No romances confirmed

[Karkarov]

Absolutely and I also think that any forum that is in the public domain should have forum rules and etiquette that is enforced. You can't ask some people to do and say the right thing and assume they do it, that's why in some cases we need Moderators.

Depends on the forum Bruce.  RPGCodex's only real rule is "be as big a douche as you can possibly be".  This is probably a major factor in why it is such a crap forum and why it is filled with posters who frankly I hope stay there and never join the real world.  Or maybe they will migrate to 4chan instead.  Whatever works for them.

[Tale]

 

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

 

This analogy doesn't work for me. Why do you have 7 different food types and are taking things away instead of an empty table on which to add things?

 

A video game is not the metaphorical sculpture, on which you take away all the parts that aren't the game. It's closer to a house. If the architect designs the house to not have a study, it doesn't mean he took the study away. The house is still going to be the same size at the end of it all, but maybe it has a rumpus room. Maybe it has a dining room separate from the kitchen. Maybe it has a child's bedroom or a walk-in closet. And maybe he's just expanding the living area. It was never going to have all of these things. It never had the potential for all of them together. The architect didn't feel a study was appropriate, and now he has room in the plans for something else.

 

It's not technically a smaller house for the omission of a study, either.

[Sir Chaox]

 

Absolutely and I also think that any forum that is in the public domain should have forum rules and etiquette that is enforced. You can't ask some people to do and say the right thing and assume they do it, that's why in some cases we need Moderators.

 

You still do not understand - a lot of people on Codex who shocked you with "rude and bigoted Sexist comments and jokes about rape" ARE moderators.

 

 

Who moderates the moderators?

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

Absolutely and I also think that any forum that is in the public domain should have forum rules and etiquette that is enforced. You can't ask some people to do and say the right thing and assume they do it, that's why in some cases we need Moderators.

 

You still do not understand - a lot of people on Codex who shocked you with "rude and bigoted Sexist comments and jokes about rape" ARE moderators.

 

 

Who moderates the moderators?

 

Me.

[Sir Chaox]

[forgottenlor]

I could absolutely care less about this announcement, and I think that goes for many others.  The "romances" of Planescape:Torment, where there was absolutely no sex, and which really only were confirmed at the end of the game, were some of the best I've seen in a game. The female characters revealed their true feelings when they were facing death and then saying farewell to the Nameless one. The ones in Dragon Age and Neverwinter Nights 2 seemed completely forced in comparison. So I'd say that I'd appreciate a well written romance, but if the authors can't think one up, then its better to not have them at all.

[Nonek]

Who's to say that any of the NPC's will find the protagonist attractive? Or must they always do so, no matter their character or orientation?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

All NPCs must knell before the glory of the PC.

[Foamhead]

 

I believe Obsidian has the best writers in the RPG business, but Chris Avellone's frankly immature and condescending attitude towards love and romance turns me off. Since this game is looking like another dungeon crawl hack and slash I doubt I'll be buying it regardless.

The funny thing is that Chris Avellone wrote Planescape: Torment, which was released in 1999 (i.e. a year before Baldur's Gate 2) and was perhaps the first cRPG that featured plenty of romance that was central to the plot. I'd argue that simplifying his comments on video game romance as 'immature and condescending' is pretty immature and condescending of you.

 

 

I said comments on Love and Romance, I did not say video game romance. If you're gonna reply to someone then reply to what they actually said.

[Quetzalcoatl]

 

 

I believe Obsidian has the best writers in the RPG business, but Chris Avellone's frankly immature and condescending attitude towards love and romance turns me off. Since this game is looking like another dungeon crawl hack and slash I doubt I'll be buying it regardless.

The funny thing is that Chris Avellone wrote Planescape: Torment, which was released in 1999 (i.e. a year before Baldur's Gate 2) and was perhaps the first cRPG that featured plenty of romance that was central to the plot. I'd argue that simplifying his comments on video game romance as 'immature and condescending' is pretty immature and condescending of you.

 

 

I said comments on Love and Romance, I did not say video game romance. If you're gonna reply to someone then reply to what they actually said.

 

His comments on 'love and romance' were obviously about video game romance.

[Sothpaw]

Awesome, so tired of lame romances in RPGs.

