Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Recommended Posts

The argument that implementing whatever will be implemented with the resources that would be spent doing romances is better and somehow the "superior" way to go is completely baseless: it's the way to go FOR YOU. For those who wanted romances, it will certainly DETRACT from the experience. The devs went your way, congrats, but this doesn't mean we can't complain about it for as long as we feel the need to and point out the fact that Obsidian took the easy way out (if they can't write romances, hire someone who can. It's not like the gaming industry doesn't hire and fire people at will according to development needs).

This has been explained already, but writing a separate romance path, and making that romance fit in with that character's other interactions and expressions, would cost a lot more resources. It's not simply a matter of adding a dialogue option to pursue a romance.

 

and the MOST FAMOUS AND PRAISED OF THOSE GAMES (PS:T AND BG2) HAVING ROMANCES OF SOME SORT

PS:T didn't really have romances, at least not the way it's usually done in RPG's (repeatedly choosing dialogue options to build up 'romance points' to romance someone and ending up in a relationship with them, usually in the ending). The 'romance' with Annah was more about her plight as an orphaned and discriminated tiefling.

 

So that leaves BG 2. Which undermines your point, since the romanceable characters in that game had far more content than the non-romanceable ones.

 

And the pitch for this game was always to take various elements of all the Infinity Engine games as inspiration at Obsidian's own discretion.

 

 

Edited by Quetzalcoatl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The argument that implementing whatever will be implemented with the resources that would be spent doing romances is better and somehow the "superior" way to go is completely baseless: it's the way to go FOR YOU. For those who wanted romances, it will certainly DETRACT from the experience. The devs went your way, congrats, but this doesn't mean we can't complain about it for as long as we feel the need to and point out the fact that Obsidian took the easy way out (if they can't write romances, hire someone who can. It's not like the gaming industry doesn't hire and fire people at will according to development needs).

This has been explained already, but writing a separate romance path, and making that romance fit in with that character's other interactions and expressions, would cost a lot more resources. It's not simply a matter of adding a dialogue option to pursue a romance.

 

 

    I didn't mention anything about how much resources I believe would be needed, neither is that relevant to the point made, since for people who wanted romances whatever resources needed (provided the amount wouldn't be absurdly high to the point of forcing the drop of what they would consider "core" features) would be well spent in implementing it.

 

 

 

and the MOST FAMOUS AND PRAISED OF THOSE GAMES (PS:T AND BG2) HAVING ROMANCES OF SOME SORT

PS:T didn't really have romances, at least not the way it's usually done in RPG's (repeatedly choosing dialogue options to build up 'romance points' to romance someone and ending up in a relationship with them, usually in the ending). The 'romance' with Annah was more about her plight as an orphaned and discriminated tiefling.

 

 

     Admittedly Fall-from-Grace is the one coming to my mind, I never went the way of Annah. I was pretty sure that was romance, though. The fact that it wasn't built the way recent CRPGs did hardly matters, I never said I wanted romances only in the Bioware style (which I agree is flawed, although I still derived some enjoyment from them).

 

 

So that leaves BG 2. Which undermines your point, since the romanceable characters in that game had far more content than the non-romanceable ones.

    I really don't see why BG2 having more content for romanceable characters undermines my point. If you mean the fact that those who did not wanted romance were short-changed in that game, it did not have to be that way in PoE.

 

 

And the pitch for this game was always to take various elements of all the Infinity Engine games as inspiration at Obsidian's own discretion.

 

    Have I said otherwise? Was I supposed to divine the fact that their discretion would not include romances?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have I said otherwise? Was I supposed to divine the fact that their discretion would not include romances?

 

 

 

I don't see why you would be expecting romances. The core features and selling point of the IE games are not romances.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Have I said otherwise? Was I supposed to divine the fact that their discretion would not include romances?

 

 

 

I don't see why you would be expecting romances. The core features and selling point of the IE games are not romances.

