Romance, Marriage, Pregnancy and having Children.

Cultist · July 23, 2013

Okay, I know when I'm beat. While I guess you could stick me in the fringes of the promancer camp, I won't bitch and whine if it doesn't happen because the guys at Obsidian didn't think it was worth their time.

Amentep · July 23, 2013

Second point: If romances were planned in at the beginning there would be no need to take resources from elsewhere as they would be allocated their own resources from the pot

To be fair, one of the complaints about romances in the past from those who aren't overly fond of them is that the NPC - if a romance is not pursued - loses reactivity; in essence for the character to be interesting the player must choose to romance them.

The only way to 'fix' this problem is to make sure that the character is robust in dialogue and relationship with the PC regardless of the PC's feelings.

Which means that we're talking about, in essence, creating two fully fleshed-out relationships for the PC-NPC (one that keeps the character interesting without a romance and one that gives a satisfactory romance storyline). That's not a trivial use of the writers time.

CrazyPea · July 23, 2013

Blech, player sexual characters. Might as call them blow up dolls. But for horrors sake lets accept that, and move on to the fact that it's still four romances to write. We still have to take resource from somewhere else to get four romances. Where do you pick?

Speaking of people that don't read properly...

That was my opinion on player sexual characters not your mod. Player sexual characters, are an easy way out. They are there so the PC can do whatever they want with them. Blow up dolls.

Don't be disgusting; not every romance is about the sex scene -

It's come up before in these threads.

Second point: If romances were planned in at the beginning there would be no need to take resources from elsewhere as they would be allocated their own resources from the pot

But you and others obviously don't feel they have planned romances from the start. If you and others did, you wouldn't be posting topics, pointing to polls (as clear indication of a majority want) and dismissing devs(less than favourable) thoughts on the matter. You want romances regardless of your 'second point'. So pick an area to take resources from.

I honestly don't if Obsidian have or haven't planned to include romances; I'm doubtful, but I don't know. I believe I've already addressed the issue of 'from where' if romances were included as an extra rather than originally planned in my previous posts. I do know from doing that they not as resource intense as you make out - mine was simply part of character creation, mostly during planning and writing the character dialogue, it took little 'extra effort' and when it did, it was mostly figuring out how to do an influence system. Admittedly, mine was pretty basic but there again it was good enough to get published, and that was just something I did in my spare time.

Getting paid for work is completely different, and that was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post when I said I don't like writing westerns. If some one paid me - I'd write one, and do the best job of it that I could, and find some hook in the story I could enjoy. When you are paid you don't always get a choice about what you write. Chris is a professional, and as he said in that quote, he might not like writing romances but it was his job. If P:E requires him to write romances, he will simple as that. If it came across as I just casually dismissed his words, then I apologise (in my defence, I was in a bit of rush).

Edited July 23, 2013 by CrazyPea

CrazyPea · July 23, 2013

Second point: If romances were planned in at the beginning there would be no need to take resources from elsewhere as they would be allocated their own resources from the pot

To be fair, one of the complaints about romances in the past from those who aren't overly fond of them is that the NPC - if a romance is not pursued - loses reactivity; in essence for the character to be interesting the player must choose to romance them.

The only way to 'fix' this problem is to make sure that the character is robust in dialogue and relationship with the PC regardless of the PC's feelings.

Which means that we're talking about, in essence, creating two fully fleshed-out relationships for the PC-NPC (one that keeps the character interesting without a romance and one that gives a satisfactory romance storyline). That's not a trivial use of the writers time.

no it isn't, but it doesn't take every ounce of a writer's sweat, blood and tears either - see the above post. And if you have a team of writers....

Edited July 23, 2013 by CrazyPea

BruceVC · July 23, 2013

What makes you guys say the majority of backers want romance, because ~75 people voted in some forum poll one of you made up? You do realize there are like 73k other backers who never visit this board, right?