[Lephys]

Nice strawman, but no.

I'd swear you're wearing straw-colored glasses lenses or something. 8P

 

All "you put niceness coins in until you get rewarded with sex" implementations are romance options, but all romance options are not "you put niceness coins in until you get rewarded with sex" implementations, to put it simply.

[Hassat Hunter]

So what you're saying is...

 

"All whores are sex, but not all sex is with whores"?

But without sex no romance? Since apparently kissing or cuddling or whatever isn't enough for the pro-crowd. Sad as that is... :/

[Silent Winter]

Who's to say that any of the NPC's will find the protagonist attractive? Or must they always do so, no matter their character or orientation?

In fairness - most of the BG2 romancable companions (even mod-ones) had pre-req things like 'Elf/Human/Half-Elf' and 'CHA 16' or 'GOOD' etc.  (Though that also made them shallow )

 

Naturally Sagani would find me very attractive anyway

(NB: I'm not at all fussed at the lack of PoE romance)

[Lephys]

So what you're saying is...

 

"All whores are sex, but not all sex is with whores"?

But without sex no romance? Since apparently kissing or cuddling or whatever isn't enough for the pro-crowd. Sad as that is... :/

Yes. That comparison makes the same point as mine did. And I'm not really concerned with arguing the semantics of what is and isn't romance options. So, even though lots of people would say "But that isn't romance," I prefer to simply take an objective look at what can and cannot be done with interpersonal relationships between characters in a story, and go from there.

 

To put it simply, the problem with "romance options" in RPGs, typically, ISN'T that the player is allowed to make decisions that affect emotional attachment and personal relationships with other characters, but that the game completely isolates that as its own sort of minigame.

 

I mean, take the following situation:

 

You arrive in a town and are ushered off to baths and accommodations by rather flirty servants/staff (you and your whole party), and you keep saying "No no, we really must be on our way," and yet they keep insisting you partake of their hospitality. Hey, your characters like all these pleasantries, right? You've been traveling for 3 days, and haven't had a meal like they're offering you in weeks. And, why NOT just go have some fun with willing people who are offering, eh? So, you have the choice of urging everyone to leave, or taking them up on their offer to indulge a bit in food, wine, and company. Annnnnnd it turns out there's actually something horribly wrong there, and it was all an illusion, and now you're imprisoned and they're feeding off your souls (you know, the ole Siren/succubus/seduce-and-feed scenario). And design it such that your decisions actually affect how bad of a situation you find yourself in, or how the story of that town unfolds and/or how you get to handle the situation. Maybe if you urge everyone to stay and enjoy themselves, you fail to get everyone out alive? *shrug*.

 

That situation's totally fine, right? That's just a story, that happens to involve sex/temptation. But, have something just as meaningful/reactive that involves emotions between your characters, and it's suddenly the devil.

 

Now, there could just be a town where you can purely optionally go visit some brothels and stuff, for pretty much no reason except to go "huh huh huh" to yourself or laugh at the funny dialog, and THAT, in comparison to a scenario in which your interaction with the brothel actually affects the unfolding of the story, would be just as crap as the way romance options are usually implemented in games in comparison to how they COULD be implemented in games.

 

Heck, Morrigan in DA:O... even if you're just mean to her the whole time, she comes to you with a proposal to have your baby, because she actually has some kind of agenda for your DNA or something that doesn't even have anything to do with emotional attachment or "romance". Heck, I think even if you "romance" her, she still has the same motivation for wanting to produce a child of yours, and it's not just "Yay, you people who like romance can feel rewarded by achieving child-bearing desires in the person you chose to make fall in love with you! You win the dating sim!"

 

That's about the best point I can make for that. Ignoring, of course, the fact that I don't think anyone still has any idea what the hell the point of her having your child is in relation to the ongoing DA story. OR the fact that, in the expansion, she somehow, unexplainably has your baby even if you don't impregnate her. Which might be explainable... she is magic, ya know... *shrug*. But, the point is, the story uses a pretty romancey thing (sex, impregnation) in a way completely separate from relationship-building mechanics.

[BruceVC]

 

So what you're saying is...

 

"All whores are sex, but not all sex is with whores"?