 

 

    If you look at post 525 in the second paragraph, I explain why there (not gonna reproduce a lengthy paragraph again). I'll agree that romances were not selling points or core features, but BG2 and PS:T were praised by what was considered a new level of character interaction at the time and the romances were a part of that. Part of what made these games unforgettable to the point they could help a Kickstarter succeed by mentioning them was the storytelling and the characters, and romance was a significant part of that, so I don't understand why it's hard for you to see the reasoning behind expecting them in PoE.

Edited by makryu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you look at post 525 in the second paragraph, I explain why there (not gonna reproduce a lengthy paragraph again). I'll agree that romances were not selling points or core features, but BG2 and PS:T were praised by what was considered a new level of character interaction at the time and the romances were a part of that. Part of what made these games unforgettable to the point they could help a Kickstarter succeed by mentioning them was the storytelling and the characters, and romance was a significant part of that, so I don't understand why it's hard for you to see the reasoning behind expecting them in PoE.

 

 

 

Perhaps to you. For me it's not the romances. And many parties I played through in BG2 had no romances, which turns out there was no significant part at all. This kotaku article is how I feel about BG2 and mentions no romances. http://kotaku.com/baldurs-gate-ii-is-still-one-of-the-greatest-rpgs-ever-1278311582

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If you look at post 525 in the second paragraph, I explain why there (not gonna reproduce a lengthy paragraph again). I'll agree that romances were not selling points or core features, but BG2 and PS:T were praised by what was considered a new level of character interaction at the time and the romances were a part of that. Part of what made these games unforgettable to the point they could help a Kickstarter succeed by mentioning them was the storytelling and the characters, and romance was a significant part of that, so I don't understand why it's hard for you to see the reasoning behind expecting them in PoE.

 

 

 

Perhaps to you. For me it's not the romances. And many parties I played through in BG2 had no romances, which turns out there was no significant part at all. This kotaku article is how I feel about BG2 and mentions no romances. http://kotaku.com/baldurs-gate-ii-is-still-one-of-the-greatest-rpgs-ever-1278311582

 

 

    Not perhaps, certainly. The whole point of my argument is that it was expected that at least some people would want some sort of romance given the games referenced as influences. You didn't. Since my point wasn't that ALL people would be expecting romances, just that there was enough reason for some to do, I fail to see any contradiction.

 

 

The article you linked mentions 1) writing; 6) the little things. I could easily argue that 1) writing includes the romances, since by then there were almost no cutscenes and all the romance was set up solely through written dialogue and descriptions. Stretching a bit I could say 6) the little things can also include small details of the relationships, such as differences in reactions of the characters depending on whether there was romance or not. Regardless, number 1) is enough to support my point, which is that romances were a significant part of what made BG2 remarkable, the writing. The fact that romance isn't specifically mentioned means nothing, the same way that the fact that it only mentions Jan Jansen by name doesn't mean the author didn't like Minsc and Boo banter.

Edited by makryu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not perhaps, certainly. The whole point of my argument is that it was expected that at least some people would want some sort of romance given the games referenced as influences. You didn't. Since my point wasn't that ALL people would be expecting romances, just that there was enough reason for some to do, I fail to see any contradiction.

 

The article you linked mentions 1) writing; 6) the little things. I could easily argue that 1) writing includes the romances, since by then there were almost no cutscenes and all the romance was set up solely through written dialogue and descriptions. Stretching a bit I could say 6) the little things can also include small details of the relationships, such as differences in reactions of the characters depending on whether there was romance or not. Regardless, number 1) is enough to support my point, which is that romances were a significant part of what made BG2 remarkable, the writing. The fact that romance isn't specifically mentioned means nothing, the same way that the fact that it only mentions Jan Jansen by name doesn't mean the author didn't like Minsc and Boo banter.

