: There are plenty of JRPGs that focus on romance as a primary theme, no need to reach for a VN. In a sense being here makes makes you an RPG otaku. It has no meaning beyond being obsessive about a subject, although there are negative connotations in Japan (because a story involved a one as a murderous stalker when the term was in early use). Outside of Japan there is no negative association. I am an otaku too; of games. 

 

You say you can understand why a lot of people loathe them, but then you proceed to make a bunch of assumptions and equivocations that are, quite frankly, very ignorant. Perhaps you do not understand that well why a lot of people loathe them.

 

It is realistic to ignore the attractive and available person you spend months around. It happens all the damn time in real life because of many reasons, of course it's realistic. What isn't realistic is that the presence of someone attractive and available around you should inevitably lead to something. The reason why it happens so many times in movies and games that want to be movies is precisely because it's unrealistic.

 

Romances can harm a game instead of enhancing it. The arguments for this have already been made, in this thread and in others.

 

Sex is not integral to life. It's a very good addition to it, but it's possible to go on without it. Especially if you're an adventurer running for your life, and thus you and your party have concerns of higher priority. This does not mean roleplaying an eunuch or an asexual, it means roleplaying someone who can keep it in their pants.

 

Roleplaying and romances are not linked. Romances are just a tiny subset of roleplaying options, but they are not a worthier option or better or deeper or anything like that. If the rest of options are well done, it turns out that most of the player base does not miss romances that much. And if you can't conceive of a game that does provide deep roleplaying options without romance, perhaps it should be you the one who has to broaden horizons, instead of expecting all games to fit this narrow view.

 

Romances should not mean a deeper understanding of NPCs. There are plenty of couples that confide things to their close friends that they wouldn't to their partner, after all. And there are plenty of stories of people in the military that confide to their comrades incredibly personal things that they would not tell to other people, including their lovers. It's just a different kind of relationship. Besides, it's not fair for players who wish to know their companions to deny them that content because they're not attracted to them, when there should logically be a way for them to get that (with a close friendship, for example). The game should not force the players to go through a romance in order to get that.

 

Project Eternity is not a JRPG. Common tropes and themes found there should not be expected here. Also, I'm fairly certain than in the west, otaku means "fan of anything Japanese", not obsessive fan in general. If one is an obsessive fan but not of Japanese games/comics/whatever, then the person in question is not an otaku.

 

And the biggest one of all...

 

Romances do NOT equal interpersonal relationships in general. Having no romances does not mean that NPCs will lack personality or motivations or reactivity. Seriously, this one is so stupid that I shouldn't see it repeated time and time again. And each time I see it, it convinces me a little more than perhaps some game out there should demonstrate this truth by making awesome character interactions that fulfill nicely the emotional wants of a player, but without resorting to romances to fulfill them. Perhaps Project Eternity should be that game, considering everything.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Lurky

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Aw, this was going fairly well for a romance thread. I thought we had some understanding going on, guys

A damn shame.

 

I think that making any suppositions about the motives of people who want something different from you is not good at all, and reeks of a strawman. I think that discussing why you want/don't want something in the game is good, but when doing so you should try to analyse what the person actually says instead of launching an attack on what you want them to say. By attacking strawmen and being hypersensitive to everything, you are making these forums closer to the BSN than X>10 regular posters talking about romance ever could on their own.

 

Back on topic: There are three positions in this.

 

1. You want romance because you believe that it is worth the resources to implement and is something that you will likely enjoy

2. You don't want romance because you believe that it is not worth the resources to implement and is not something you will likely enjoy

3. You could live with or without romances in PE

 

I personally take position 3. I trust that Obsidian will make the right call when it comes to what is best for their game, and am sure that all relationships will be well written and integrated into the "story" of either the main plot or companion in question. If there is romance(s) I highly doubt that they will be Bioware-like virtual **** dolls.

 

Does anyone else here trust that Obsidian could deliver with PE, even if something you don't like is included?

Edited July 13, 2013 by KaineParker

[Zalpha]

Any Infinity Engine game, Aurora Engine game [From BioWare (Neverwinter Nights series) -The witcher used this engine], Mass Effect game or Dragon age game with out romace, would not be the same game. Romances are apart of the stories/aspects of the games in some form or another. PE with no romance would just feel wierd and could then be argueed not on par with it's predecessors.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Zalpha

[eschaton]

Any Infinity Engine game, Aurora Engine game [From BioWare (Neverwinter Nights series) -The witcher used this engine], Mass Effect game or Dragon age game with out romace, would not be the same game. Romances are apart of the stories/aspects of the games in some form or another. PE with no romance would just feel wierd and could then be argueed not on par with it's predecessors.

 

I think part of the issue is there's a wide gap between sexual/emotional contact between the PC and some of the NPCs and "romance" as it has been come to be known in later Bioware games.

 

To use the example I gave upthread, I think it would be refreshing to have a romance which is destined to fail.  Maybe there's a male NPC who seems (if you play a man or a woman who he isn't romancing) to be a fine, upstanding person.  But if you get involved, he turns out to be possessive, controlling, and ultimately hits the PC.  Or maybe your "love interest" is merely flightly, or a cheater, or something on that end.  The bottom line is as in real life, some romances shouldn't have happy endings.  Hell, the vast majority shouldn't, particularly for adventurers.  

 

The problem is, a lot of players take "romance" to be a minigame in and of itself these days.  I don't mean in the sense that they're romancing for stat bonuses.  I mean insofar as if the romance isn't completed with a "happy ending" (or at least, a parting on fair terms) they feel cheated by the game.  They expect the same wish fulfillment from the romance they get from winning the game.  When in fact romance is, at most, just one of many subplots, and can easily end up on the rocks

 

And thereby lies the problem with making romance a core element.  If featured too much, people expect to have an "interest" they will personally like.  And they expect to get emotional charge out of the encounters, and leave with warm fuzzies.  Not get their heart ripped apart at the end.  IRL, even the most capable of people were often messes in their personal lives.  We shouldn't expect any better of our heroic characters.