But without sex no romance? Since apparently kissing or cuddling or whatever isn't enough for the pro-crowd. Sad as that is... :/

Yes. That comparison makes the same point as mine did. And I'm not really concerned with arguing the semantics of what is and isn't romance options. So, even though lots of people would say "But that isn't romance," I prefer to simply take an objective look at what can and cannot be done with interpersonal relationships between characters in a story, and go from there.

 

To put it simply, the problem with "romance options" in RPGs, typically, ISN'T that the player is allowed to make decisions that affect emotional attachment and personal relationships with other characters, but that the game completely isolates that as its own sort of minigame.

 

I mean, take the following situation:

 

You arrive in a town and are ushered off to baths and accommodations by rather flirty servants/staff (you and your whole party), and you keep saying "No no, we really must be on our way," and yet they keep insisting you partake of their hospitality. Hey, your characters like all these pleasantries, right? You've been traveling for 3 days, and haven't had a meal like they're offering you in weeks. And, why NOT just go have some fun with willing people who are offering, eh? So, you have the choice of urging everyone to leave, or taking them up on their offer to indulge a bit in food, wine, and company. Annnnnnd it turns out there's actually something horribly wrong there, and it was all an illusion, and now you're imprisoned and they're feeding off your souls (you know, the ole Siren/succubus/seduce-and-feed scenario). And design it such that your decisions actually affect how bad of a situation you find yourself in, or how the story of that town unfolds and/or how you get to handle the situation. Maybe if you urge everyone to stay and enjoy themselves, you fail to get everyone out alive? *shrug*.

 

That situation's totally fine, right? That's just a story, that happens to involve sex/temptation. But, have something just as meaningful/reactive that involves emotions between your characters, and it's suddenly the devil.

 

Now, there could just be a town where you can purely optionally go visit some brothels and stuff, for pretty much no reason except to go "huh huh huh" to yourself or laugh at the funny dialog, and THAT, in comparison to a scenario in which your interaction with the brothel actually affects the unfolding of the story, would be just as crap as the way romance options are usually implemented in games in comparison to how they COULD be implemented in games.

 

Heck, Morrigan in DA:O... even if you're just mean to her the whole time, she comes to you with a proposal to have your baby, because she actually has some kind of agenda for your DNA or something that doesn't even have anything to do with emotional attachment or "romance". Heck, I think even if you "romance" her, she still has the same motivation for wanting to produce a child of yours, and it's not just "Yay, you people who like romance can feel rewarded by achieving child-bearing desires in the person you chose to make fall in love with you! You win the dating sim!"

 

That's about the best point I can make for that. Ignoring, of course, the fact that I don't think anyone still has any idea what the hell the point of her having your child is in relation to the ongoing DA story. OR the fact that, in the expansion, she somehow, unexplainably has your baby even if you don't impregnate her. Which might be explainable... she is magic, ya know... *shrug*. But, the point is, the story uses a pretty romancey thing (sex, impregnation) in a way completely separate from relationship-building mechanics.

 

 

Good post Lephys, my character would definitely fall for the whole "succubus please rest in the Inn" subterfuge

[Zu Long]

I have to say, I am a bit disappointed. Not because I really need romance in my RPGs, but because it seems so limiting from a roleplaying perspective. No matter what he or she does, my character will end up, inevitably, alone. It just feel kind of sad to know that in the back your mind from the get-go, you know?

 

Still it is what it is, and I look forward to those interactions I will get to have.

[Greydragon]

I had hopes but no great expectations. If they can't write a decent romance sub-plot it is better not to have one, altogether.

Sadly, it will probably make character interactions with the other party members drier and less interesting in terms of role-play. A shame it diverges from the spirit of the BG series in this. I guess I'll just have to hope against hope Torment:ToN stays true to the original theme of romance in PS:T. 

[Monte Carlo]

 

Nice strawman, but no.

I'd swear you're wearing straw-colored glasses lenses or something. 8P

 

All "you put niceness coins in until you get rewarded with sex" implementations are romance options, but all romance options are not "you put niceness coins in until you get rewarded with sex" implementations, to put it simply.

 

 

Dragon Age - give Morrigan jewellery - she bangs you, sure, but you missed out how your sexual prowess also boosts her magical powaz.

 

That's right, the player is rewarded for having sex with NPCs - it also makes them more powerful.