What makes you think that the majority of the 73k people don't want Romance. You have to gather statistics somewhere and the official forums are as good as place as any to get opinions of Romance, plus we know from the likes of BSN that Romance is a popular option in RPG so I don't think we need to ask the question " what makes you think people want Romance" when the evidence from the gaming community is clear.

The sooner you accept some sort of Romance is a popular choice for gamers the happier person you will be Gfted1, you can't fight the inevitable storm. Don't be the reed in the path of the hurricane :biggrin:

Amentep · July 23, 2013

To be fair, one of the complaints about romances in the past from those who aren't overly fond of them is that the NPC - if a romance is not pursued - loses reactivity; in essence for the character to be interesting the player must choose to romance them.

The only way to 'fix' this problem is to make sure that the character is robust in dialogue and relationship with the PC regardless of the PC's feelings.

Which means that we're talking about, in essence, creating two fully fleshed-out relationships for the PC-NPC (one that keeps the character interesting without a romance and one that gives a satisfactory romance storyline). That's not a trivial use of the writers time.

no it isn't, but it doesn't take every ounce of a writer's sweat, blood and tears either - see the above post. And if you have a team of writers....

A team of writers who may not all be writing characters. Again I'm not trying to make writing the romances more or less difficult than they are; honestly I'm not even sure it is the right discussion to have at this point anyhow.

What makes you guys say the majority of backers want romance, because ~75 people voted in some forum poll one of you made up? You do realize there are like 73k other backers who never visit this board, right?

What makes you think that the majority of the 73k people don't want Romance. You have to gather statistics somewhere and the official forums are as good as place as any to get opinions of Romance, plus we know from the likes of BSN that Romance is a popular option in RPG so I don't think we need to ask the question " what makes you think people want Romance" when the evidence from the gaming community is clear.

The sooner you accept some sort of Romance is a popular choice for gamers the happier person you will be Gfted1, you can't fight the inevitable storm. Don't be the reed in the path of the hurricane

"the inevitable storm"? Look I'm all for romances but they've got to fit the design, NPCs and story. Not every game should have them as not every game is going to make sense with them.

Gfted1 · July 23, 2013

What makes you guys say the majority of backers want romance, because ~75 people voted in some forum poll one of you made up? You do realize there are like 73k other backers who never visit this board, right?

What makes you think that the majority of the 73k people don't want Romance. You have to gather statistics somewhere and the official forums are as good as place as any to get opinions of Romance, plus we know from the likes of BSN that Romance is a popular option in RPG so I don't think we need to ask the question " what makes you think people want Romance" when the evidence from the gaming community is clear.

The sooner you accept some sort of Romance is a popular choice for gamers the happier person you will be Gfted1, you can't fight the inevitable storm. Don't be the reed in the path of the hurricane

I don't give a rats ass about in game romances but if it makes you feel you are "winning" by have less than one percent of backers in agreement with you, more power to you. :thumbsup:

BruceVC · July 23, 2013

What makes you guys say the majority of backers want romance, because ~75 people voted in some forum poll one of you made up? You do realize there are like 73k other backers who never visit this board, right?

What makes you think that the majority of the 73k people don't want Romance. You have to gather statistics somewhere and the official forums are as good as place as any to get opinions of Romance, plus we know from the likes of BSN that Romance is a popular option in RPG so I don't think we need to ask the question " what makes you think people want Romance" when the evidence from the gaming community is clear.

The sooner you accept some sort of Romance is a popular choice for gamers the happier person you will be Gfted1, you can't fight the inevitable storm. Don't be the reed in the path of the hurricane

I don't give a rats ass about in game romances but if it makes you feel you are "winning" by have less than one percent of backers in agreement with you, more power to you.

It actually does make me feel better, I appreciate the sentiment o:)

I'm off to watch the new Superman movie now, so I can continue this chat when I get back

BruceVC · July 23, 2013

To be fair, one of the complaints about romances in the past from those who aren't overly fond of them is that the NPC - if a romance is not pursued - loses reactivity; in essence for the character to be interesting the player must choose to romance them.

