No romances confirmed

[feliznav]

You know, I felt like I needed to come here and say: I'm absolutely cool with this choice by Obsidian. Wasn't really a fan of the way most RPG these days were turning into dating sims anyway. 

[Monte Carlo]

 

I have to admit, this isn't quite the ****storm I was hoping for.

 

You promancers need to grow a spine. Make your rage a weapon, and unleash it upon the forums.

 

The main reason IMO for the lack of the expected vituperative backlash is most of  the promancers I know aren't active on these forums as much, they are on other forums who appreciate the importance and necessity of Romance in an RPG.....like BSN    

 

 

And now we can rest easy knowing they'll bloody well stay there. Mission accomplished.

[Fluffle]

 

This is bad news and concerns me immensely. I am one of those that believes Romance adds to the realism and immersive aspect of your journey in an RPG. Especially around your interaction with party members. Also I don't understand why Obsidian wouldn't want to include something in PoE that the majority of fans want

 

Even if 100% of fans wanted them, I don't believe we have the time and other resources to implement them well.  I am not inherently opposed to romances, but I don't want to spend time implementing something I'm not confident we will be able to execute at a high level of quality.

 

 

I read this statement as that he either wants to implement high quality romances or none at all but most certainly Josh doesn't want to implement anything half-baked.

Josh only spends time on things he's confident will be of high quality and I think that's great news for the game

 

Anyway, if, and this is probably a big if, there is ever going to be any romance in an add-on for example or in a sequel, we hopefully can be confident that it will be in fact a new high level quality approach to romances, and not some generic half-baked "romance" that are abundant in other games.

[drake heath]

 

 

This is bad news and concerns me immensely. I am one of those that believes Romance adds to the realism and immersive aspect of your journey in an RPG. Especially around your interaction with party members. Also I don't understand why Obsidian wouldn't want to include something in PoE that the majority of fans want

 

Even if 100% of fans wanted them, I don't believe we have the time and other resources to implement them well.  I am not inherently opposed to romances, but I don't want to spend time implementing something I'm not confident we will be able to execute at a high level of quality.

 

 

I read this statement as that he either wants to implement high quality romances or none at all but most certainly Josh doesn't want to implement anything half-baked.

Josh only spends time on things he's confident will be of high quality and I think that's great news for the game

 

Anyway, if, and this is probably a big if, there is ever going to be any romance in an add-on for example or in a sequel, we hopefully can be confident that it will be in fact a new high level quality approach to romances, and not some generic half-baked "romance" that are abundant in other games.

 

And anyways, if the fans want cheesy, low quality, waifu romances they can make a mod for one.

Edited February 12, 2014 by drake heath

[BruceVC]

 

 

I have to admit, this isn't quite the ****storm I was hoping for.

 

You promancers need to grow a spine. Make your rage a weapon, and unleash it upon the forums.

 

The main reason IMO for the lack of the expected vituperative backlash is most of  the promancers I know aren't active on these forums as much, they are on other forums who appreciate the importance and necessity of Romance in an RPG.....like BSN    

 

 

And now we can rest easy knowing they'll bloody well stay there. Mission accomplished.

 

  Monte you are truly incorrigible

[Auxilius]

Considering how passionate the Call of Duty crowd promancers are in this debate, it gave me a golden idea for my independant RPG that will finally permit me to make it big.

The Bold and the Beautiful: The TV Show: The Game. Now with 100 protagonists over three generations to seduce and organic dynamic relationships where half the cast try to get in the pants of the other half while hating themselves. No story, no adventure, no weapons, no villain, only romance. And blurry graphics.

 

Truly, I am a Genius.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Auxilius

[Rahelron]

Talk of romances led us onto talk of maturity, as "mature themes" are something Pillars of Eternity has. "And when we say mature themes we don't mean lots of..." Sawyer paused, searching for a phrase, "f***ing, right?"

 

 

What?

Seems like someone isn't able to understand the difference between love and sex.

Romances don't need to include sex cutscenes like Mass Effect does and I don't really understand why sawyer reasoned like that.

 

 

Too bad, but I can live without romances in my game.

The only thing that makes me a little sad is that the "Anti romance trolls" have won their battle.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Rahelron

[Raeya]

Surprisingly to myself, I welcome this news of not having romance. While I do think it can be a good thing to add into the enjoyment of an RPG, it's been rare to see a romance done well for the most part in my personal opinion.

 

As long as the companions we get have great backgrounds, stories and dialogue and allow the ability to create meaniful bonds with our PC then I'm all for that instead.

[Sir Chaox]

 

Talk of romances led us onto talk of maturity, as "mature themes" are something Pillars of Eternity has. "And when we say mature themes we don't mean lots of..." Sawyer paused, searching for a phrase, "f***ing, right?"

 

 

What?

Seems like someone isn't able to understand the difference between love and sex.