 

Your argument is bunk, to put it mildly.

[FlintlockJazz]

Fear me!!

[Endrosz]

Why? Because I believe it's extremely difficult -- I won't say impossible because in writing nothing is completely impossible -- to write a compelling romance for a blank-slate character. PS:T's romance worked because TNO is not a blank-slate character, quite the opposite really. PoE's PC is a blank-slate character, so unless someone really surprises me, I don't believe it's possible to write a romance worth playing for him/her/hir/it/them.

^ That is a very good point, thanks for bringing it up. Yes, with a somewhat predefined protagonist, like Geralt of Rivia, writing sensible romances is much more easier. In other narrative mediums, the characters are defined one way or the other and you can safely build romances on their personality, history, and general situation they are in. In a game like Eternity, you don't have that luxury as a writer.

 

Geralt, in addition to being good-looking, suave, and generally badass, is sterile (and this is a known fact to many in the world of Witcher), which makes sex with him safe, which makes an "adventure" with him even more appealing to women... I've discussed this with a friend of mine who, in addition a being a gamer, is also a womanizer, and he was quite envious of Geralt because of this.

 

When at the start of Witcher 1, in Geralt's weakened state Triss shares a bed with him, that scene reinforces that she still cares about him (they have a looooong history) and thinks that he's valuable and not a lost case. It's "friendly sex", in a sense, a gift of self-esteem. Geralt doesn't really "take her", rather it's Triss who "elevates" him.  It's a powerful moment, right at the start of the game, and without building up influence points to win her over. It has a detailed history behind it (which you'll get to know over the course of the games), it is embedded in the story, the motivation is there, the dialogue makes sense -- all the boxes checked for a sex scene that is wholly appropriate. So you can even do a fitting sex scene in the first hour of the game -- if you do it right....

[BruceVC]

 

 

Nice strawman, but no.

I'd swear you're wearing straw-colored glasses lenses or something. 8P

 

All "you put niceness coins in until you get rewarded with sex" implementations are romance options, but all romance options are not "you put niceness coins in until you get rewarded with sex" implementations, to put it simply.

 

 

Dragon Age - give Morrigan jewellery - she bangs you, sure, but you missed out how your sexual prowess also boosts her magical powaz.

 

That's right, the player is rewarded for having sex with NPCs - it also makes them more powerful.

 

Your argument is bunk, to put it mildly.

 

 

You are nitpicking now Monte, you know what he means

[Alfiriel]

I can only say I am suprised about theweird picture some people here have of temselves.

 

They decline others some purely optional inge feature they would like just because of the way people completly unrelated to the people they now annoy im a different forum use this feature in a way you dont like?

 

Seriouly? You think that kind of behaivor is ok? Even if I agree that some people on those other forums should see a therapist. That is completly none of your business. Everbody can use this featurea however they want... even if I would like meaningful romance I have no right to tell someone not to rub off one to morgain in dao if he wants to.

 

We all want a free world guys ... do some selfreflection and mind your own business...

 

Tbe optimal game would give us all the chance to do whatever welike in the way we like if we want to. Now we know that will not happen... but really as long as they are optional I rather have more featutes in the game than less especially if there is a part of the community that wants it. Instead of less and making fun of the dissapointment of others....

 

Anyway I already explained that this game seems to havr less and less group interaction... I really hope I see proof for that being a wrong assumption in the next updates... because there are a lot of pretty dungeoncrawlers out there... I want derp interaction well written npcs a group and adventure feeling and not 3 sentence companions instantcrafting and cooldown wars of magical thief teleport skills....

[Monte Carlo]

Dude, seriously. Five posts. You haven't read the arguments. You've missed the point.

 

 

 

Anyway I already explained that this game seems to havr less and less group interaction... I really hope I see proof for that being a wrong assumption in the next updates... because there are a lot of pretty dungeoncrawlers out there... I want derp interaction well written npcs a group and adventure feeling and not 3 sentence companions instantcrafting and cooldown wars of magical thief teleport skills...

 

I don't want a romance so I don't want NPC interaction. Right up there with I don't like bananas so I don't want an omelette.

 

Oh, and...

 

[Barothmuk]

I sure do love me some derp interaction.