The only way to 'fix' this problem is to make sure that the character is robust in dialogue and relationship with the PC regardless of the PC's feelings.

Which means that we're talking about, in essence, creating two fully fleshed-out relationships for the PC-NPC (one that keeps the character interesting without a romance and one that gives a satisfactory romance storyline). That's not a trivial use of the writers time.

no it isn't, but it doesn't take every ounce of a writer's sweat, blood and tears either - see the above post. And if you have a team of writers....

A team of writers who may not all be writing characters. Again I'm not trying to make writing the romances more or less difficult than they are; honestly I'm not even sure it is the right discussion to have at this point anyhow.

What makes you guys say the majority of backers want romance, because ~75 people voted in some forum poll one of you made up? You do realize there are like 73k other backers who never visit this board, right?

What makes you think that the majority of the 73k people don't want Romance. You have to gather statistics somewhere and the official forums are as good as place as any to get opinions of Romance, plus we know from the likes of BSN that Romance is a popular option in RPG so I don't think we need to ask the question " what makes you think people want Romance" when the evidence from the gaming community is clear.

The sooner you accept some sort of Romance is a popular choice for gamers the happier person you will be Gfted1, you can't fight the inevitable storm. Don't be the reed in the path of the hurricane

"the inevitable storm"? Look I'm all for romances but they've got to fit the design, NPCs and story. Not every game should have them as not every game is going to make sense with them.

Yes I know Allow me some artistic license in this debate

Gfted1 · July 23, 2013

It actually does make me feel better, I appreciate the sentiment

I'm off to watch the new Superman movie now, so I can continue this chat when I get back

I wait with bated breath.

CrazyPea · July 23, 2013

...honestly I'm not even sure it is the right discussion to have at this point anyhow.

Isn't that the truth I would hope that Obsidian made any such decisions a long time ago, but until we know what they know, we'll continue to squabble amongst ourselves. Like the scorpion said, 'it's in our nature.'

As someone poetically said before me:

Romance thread.

Romance thread never changes...

Edited July 23, 2013 by CrazyPea

Amentep · July 23, 2013

I guess debating is more fun that waiting patiently for the news about what they plan comes out.

Ulquiorra · July 23, 2013

Makeing good romance in game is very hard. Becouse it is almost imosible to make a romance that suits everybody. Secondly becouse there are still WoW children that want only looting, fighting and nothing more becouse it is to complicated.

I se that antiromancers here can be assined to two camps. Camp first trolls and wow children, secound camp logical but very afraid people. For me 2d infinity engine inspired game romance = more content = more possibilitis of role play.

I hope that PE will be not NWN2 clone in baldours gate graphic level, but from what i see it starting to risemble it, one stronghold for everyone, strange mechanics, crating system but no news about characters or their personalitys .....

More then romance im afraid that PE is starting to go wrong way, i mean nwn2ish style. Becouse you can add crapy romances as opton but if game in general is epical like BG2 it still is epical, but if you add wonderfull romances but main game is crappy .... then it still is crappy

Malcador · July 23, 2013

What makes you think that the majority of the 73k people don't want Romance. You have to gather statistics somewhere and the official forums are as good as place as any to get opinions of Romance, plus we know from the likes of BSN that Romance is a popular option in RPG so I don't think we need to ask the question " what makes you think people want Romance" when the evidence from the gaming community is clear.

The sooner you accept some sort of Romance is a popular choice for gamers the happier person you will be Gfted1, you can't fight the inevitable storm. Don't be the reed in the path of the hurricane

Yep, you're just about as annoying as Merin on this. No one can say that the backers want a romance option or not or are just indifferent (you people keep including the last group as 'pro', though). So really, who knows.

As for gamers at large, well, to be honest, I assume a non-trivial amount might be for 'romance', but that is a pretty varied definition in games. But PE isn't aimed at the gaming community at large, no ?