 

 

 

Writing can mean many things. Does it mean that PoE should have x in its writing because BG2 did? Considering nearly half the races you play aren't romanceable, the writing/romance isn't there in BG. Play a Halfling? Nope. Play a dwarf? Nope. What about a Gnome? Nope. I've always played Halflings in at least my first or second play through. Where's the romance dialogue? Not there. So it would be false advertising to sell BG2 having romances when some of those races don't have romances. You would have to put a disclaimer on it. Romances but only for these types of races. Other races are excluded. Even the box doesn't mention romances. It was never a selling point in the first place.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Writing can mean many things. Does it mean that PoE should have x in its writing because BG2 did? Considering nearly half the races you play aren't romanceable, the writing/romance isn't there in BG. Play a Halfling? Nope. Play a dwarf? Nope. What about a Gnome? Nope. I've always played Halflings in at least my first or second play through. Where's the romance dialogue? Not there. So it would be false advertising to sell BG2 having romances when some of those races don't have romances. You would have to put a disclaimer on it. Romances but only for these types of races. Other races are excluded. Even the box doesn't mention romances. It was never a selling point in the first place.

So I guess it was false advertising to sell BG2 having magic/spells, since Fighters and some of those other classes didn't have spells?

  • Like 2

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want a romance intensive game experience..

 

Sex if You Win, Sex if You Lose

 

raidy.jpg

Nukige =/= romance.

 

There's no need for romance when you can have adventure. To quote a man beloved by the gods: "I don't like slugs, because you can't eat them. I once ate a slug on a survival trip and got sick for a week."

 

cap.jpg

Edited by AGX-17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I guess it was false advertising to sell BG2 having magic/spells, since Fighters and some of those other classes didn't have spells?

 

No, because they were in the game and multi and dual class Fighters (Mage/Druid/Cleric) can use spells. And a lot of power gamers did that. Dual class a Fighter or Fighter Kit to a Mage. While you can have a multi-classed Dwarf Fighter that can use spells, that same character can't have a romance.

 

Also, considering that you've said in the other romance thread that you don't discriminate and see reasonable arguments on the no romance side of the discussion. What are your reasonable arguments that you would not want to see romances in PoE? Why don't you want romances in PoE?

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to point out that Jack Nicholson clearly needed that watermelon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting choice, but one I can agree with. Whenever I played one of the IE games if I had a party I would look to them more as comrades in arms then anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, I'm rather disappointed. And I think too many of the anti-romancers tend to point out the worst examples too often.

 

To me it's not so much a disappointment due to "teh sexxorz!!1" or anything like that, but because I feel the game and characters in it will learn some depth to them if that's just not a factor. If you wander around a universe where such love exists, then it seems stupid not to be able to express that emotion yourself, and for those in your party not to be able to reciprocate or reject you. You've essentially removed whole emotions and a whole facet that is an integral part of all people. It also feels a little... safe, for lack of a better term. Like the developers are holding back because they just don't want to deal with it, rather than because it doesn't fit.

 

I think in a roleplaying game such as this, players should have the ability to roleplay in as many ways as they an. To deny the protagonist love (or the possibility of it) outright just seems arbitrarily restrictive. It's also kind of a stable of heroic fantasy to often have the love interest, at least in some form. If the ability to flirt and use charisma exists for gameplay too (and I assume it does) then it makes the whole thing seem shallow and hollow. Like you can merely fake an interest to achieve your own ends, but never actually be serious or express the emotion genuinely.

 

I have to admit, I'm not looking foward to this game as much as I previously was. I'd personally have preferred more time and effort spent on this than, say, a big dungeon that'll probably just be repetitive combat with little to no roleplaying or dialogue. I don't like restrictions on my ability to roleplay and on player agency. Not every character I'd play would explore romance options, but some would. I know it's not really "removing it" so much as it not being there, but it really does feel like it's a facet that SHOULD be there to me. I thought the idea of games such as this was to get as close to P&P style gaming as possible on a computer without a real DM/GM, and when in almost every P&P RPG I've played love and romance has come up in some fashion, it seems like a step back to it just be a complete non-entity here. To me, removing what really has become almost a stable RPG element in some form is like removing playable races, classes, weapons or doing something like forcing the protagonist to speak or autodialogue. It's just one more thing that's decided for me and denied rather than giving me the option.

  • Like 2

image-163149-full.jpg?1348680770image-163154-full.jpg?1348681100
15327.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really very similar to Speech-skill type options: Obsidian didn't say "Ohhh, we're not putting any persuasion options in the game, because those are always horribly done, and high skill = win options" (much like Romance tends to be build up some points by saying/doing the right things, then get some kind of victory/reward for it). No, they said "Oh, we're doing Speech, but we're gonna make it not-suck. Scratch that skill, and your options come from the various properties of your character; stats, skills, knowledge, race, reputation, etc. And different people react to different things in different ways. There is no jedi-mind-trick 'persuasion' or willed diplomacy that makes what you say just automatically sooth the target."