Romances don't need to include sex cutscenes like Mass Effect does and I don't really understand why sawyer reasoned like that.

 

 

Too bad, but I can live without romances in my game.

The only thing that makes me a little sad is that the "Anti romance trolls" have won their battle.

 

 

They are talking about maturity there, not romances specifically. He was stating what he regards as mature themes (or rather, what he does not regard solely as a mature theme).

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

The only thing that makes me a little sad is that the "Anti romance trolls" voices of reason have won their battle.

 

Fixed.

[Tale]

Too bad, but I can live without romances in my game.

The only thing that makes me a little sad is that the "Anti romance trolls" have won their battle.

It was never a battle. I hope we can trust that Obsidian made this decision for the reasons they stated, which were entirely internal, not because the fanbase bickered at one another.

 

The arguing was largely pointless. Points made may have had merit, but the tone of discourse didn't really seem to be contributing one way or the other.

[BSoda]

So it is finally confirmed then ? Not that it comes as that big of a surprise considering certain devs ...uhh... reservations concerning the topic from the get go. I will still admit that I am a bit disappointed by that. I would have loved seeing Obsidian taking romances beyond the BW teenage-novella level.

Edited February 12, 2014 by BSoda

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So it is finally confirmed then ? Not that it comes as that big of a surprise considering certain devs ...uhh... reservations concerning the topic from the get go. I will still admit that I am a bit disappointed by that. I would have loved seeing Obsidian taking romances beyond the BW teenage-novella level.

I was hoping Christine Sims would write them, for the lulz.

[rjshae]

A consideration might be to set up a potential romance in the group, then expand on it in a setting novel by an author experienced in romance writing. There's bound to be a few setting novels, right?

[Monte Carlo]

A consideration might be to set up a potential romance in the group, then expand on it in a setting novel by an author experienced in romance writing. There's bound to be a few setting novels, right?

 

I like it. I sniffed the bait and circled, then saw the trip-wire.

 

But still, a good effort sir. I salute you.

[Gulliver]

With a bit of luck, this will drive away the SJWs for good.

[Nonek]

Refraining from the gentle ribbing we've been indulging in and being serious for a moment, personally I think that if the protagonist grew to respect and value a companion over the course of Poe, then the expansion and there was some manner of relationship developing in the sequel it would be a far more organic process than clumsily wedging in a relationship over the course of one turbulent period after they've first met. Mrs Nonek and I were engaged in our courtship for quite a long period, and gradually grew closer over time, then again i'm extraordinarily ugly and have little to no personality so it may be different for handsome vibrant individuals.

[Lephys]

Romances can be good sometimes... but I feel some people are really overreacting here. The game is not going to have less interaction because there are no romances;

... Technically, it will. All the things you can do to a person that would feasibly be represented as interactive options in-game minus romance is quantifiably less than all those same interaction options plus romance.

 

That being said, yes people are over-reacting. It's not the end of the world. It's just something that would've been nice, had they had the time and resources to integrate it into the story and everything. I agree that an abritrary "Meh... you can totally do people if you really want to. There's some extra, optional content just for that, and a whole progression, etc." is almost not even worth putting into any game, ever. Doing it right takes time and effort and resources, and it's better to not have it in at all than to have it half-assedly tossed into the game.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I'm curious about the violently anti-romance folks, the ones who are currently dancing on the graves of the pro-romance folks' hopes. If a game of this sort were to include a romance that actually contributed to the story rather than being a sort of pseudo-Japanese dating sim where you choose the right dialogue options and are rewarded with sex and the everlasting affection of your chosen Waifu, would you object? Are you against romance as an entire concept in RPGs or just against romance as defined by Bioware since BG2?

[Sir Chaox]

 

Romances can be good sometimes... but I feel some people are really overreacting here. The game is not going to have less interaction because there are no romances;

... Technically, it will. All the things you can do to a person that would feasibly be represented as interactive options in-game minus romance is quantifiably less than all those same interaction options plus romance.

 

Subtracting romances as an option will free up those resources to be put towards other content in the game; so we are losing romances, but gaining more resources for everything else (more reactivity within the plot, with NPCs, or with companions (excluding romance options)). So, technically, there should be no change in the amount of interactive content in the game; they are going to put in as much of it as their resources will allow.

[TMZuk]

Well, that's disappointing.

 

What is it with Sawyer's and Avellone's dislike of romantic involvement? In New Vegas, you could perform some pretty nasty acts. Especially with a female character, where you could basically prostitute yourself and that's apparently all right. But having some sort of real involvement happening is to awkward to write. In New Vegas is made the characters seem shallow and unreal.

 

To paraphrase Avellone from an older interview: "Let it happen in your own imagination". Yeah right. Let Scarlet O'Hara's involvment with Ashley Wilkes and Rhett Butler happen in you own imagination, so that Margaret Mitchell didn't have to write it, and you didn't have to read about such awkward stuff in Gone with the Wind. How about Game of Thrones with romance happening in your mind?