Monte Carlo · July 23, 2013

Second point: If romances were planned in at the beginning there would be no need to take resources from elsewhere as they would be allocated their own resources from the pot

To be fair, one of the complaints about romances in the past from those who aren't overly fond of them is that the NPC - if a romance is not pursued - loses reactivity; in essence for the character to be interesting the player must choose to romance them.

The only way to 'fix' this problem is to make sure that the character is robust in dialogue and relationship with the PC regardless of the PC's feelings.

Which means that we're talking about, in essence, creating two fully fleshed-out relationships for the PC-NPC (one that keeps the character interesting without a romance and one that gives a satisfactory romance storyline). That's not a trivial use of the writers time.

no it isn't, but it doesn't take every ounce of a writer's sweat, blood and tears either - see the above post. And if you have a team of writers....

I've demolished this argument so many times it's not even funny, suffice it to say that romance dialogues take a **** load of time to write and implement. It only reinforces my impressions that Promancers are so desperate that they'll settle for some slap-dash fan-fic as long as it's got some emo lurve in it.

Amentep · July 23, 2013

Makeing good romance in game is very hard. Becouse it is almost imosible to make a romance that suits everybody.

I'll go a step further and say that it is impossible to make a romance that suits everybody.

I don't think they should try, either. I think this is part of where romances get tricky implementation wise.

no it isn't, but it doesn't take every ounce of a writer's sweat, blood and tears either - see the above post. And if you have a team of writers....

I've demolished this argument so many times it's not even funny, suffice it to say that romance dialogues take a **** load of time to write and implement. It only reinforces my impressions that Promancers are so desperate that they'll settle for some slap-dash fan-fic as long as it's got some emo lurve in it.

In defence of CP, he/she points out that they wrote a character romance for a mod, so is relying on that experience to inform the expressed opinion.

That said, as I mentioned for the way I'd envision to do a romance "right" it'd definitely be a non-trivial task one that requires a robust romance and non-romance option, should take into account the NPCs wants and desires and not sublimate them to the PC, etc.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Amentep

Malcador · July 23, 2013

I'd want romance iff it revolves around knife fighting and vodka.

CrazyPea · July 23, 2013

A) No one is desperate for anything - that sentence is a perfect example of the borderline cyberbullying goes on this thread - it's pure hyperbolic insult. If you don't agree fine. State your case by all means, but there is no need for such immaturity.

B) You may have 'demolished' the argument several times, it doesn't mean you are right. Yes, It takes a lot of time to create a good character and write the dialogue - but if you incorporate the romance at the point of creation there is little 'extra' work to be done as it is part of the process. There is only extra work to be done if you are trying to insert afterwards. I speak from experience - someone who has spent the time writing and implementing it. Someone whose work was actually published (and is also listed in the 'Hall of Fame' in the NWN Vault). Can you say the same?

Edited July 23, 2013 by CrazyPea

CrazyPea · July 23, 2013

I'd want romance iff it revolves around knife fighting and vodka.

So you want Angelina Jolie?

CrazyPea · July 23, 2013

Makeing good romance in game is very hard. Becouse it is almost imosible to make a romance that suits everybody.

I'll go a step further and say that it is impossible to make a romance that suits everybody.

I don't think they should try, either. I think this is part of where romances get tricky implementation wise.

no it isn't, but it doesn't take every ounce of a writer's sweat, blood and tears either - see the above post. And if you have a team of writers....

I've demolished this argument so many times it's not even funny, suffice it to say that romance dialogues take a **** load of time to write and implement. It only reinforces my impressions that Promancers are so desperate that they'll settle for some slap-dash fan-fic as long as it's got some emo lurve in it.

In defence of CP, he/she points out that they wrote a character romance for a mod, so is relying on that experience to inform the expressed opinion.

