Romance, Marriage, Pregnancy and having Children.

[Malcador]

They'd just make another thread, why waste the effort.

[alanschu]

 

 

Thank you. Now apply this logic to romances.(based on the increased sales theory.)

 

Ah, so games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion are not really good examples of how to make an RPG, and they don't have romances.

 

By deduction, I conclude that in order to make a good RPG it should have romances.  Thanks!

[Cultist]

As my moniker insinuates, I favor the elegance of theatrical loquaciousness to construe my intentions above the brevity of concision. Please regard this uncharacteristic depature with considerable clemency.

                                               

Moderators.

 

Please.

 

Euthanize this degenerate and pitiful squabble.

It'll spread. Better have it under a confined environment

Edited July 25, 2013 by Cultist

[Lephys]

It did, many Bothans died to bring you that post.

But, you make it seem so easy! It's like you made that post... with Bothans tied behind your back.

 

So why were they so well-received?  Because of character interaction, which can be achieved with other forms of interaction nowadays, ones that don't cut off all other forms of interaction with other characters.

I'd just like to point out that, while this is a very good point, all it really proves is that there's no need to directly tether optional romance to overall character interaction/development quantity.

 

Romance REALLY isn't that major of a thing. I mean, boiled down, it's like a switch factor, just like your race, or your class, or your Charisma, or your alignment/reputation (the controllable portion). You can have character development and opt to not flirt or do anything even remotely romancey, OR you can have character development while also happening to be flirty with a given character.

 

But, really, when you look at it like that, it IS very similar to almost anything else (hatred, smartassery, etc.). Hell, it's basically a form of faction reputation, in mathematical/coded function. Just imagine it's but a single faction within a given character. You could build up your comraderie with that character, or your rivalry, or your dominance (maybe you want to turn them into a lackey?), or your romantic interest. IF they even have any, to begin with. If a given faction in the game only accepts Dwarves, and you're not a Dwarf, then no amount of nicety is ever going to sway them. Doesn't mean they hate you. You can still interact a-plenty with that faction. You just can't do CERTAIN things with them, like become their leader in a week's time, like in Skyrim! 8D! Haha.

[Bos_hybrid]

 

Thank you. Now apply this logic to romances.(based on the increased sales theory.)

 

Ah, so games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion are not really good examples of how to make an RPG, and they don't have romances.

 

By deduction, I conclude that in order to make a good RPG it should have romances.  Thanks!

 

 

 

I was thinking more about a proper faction system, real C&C and interesting characters. But hey if you think romance, your with the right company.

[Morgulon the Wise]

Then why dont you start a thread with your thoughts to a proper fraction system? In here it could go under...

 

By the way: Interesteng characters can lead to interesting relationships (unless you don't slay them on first sight). I dont think these things exclude each other.

 

But if you want romance waaaay down the priority ranking in a RPG I have to disagree.

 

For me its more like:

 

1. Interesting characters

2. Interesting relationships

3. Interesting friendship/ romance (deeper close relationship concepts)

3. Interesting fractions (deeper society relationship concepts)

 

Just imagine Gothic 1 without Diego, Gorn and the others. You need key persons to fractions so you need interesting characters and relationships first. But its just better, if they are not only key persons but can establish a closer relationship!

 

4. having family...

 

...If it still fits in the context of the game world with you as an adventurer. I like the concept of the "fun" wife in FO: NV because it merges with the concept of the game world. For me it sounds nice to have "family" under the circumstances of a foreign world, but it should have written "this kind of family is quite impossible to realize in your world" all over it! Nonetheless it should still give the feeling of family.

...If your PC is able to survive the game. He could maybe retire from his adventurous deeds and found a  more "normal" family or return to his family which he had to abandon in order to fulfill his selfcentered heroic urges.

 

4. Invest in the ecosystem. Lumber Dyrwood. Get the richest man/ woman in the new world!

 

.

.

.

n+1. Well implied exchange of body fluids. But only if someone really wants to found that.

n+1. Unlock a video which shows your PC counting lots of money... if you hit the score of 1.000.000 GM!

[Nonek]

Anybody else just read this thread for Cultist's hilarious images and Monte Carlo's scathing wit? I'm determined to include "expunged with fire and sword" in an intra office memo at some point.

[Lephys]

As far as family-forging goes, that would probably be best for an "ending" occurrence, if at all. Hey, maybe your family could play a part in the expansion. 8P

 

But, yeah, I really don't see people worrying too much about that DURING some ongoing world-shaking turmoil-tackling.

 

The importance of romance lies merely in the dynamic range it adds to personal relationships. It's not about writing some standalone love story that's meant to occur, and tacking it onto the game's narrative like a sidecar on a motorcycle. It's about allowing the simple concept of romantic development exist in its rightful niche in the world.

 

It's REALLY a lot like a given class's existence in the game. Even if you never have a Wizard in your party, ever, Wizards still exist in the game and comprise a portion of the overall game world.

 

Pretty much every anti-romance argument I've seen in this thread (and others) that's of any legitimacy whatsoever has directly involved specific flaws in the implementation of romantic aspects in a game, rather than with romance itself. Just because a bunch of games put snow in the desert, and that's a legitimately terrible idea, does not mean that there shouldn't be snow in frigid climates, either. It doesn't say anything about snow, itself. It just indicates one thing to NOT do with snow.

[Lurky]

Pretty much every anti-romance argument I've seen in this thread (and others) that's of any legitimacy whatsoever has directly involved specific flaws in the implementation of romantic aspects in a game, rather than with romance itself. Just because a bunch of games put snow in the desert, and that's a legitimately terrible idea, does not mean that there shouldn't be snow in frigid climates, either. It doesn't say anything about snow, itself. It just indicates one thing to NOT do with snow.