 

The problem about romances in cRPGs isn't that they are awkward as a rule, but that it is often sappy teen stuff. That is what makes you cringe. Take Dragon Age: Origins.. Terrible Twilight style romances... except Morrigan's, which was absolutely brillant!

 

So, Sawyer and Avellone: Instead of once more squirming yourself out of it, how about writing some proper stuff for grownups? Something that isn't sugar coated nonsense, but has real issues where ambition, personal goals and conflicting desires makes romantic involvement difficult, problematic, filled with conflicts and potential landmines, where it can go sour or perhaps not, depending on the characters involved.

 

And to the haters: Why do you care? You don't want romance, steer clear of it. The unpleasant gloating by some of the posters here indicates immature and troubled minds, who have to deny others what they don't like themselves.

Edited February 12, 2014 by TMZuk

[Nonek]

I'm curious about the violently anti-romance folks, the ones who are currently dancing on the graves of the pro-romance folks' hopes. If a game of this sort were to include a romance that actually contributed to the story rather than being a sort of pseudo-Japanese dating sim where you choose the right dialogue options and are rewarded with sex and the everlasting affection of your chosen Waifu, would you object? Are you against romance as an entire concept in RPGs or just against romance as defined by Bioware since BG2?

 

Personally i've just never seen it handled well Mr Miyagi, i'd like to be wrong but to be honest it just really does not appeal to me in any way shape or form when presented in a video game, it always seems mawkish and grubby and awfully immature. Obviously most of these are the results of poor writing, such as the overblown melodramatic teenage romances we see in all of the Bioware games, where it is just blatant pandering to the protagonist. But even when well written there is something slightly uncomfortable about such things for me, humourless and painful as they are.

 

Strangely enough the people who pursue them seem to operate in a similar manner, taking a little gentle mockery or criticism as some great strike against them and everything they cherish, it's just a little tongue in cheek fun. There are an almost infinite variety of methods to interact with other characters, and Obsidian are masters of doing just that, whether it's speaking to your own transplanted brain, summoning up the ghost of long dead Nolaloth, smashing an informants head into the bar of a Russian drinking den, arguing philosophy with a crippled but terrifyingly strong Sith Lord, listening to the Stories Bones Tell or learning the Circles from an old Zerth who you saved and damned. In comparison a few overemotional utterances seem like a small thing indeed, i'd rather save them for my wife and real life where they are meant to be spoken, in private.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Fakkin 'A'

 

 

 

 

In comparison a few overemotional utterances seem like a small thing indeed, i'd rather save them for my wife and real life where they are meant to be spoken, in private.

 

QFT

 

Couldn't put it better myself.

[Lephys]

Subtracting romances as an option will free up those resources to be put towards other content in the game; so we are losing romances, but gaining more resources for everything else (more reactivity within the plot, with NPCs, or with companions (excluding romance options)). So, technically, there should be no change in the amount of interactive content in the game; they are going to put in as much of it as their resources will allow.

We're using different meanings. I don't disagree with you. The reason I said "technically" is because you cannot replace romance options with not-romance options and somehow maintain the quantity of distinct option types, is all.

 

Imagine you have 7 different foods on a table. If you take one of the unique dishes away (say... I dunno, salad), and you replace it with a second plate of another dish (Mac and cheese, for example's sake), then you've still got the same amount of food, but you could still say the table has "less" food than it did have, since it had 7 foods, and now it has only 6 foods.

 

I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was just pointing out a technicality of the meaning of "less interactivity," because I'm a defective android. 8P

[Sir Chaox]

 

Subtracting romances as an option will free up those resources to be put towards other content in the game; so we are losing romances, but gaining more resources for everything else (more reactivity within the plot, with NPCs, or with companions (excluding romance options)). So, technically, there should be no change in the amount of interactive content in the game; they are going to put in as much of it as their resources will allow.

We're using different meanings. I don't disagree with you. The reason I said "technically" is because you cannot replace romance options with not-romance options and somehow maintain the quantity of distinct option types, is all.

 

Imagine you have 7 different foods on a table. If you take one of the unique dishes away (say... I dunno, salad), and you replace it with a second plate of another dish (Mac and cheese, for example's sake), then you've still got the same amount of food, but you could still say the table has "less" food than it did have, since it had 7 foods, and now it has only 6 foods.

 

I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was just pointing out a technicality of the meaning of "less interactivity," because I'm a defective android. 8P

 

 

Sure I can agree with that. We lose some variety and gain some quantity in other categories.

 

I probably would have liked romances if Obsidian wanted to do them well, but since they stated they cannot output any at a high enough quality level given the time and resources, I am totally fine with them being omitted.

 

And who wants salad when you can have another steak?