 

Putting "romance" in the game is simply writing in emotional attachment reactivity, much like writing in diplomatic or persuasive reactivity. I know it's different, but it's similar. Yeah, it's been done like crap in plenty of other games. So has Insta-win Speech. They're doing Speech better, rather than jettisoning it. They could, conceptually, do that with Romance.

 

I get why they're not. They have their reasons. But, it's not because Romance is stupid or an inherently terrible thing to have in any form in a role-playing game.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not perhaps, certainly. The whole point of my argument is that it was expected that at least some people would want some sort of romance given the games referenced as influences. You didn't. Since my point wasn't that ALL people would be expecting romances, just that there was enough reason for some to do, I fail to see any contradiction.

 

The article you linked mentions 1) writing; 6) the little things. I could easily argue that 1) writing includes the romances, since by then there were almost no cutscenes and all the romance was set up solely through written dialogue and descriptions. Stretching a bit I could say 6) the little things can also include small details of the relationships, such as differences in reactions of the characters depending on whether there was romance or not. Regardless, number 1) is enough to support my point, which is that romances were a significant part of what made BG2 remarkable, the writing. The fact that romance isn't specifically mentioned means nothing, the same way that the fact that it only mentions Jan Jansen by name doesn't mean the author didn't like Minsc and Boo banter.

 

 

Writing can mean many things. Does it mean that PoE should have x in its writing because BG2 did? Considering nearly half the races you play aren't romanceable, the writing/romance isn't there in BG. Play a Halfling? Nope. Play a dwarf? Nope. What about a Gnome? Nope. I've always played Halflings in at least my first or second play through. Where's the romance dialogue? Not there. So it would be false advertising to sell BG2 having romances when some of those races don't have romances. You would have to put a disclaimer on it. Romances but only for these types of races. Other races are excluded. Even the box doesn't mention romances. It was never a selling point in the first place.

Yes, it can mean many things. One of them is romance, precisely what I'm saying. Or you want to suggest the writing of the romances is not "worthy" to be grouped with the rest of the writing?

 

Regardless, it does not mean PoE had to have it because BG2 did. It does mean that it was perfectly plausible to expect romance to be in the game.

 

As for how many races did have romances and whether it was a selling point, I don't see the relevance of for the discussion at all. The fact that the least played races were excluded is regrettable, that's all. Also what's put in a box to attract consumers has little to do with what's critically acclaimed about a game afterwards. I'm sure you'll find many important features that made BG2 memorable aren't in the cover either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people seem to think romance=interactivty and that no romance means no interactivity or relationship.  That's not true, it's not 'romance or bust' it's 'romance or friendship or familial or parent/child' or any other equally valid and just as meaningful relationship.  The relationships that are not romances are overlooked in most games, we should be campaigning to get more focus on them, yet here we are...

  • Like 4

"That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

"Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people seem to think romance=interactivty and that no romance means no interactivity or relationship.  That's not true, it's not 'romance or bust' it's 'romance or friendship or familial or parent/child' or any other equally valid and just as meaningful relationship.  The relationships that are not romances are overlooked in most games, we should be campaigning to get more focus on them, yet here we are..

 

I agree to a certain degree but I still stand by my previous view that in all the RPG I have played the characters and relationships I remember the most fondly and easily  were around Romance. And Planescape did have the initial stages of Romance and alluded to it but there was no sex.

  • Like 1

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really very similar to Speech-skill type options: Obsidian didn't say "Ohhh, we're not putting any persuasion options in the game, because those are always horribly done, and high skill = win options" (much like Romance tends to be build up some points by saying/doing the right things, then get some kind of victory/reward for it). No, they said "Oh, we're doing Speech, but we're gonna make it not-suck. Scratch that skill, and your options come from the various properties of your character; stats, skills, knowledge, race, reputation, etc. And different people react to different things in different ways. There is no jedi-mind-trick 'persuasion' or willed diplomacy that makes what you say just automatically sooth the target."