That said, as I mentioned for the way I'd envision to do a romance "right" it'd definitely be a non-trivial task one that requires a robust romance and non-romance option, should take into account the NPCs wants and desires and not sublimate them to the PC, etc.

Definitely 'she'

Lurky · July 23, 2013

I se that antiromancers here can be assined to two camps. Camp first trolls and wow children, secound camp logical but very afraid people. For me 2d infinity engine inspired game romance = more content = more possibilitis of role play.

Oh, this is rich. And then proromancers complain when they're classified as desperate because they want romances. You're just as guilty of unfair generalizations. What's the matter, you have to put people down becase you can't understand how could anyone not be on your side, or what? :getlost:

Gah. Okay. Moving on. No need to say nastier things.

As someone who has designed a mod that included romance, I can tell you that one easy way is to take out gender restrictions (and dialogue references) on who can romance a particular character – this automatically doubles the amount of people who can romance said character. If we do this for two characters of each gender that’s equal to eight viable romances – all without using much in the way of ‘resources’. It’s all about clever writing and using the resources you have in an efficient way.
Oh, look, you just invented Dragon Age 2.

"DA2 did it" is not a counter-argument.

Dragon Age 2 might not be a counter argument by itself, but examining what Dragon Age 2 did and why was it so poorly received can be one. And the truth is that there is a lot of people who did not like the approach DA2 used.

The thing is, people like their choices recognized and acknowledged. That includes character customization, such as gender, personality, and such. This means that, as long as it's relevant to the context and the acknowledgement isn't inherently offputting (sexism, for example), people really dig when their avatar choices are recognized and reacted to by the game. Romances are definitely an appropiate context, and considering that they're intimate relationships by definition, it certainly seems like an area where this kind of acknowledgment should be done (and in romances with a set PC gender, it certainly is).

The approach DA2 used for this trivialized all that. Everyone got access to all the characters, but it also removed all acknowledgement of character customization, and in doing so it watered down the entire experience for everybody. The results speak for themselves: some people didn't mind (which is not the same as saying that they liked it), and a lot of people did not feel their character acknowledged by this approach and found the entire experience artificial and bland. If romance is all about the connection between two people, things that make you feel disconnected from the characters are kind of a big deal.

So yeah, it is possible to cut corners in order to make romance easier to make. But this is an area where corners should not be cut. Otherwise, you're sacrificing part of what defines this content in the first place. Besides, if you say that Obsidian should take into account the popularity of romances, shouldn't they also take into account that your approach is unpopular?

(Incidentally, I say this as someone whose preferences are not usually catered to, so I'm not saying this from the mindset of "screw minoritary options, I'll get what I want anyway". Minorities have all the right of the world to get access to this stuff too, which is why a "if you can't do it well, don't do it at all" approach is respectful for them too.)

Second point: If romances were planned in at the beginning there would be no need to take resources from elsewhere as they would be allocated their own resources from the pot

To be fair, one of the complaints about romances in the past from those who aren't overly fond of them is that the NPC - if a romance is not pursued - loses reactivity; in essence for the character to be interesting the player must choose to romance them.

The only way to 'fix' this problem is to make sure that the character is robust in dialogue and relationship with the PC regardless of the PC's feelings.

Which means that we're talking about, in essence, creating two fully fleshed-out relationships for the PC-NPC (one that keeps the character interesting without a romance and one that gives a satisfactory romance storyline). That's not a trivial use of the writers time.

no it isn't, but it doesn't take every ounce of a writer's sweat, blood and tears either - see the above post. And if you have a team of writers....

Let us see how much of a writer's blood, sweat and tears it would take, then.

Nick K: “Romances, are you planning on developing them in Project: Eternity as well?”

Feargus Urquhart: “Romances take a lot of effort, and I don’t want to be cagey on romances at all. We don’t want to make them a stretch goal, it’s just a question of if we feel comfortable with the funding. We have to do them right. Some people were giving us flak about, you know, the goal to get to the first companion, class, race, and things like that. They weren’t completely wrong in their criticism, but we don’t have nefarious reasons behind it. If it’s a pretty in depth companion Chris Avellone, who is a pretty quick writer, is looking at 2 or 3 months just for writing it up.”