 

On the other side, some arguments in favor of romance come across as saying that snow really really should be in the game, and thus there should absolutely be areas of frigid climates included. And it's like, hey, the game might not have areas like that, and it's perfectly okay if it doesn't. I'm sure snow exists in some place of the world, and you might find mentions of it, but it's no big deal if players can't encounter it and play with it themselves.

 

I mean, if you look at this from the point of view of a professional writer who knows what he's doing, a lot of discussions here are completely pointless. The way I look at it, that's because a lot of discussions here are not directed at the developers, but at other players. You see people like Bruce affirming things that sound like "it's inevitable for romances to be included, resistance is futile, join us or be assimilated", and I just can't help but think it's a completely wrong mindset if taken seriously. What if what you expect isn't there? Saying "I'm sure that won't happen " seems very naïve to me, because it could happen. Damn right it could, and if you've read how the designers feel about the subject, the chances are much higher than you might think. Likewise, the line of thinking that goes "well, if it doesn't happen I'll be very disappointed, so the developers better not disappoint me " will only succeed in looking like an attempt at emotional blackmail, which I doubt is going to affect the developers. So, either the developers will go on with their ideas for romance because that's what they wanted regardless of what you said, or you will set yourself for a painful disappointment if their plans really don't include your interest.

 

So, you know, that's another reason why I keep hanging out on these discussions. You might not like what is said here, and to be completely honest I don't like repeating myself either, but ignoring reality won't make it go away. You guys have to be aware of what the situation is and why, to set your expectations accordingly. Otherwise, well, let me tell you that self-inflicted disappointments are not fun, nor are they likely to garner you sympathy. Look at the threads of people who expected D&D gameplay mechanics and were disappointed to the point of being upset. Do you want to be in that position? :\

Edited July 26, 2013 by Lurky

[Lephys]

2 points of clarification, if I may:

 

1) Unreasonable arguments are unreasonable because they're unreasonable, not because they're on a certain side of the debate. People on the pro side making unreasonable arguments no more proves anything regarding the objectivity of the matter than people on the anti side making unreasonable arguments. I happen to think that, in an ideal world, romance finds its way into the game. However, I realize that, reality not-being ideal, there may very well be sufficient factors to support the decision not to put it in the game, none of which have to do with the very nature of romance as a form of sentient-being-to-sentient-being interation, however (nor with its supposed inability to be coded in a video game without ruining all things). But, notice that I made no comment regarding "pretty much all the pro-romance arguments" in here. Just because I find reason in implementing romance in some form of fashion into this game, that in no way means that many pro-romance arguments that have been made in this (and other) threads aren't unreasonable.

 

2) I have absolutely no interest in swaying the ultimate decision of the development team. Only in objectively evaluating/exploring the potential implementation of romance in such a game, so as to collaboratively uncover as much useful information as possible for the benefit of whomever is interested (including, potentially, the devs, if they're considering romance).

[Ignatius]

Obsidian fired the lead designer of NWN2 because he wanted to make all of the female NPCs romanceable so Chris Avellone drop kicked him out the third floor window and he went runing and crying to Bioware where they let him make all the romance he wants.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Ignatius

[Knight117]

Obsidian fired the lead designer of NWN2 because he wanted to make all of the female NPCs romanceable so Chris Avellone drop kicked him out the third floor window and he went runing and crying to Bioware where they let him make all the romance he wants.

 

You do realise they would have made Neeshka a romance option, had there been time in the development cycle?

That might be a myth, though. 

[Gorth]

Thread pruned slightly. Being funny within reason is fine as long as it stays civil.

 

As for NWN2, I think whether Neeshka was a romance option or not would be the least of its problems. A main villain that made you laugh for all the wrong reasons (like a 50's monster movie where the creature is obviously wearing a rubber suit) being one of my personal pet peeves, second only to the peasant girl that was forced on my party. Even the creepy stalker elf paled compared to that.

[BruceVC]

Obsidian fired the lead designer of NWN2 because he wanted to make all of the female NPCs romanceable so Chris Avellone drop kicked him out the third floor window and he went runing and crying to Bioware where they let him make all the romance he wants.

 

Can you provide some links that support this post?

[alanschu]

I'm pretty sure that Ferret left Obsidian when offered a job at BioWare.  I have heard all sorts of rumor/hearsay as to how it all went down, but I have never heard that he was fired.

[Monte Carlo]

I think it is marvellous that a promancer was escorted from the premises.

[alanschu]

I'm at the point now where I'll need to see some level of confirmation.

 

My interactions with Ferret (who is no longer at BioWare) did not lead me to believe there was any sort of jadedness towards Obsidian on his part.  I would not expect this had he been fired.

 

The impression I got from him was that BioWare had always been his "dream job" and he had persistently applied for a long time.  I know he was disappointed to leave but cited doing so for family reasons (I think he's out east now).

Edited July 29, 2013 by alanschu

[BruceVC]

 

 

The impression I got from him was that BioWare had always been his "dream job" and he had persistently applied for a long time.  I know he was disappointed to leave but cited doing so for family reasons (I think he's out east now).

 

That's a completely reasonable and valid reason to leave Obsidian. I would believe that before I believe he was fired and left under a dark cloud

[alanschu]

Clarification: My explanation is for him leaving BioWare.

[Lephys]

I think it is marvellous that a promancer was escorted from the premises.

Sounds to me like he was a conmancer.