 

Putting "romance" in the game is simply writing in emotional attachment reactivity, much like writing in diplomatic or persuasive reactivity. I know it's different, but it's similar. Yeah, it's been done like crap in plenty of other games. So has Insta-win Speech. They're doing Speech better, rather than jettisoning it. They could, conceptually, do that with Romance.

There's a HUGE difference between correctly implementing a skill and writing a good romance. The former is just a matter of dealing with tangible, dry mechanics across the board, while the latter is an extremely arbitrary task for creative writers that must depend on correctly tugging emotional heartstrings and navigating the billion different, and conflicting social norms to produce something believable and within the existing personality of the NPC they've already written.

 

This is why Brothels work so well in RPGs. You don't have to do any of that. Everyone knows what a good Harlot does.

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging from some replies, you'd say that instead of wanting romance to be in the game we're defending that Obsidian should implement a real-time interactive quantum physics simulation inside PoE. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.

. Everyone knows what a good Harlot does.

 

 

Nope I have no idea what a good Harlot does? Personally I prefer bad ...very bad harlots :sweat:

Edited by BruceVC

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people seem to think romance=interactivty and that no romance means no interactivity or relationship.  That's not true, it's not 'romance or bust' it's 'romance or friendship or familial or parent/child' or any other equally valid and just as meaningful relationship.  The relationships that are not romances are overlooked in most games, we should be campaigning to get more focus on them, yet here we are...

 

Amusingly and IMO, typically romance relationships meant little reactivity if the character wasn't romanced; often the identity of the character was tied to the romance.

 

Which means, to do it right, romanceable characters would need two interaction trees, one if the romance is pursued and one where there isn't (possibly not completely different trees, but you're looking at trying to make something so the player gets reactivity with the character based on what they choose to do).

 

So to my mind a "perfect world" romance would need more planning/time (ie resources) than a relationship that exits along a singular axis (or between two poles).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No romances is fine for me. I've never put much attention to it and was rather annoyed by it in the most recent Bioware productions (DA2 / ME3 - hump anything mentality)

 

I'd rather have more fleshed out side stories and believable motivations for joining forces, other than "hey, you helped me in the brawl in some random tavern. So you are going after god killing abomination. May I join you for the kicks of it?"

 

Writing a good romance is a material for a whole book. Actually how many WELL WRITTEN romances you have in literature and let alone in other media, which are way more time/resource constrained?

 

Sure I can have some random hot babe for rubbing the protagonist in some espionage action story, but I would hardly called that a romance, and even that should be slightly believable.

 

The companions that will join you will be "paragorns / common type" of their race and culture. First, how hard would it be to break through some cultural differences, not to mention even bigger topic of racial differences and "chemistry"

 

The game probably will be better without romances, and surely much better than the game with bad romances

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to prove something's not doable, simply because it "isn't out there." With that kind of thinking, we'd still all be cavemen.

You probably didn't understand me.

The person I replied to claimed romance was one of the character interactions RPGs needed. Or PoE would miss one of the required ones. I was just wondering, what are the "required" and since when is there a checklist for all character interactions in a RPG needed. Is Force Choking on there? Why not?

I just wanted this elusive (since non-existant) list upon which the user based romances needed in or one checkbox was unmarked. Right below the Force Choke teammember probably ;) 

It's pretty simple, really, and most don't seem to get it: people who wanted romances wanted more OPTIONS, no one is trying to shove romances down the throats of the people who dislike them.

What the people who "like" romances however do not get is the law of economics. There is no "more OPTIONS", there are different options.

Different options non-romancers wont get, but without romances, non-romancers still get all the other options.

Options that may be locked out due to gender or other romance choices. Options that are now to be used for other conversations.

A LOT of conversations will be locked out if writing for romances, even for the pro-romancers themselves, that now can be given to EVERYONE to flesh out characters, get interaction and make memorable characters.

 

Tell me again, how that is selfish of us apparently, instead of from you guys, who just want to reduce all our conversations with teammembers just for romances?