Remember that romance cannot be isolated from the rest of the character interactions if it aims to be believable, just like a friendship or a rivalry or other types of relationships need to have some basis to build on. Also remember that a romance, like the rest of the character, should enhance the game and the narrative, so it should be tied to the theme of the game and things like that. This means that the decision of having romance dialogue permeates a big part of the character.

So maybe it doesn't take every ounce of a writer's sweat, blood and tears, but they certainly drain a good amount of them. And remember that the time the romance takes is roughly doubled, because nonromantic paths have to be just as deep. And this is "just for writing up" a character.

By the way, you said that if you were paid to write something you'd do it, even if you didn't like it. The thing is, Obsidian wasn't paid to write romances, as you can see by Feargus' negative to include it as a stretch goal (and believe me, it was very talked about during the Kickstarter campaign). What they were paid for is to write eight companions with a lot of depth, and romance is not necessarily a part of this. Pay attention to the emphasis, because something that riles people up is that romance is seen as a necessary requirement for depth. It's not.

On top of that, Chris Avellone seems to be the one in charge of companion writing. If the Kickstarter pitch didn't tip you off of this (where he raves about character writing), George Ziets confirmed it in his formspring. So, the companions, the NPCs to be romanced, are in charge of someone who hates romances. He has no real reasons to be forced to write what he doesn't want to, by the way, because one of the points of Kickstarter is to give Obsidian artistic freedom to do what they want.

How about other writers, then? We know that Avellone is not the only writer who has shown indifference or dislike of romances. The project director, Josh Sawyer, has also expressed his views here and here: he thinks that romances are usually underdeveloped, he thinks that they should either get more or less attention paid to them, and he said that he would only want to include them in PE if they felt like a natural fit. The stances of other writers on this topic aren't as well known, but nobody has expressed a strong liking of romances either.

If you put everything together, odds are not looking good. It's time that you accept that romances have a good chance to not be part of the game, no matter how much noise you make. As BruceVC says, don't be the reed in the path of the hurricane

Monte Carlo · July 23, 2013

A) No one is desperate for anything - that sentence is a perfect example of the borderline cyberbullying goes on this thread - it's pure hyperbolic insult. If you don't agree fine. State your case by all means, but there is no need for such immaturity.

B) You may have 'demolished' the argument several times, it doesn't mean you are right. Yes, It takes a lot of time to create a good character and write the dialogue - but if you incorporate the romance at the point of creation there is little 'extra' work to be done as it is part of the process. There is only extra work to be done if you are trying to insert afterwards. I speak from experience - someone who has spent the time writing and implementing it. Someone whose work was actually been published. Can you say the same?

Cyberbullying? LOL.

Have I written and been published? Yup.

Monte Carlo · July 23, 2013

Writing romance dialogues means variables for *all* NPCs and permutations thereof - one for romance paths (there will be several) and one for non-romance. It's thousands of words.

But then again, with all your writing experience you'd know that, right?

Gfted1 · July 23, 2013

Hell, even Ive written and been published.*

*In a technical trade magazine, lol.

Monte Carlo · July 23, 2013

Yes, Gfted1's article in 'Practical Bag-Piping' is a classic in the biz.

Romance, Marriage, Pregnancy and having Children.

Recommended Posts

Cultist

Amentep

CrazyPea

CrazyPea

BruceVC

Amentep

Gfted1

BruceVC

BruceVC

Gfted1

CrazyPea

Amentep

Ulquiorra

Malcador

Monte Carlo

Amentep

Malcador

CrazyPea

CrazyPea

CrazyPea

Lurky

Monte Carlo

Monte Carlo

Gfted1

Monte Carlo

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Forums

Activity