How is "Well, now that romances is in, you got 30 teammate conversations less since that's the sacrifice" not shoving things down our throat?

The argument that implementing whatever will be implemented with the resources that would be spent doing romances is better and somehow the "superior" way to go is completely baseless: it's the way to go FOR YOU.

See above.

Imagine Mass Effect II. Now imagine, if instead of romances for all characters, they used those resources to actually flesh out characters. To add a main plot. To not have dozens and dozens of conversations locked away from you simply because you didn't romance, and all that could be re-molded into something fleshing out those now talkless characters for everyone. Budding more with Garrus for example. Wouldn't that be... something you would have wanted?

  • Like 1

^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a HUGE difference between correctly implementing a skill and writing a good romance.

True, yet irrelevant. I was talking about dealing with aspects of speech, in comparison to dealing with aspects of romance (both of which are, themselves, aspects of inter-character interaction).

 

Comparing writing a skill to writing a good romance is pretty useless, since using a mere skill to handle Speech was pointed out as being inadequate to sufficiently represent that aspect of interaction, in a very similar manner to how having "How Much Do You Like Me" points, with simple "Make This Person Like Me More" dialogue options and gifts and such to reach "Sex Victory!" is inadequate to sufficiently represent feasible romance.

 

The situation for the both of these things is almost identical. Both are aspects of inter-character interaction and reactivity that involve proper writing and such, and both have plenty of horrible, horrible implementations in existing games.

 

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people seem to think romance=interactivty and that no romance means no interactivity or relationship.  That's not true, it's not 'romance or bust' it's 'romance or friendship or familial or parent/child' or any other equally valid and just as meaningful relationship.  The relationships that are not romances are overlooked in most games, we should be campaigning to get more focus on them, yet here we are...

If anyone does think that, then yes, you're very right. But, I really don't think many people are thinking that. Are a lot of people thinking that romance = an aspect of interactivity? Sure. And rightly so.

 

It's like... crafting. Imagine you could craft all kinds of stuff in the game, but you could never craft boots. Would that be the end of the world? No. But, there are boots in the game. Obviously people in the game wear boots, and you can make all kinds of OTHER things out of leather and various materials from which boots are also made. So... why can't you make boots? It's just a tiny sub-void. Doesn't mean the game doesn't have crafting. But, it's lacking in one aspect of crafting.

 

In fact, I'd argue that the sheer concept of romance is, functionally/in terms of mechanics, almost just an aspect of reputation. It's already been said that NPCs and such will have both group faction reputation factors at play, as well as individual "how this person feels about stuff" factors at play. Thus, put simply, your decisions and actions can and will affect how individual people feel about you. I don't think we want that mechanic oversimplified or done crappily, regardless of whether or not the inter-personal relationship at-hand is romantic or platonic. So, is it not a bit strange that game mechanics specifically represent a boatload of individuals' feelings regarding you, but that absolutely none of those feelings can be regarded as "romantic" in the least?

 

As others have brought up, if the world's all alive with verisimilitude-sparking code, and you ever enter a village in which two youths are courting one another, or any kind of romantic relationship is ever involved between two NPCs, then obviously romance is possible in the world. Meaning that characters, just like real humans, develop romantic emotional attachments under various sets of circumstances. So, is it not a bit strange that the game specifically represents a plethora of specific interpersonal feelings, while at the same time completely ignoring any and all feelings of the emotional attachment kind?

 

See, that's the other thing about this thread and this discussion. People keep saying "there aren't romances, it's confirmed," but, what is actually meant by that? Because, everyone keeps bringing up awfully specific meanings for the term "romances," like there's gotta be specific, separate arcs JUST for romance, as if "Romance" is an invisible character that joins your party when you choose it, and has its own quest arc that doesn't have anything to do with anything else.

 

I think if they're representing the regard of individuals towards you, in various ways, they'd be remiss to simply ignore any shred of romantic emotional attachment whatsoever. Thus, "romance" could very well be in the game, without specifically-written "romances" (entire romance-centric arcs/content chunks a la existing games, such as Bioware games) being in the game.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...