Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Recommended Posts

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.

Again, huge difference. You can design the best interaction mechanics implementations in the world, but if the romance dialogue itself is poorly written, then the romance fails.

 

This is why video game romances almost always suck. The Devs will either nail the writing and fail the mechanics. Or they'll nail the mechanics then half-ass the writing. Or they'll nail the writing, nail the mechanics, then produce something that conflicts with the existing lore, or the setting, or the character's personality.

 

Or... they'll get everything right.... only to realize the Obvious: Romance-types are not a one-size-fits-all. Instead, They're like flavors of Ice cream. Not everyone likes mint chocolate chip. Some people prefer vanilla. or chocolate. or Neopolitan. So then, to fix that problem a game would need to have several different romances. And suddenly you're looking at a budget and word-count that no Kickstarter RPG can ever meet.... unless it's actually a dating simulator.

 

And that takes us right back to what Josh said on this thread: They're not doing romances because they don't have the resources to do them RIGHT.

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stun... you're completely missing the point. You're quite right, but the only point you're driving home here is that a simple mechanic/skill is just as inadequate at handling romance as it is at handling speech/persuasion. Which is a point I already made.

 

Everything you've just said about romance is equally as true about "speech" options in general, and/or relationships between characters in general. A character can want to help you for oodles of reasons, just just because they like you. Thus, a game's writing can oversimplify that to "if you get the character to like you, they'll help you out." That's allllll writing. Which yes, can suck, or can be done well.

 

How is any of that unique to the mere aspect of romance as opposed to anything else that's writing-dependent?

Edited by Lephys

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

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.

 

I understand that there is a limited budget, yes, and to develop some things you gotta give up OR REDUCE other things. But I see what you wrote in another angle. You assume that the only personal preference that can lead a player to not follow a particular dialogue/interaction path/tree is whether someone likes romances or not, hence why you assume that everyone would get more options with no romances. Except that is far from a fact. I can cite you a number of reasons why someone might not have followed a certain dialogue/ interaction path/tree over the years. Out of the top of my mind:

 

- A player almost never makes non-human characters. Any dialogue trees specific to certain races were mostly lost on him;

- A player finds a number of companions annoying or uninteresting. He either chooses not to have them in the group or, even if he has them, he didn't always gave them the nice buddy answers that usually were required to develop growing relations with them;

- A player doesn't follow an evil or **** path. Entire pages of dialogue won't be seen/listened to;

- A player allies with certain factions but finds no reason to ally with the opposing ones in other playthroughs; maybe he finds their stance/cause so stupid he doesn't bother at all. All dialogue related with that faction is lost on him;

- A player dislikes certain classes and never plays them. All of those classes specific dialogue is not experienced in any way;

- A player dislikes playing dumb characters. The dumb character dialogue tree is never seen;

 

Any of those could replace romances in your argument, which means that the options would be far from serving "everyone", as you wrote. In short, your case is made only based on your personal taste (dislike of romances), above all others. Why your taste should somehow be assumed to be the "right" one is above me, and romance is quite unfairly targeted in that aspect, as I'm sure a lot more players enjoy the romances than, say, play the <insert obscure race or class here>, if we get to the point of discussing which dialogue trees are more "useful" ( wouldn't get there myself, but some seem to do sometimes).

 

 

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?

 

    Read above. Selfishness comes from your arguments (you want your taste to prevail to the point of the exclusion of others), not from pro romancers.

 

 

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?

 

I think you attribute quite a lot to the presence of romances in that game, as if its absence would fix all that's wrong in the game (which couldn't be farther from truth. If the only thing wrong with Bioware were a supposed unhealthy fixation in romances, we'd be in CRPG paradise instead of genre-starving). I see no reason to believe that. I'd like to see most of what you mentioned in the game, but I think the or/or logic here opposing romances is nonsense. I could as well say I'd prefer they nerfed Garrus to make up for it, or reduce the budget spent on gun physics. Again, a matter of taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

LOL

 

No, man. Video game romances are not like crafting. They're like... your girlfriend wanting "cuddle time" with you when you've got your friends over and you're watching the super bowl. Doesn't mean you can't have a girlfriend, Or that you can never "cuddle" or that these things aren't "interactions". It just means you don't do cuddle time with your girlfriend when you've got your friends over and you're watching the super bowl.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you've just said about romance is equally as true about "speech" options in general, and/or relationships between characters in general.

No. Romances are more than that because to be done right they must linger and be NPC exclusive

 

They're an island of their own. Period.

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

 

No, man. Video game romances are not like crafting. They're like... your girlfriend wanting "cuddle time" with you when you've got your friends over and you're watching the super bowl. Doesn't mean you can't have a girlfriend, Or that you can never "cuddle". It just means you don't do cuddle time with your girlfriend during the game.

Stop strawmanning. Please. Video game romances are like video game crafting. I didn't compare them to the actual act of artisanry, and you know I didn't.

 

Also, for the record, your example points out exactly when romance is literally affecting nothing important outside of your own personal desires. You want to hang out with dudes and watch the superbowl, but you also want girlfriend happiness. The game version of that is The Sims. In The Sims, the whole game revolves around your sim(s).

 

In an RPG like PoE, there's an actual story going on, in an actual game world, and your character(s) simply interacts with it. Thus, how they feel about each other can actually affect things to some significance. Maybe you become romantically involved with a character, then people need to be delegated to go on little missions/split up to take care of some big situation. Maybe the best person for the job is that character, but you've decided to roleplay a romantic attachment to that character (and the game mechanics/writing support the potential for that character to become romantically attached to you). Thus, you send someone else (or she refuses to go because of the attachment, etc.). Different things happen because of who went. Etc.

 

It's functionally no different from the effects of any other particular relationship between any two characters: friendship, father-I-never-had, contempt, respected leadership, etc. It's simply another regard in which characters can hold one another.

 

Making examples of pointless things that are technically labelable as romance does not make romance inherently just a bunch of pointless things. The crappy afterthought romances in existing games that you're choosing to reference are very much like your girlfriend wanting cuddle time while you and the guys are trying to watch the superbowl. That hardly means that "romances are like that."

 

I don't know how to emphasize that any harder. I'm discussing "romance," and you're countering advocacy of specific romance implementations of your choosing. Which is fruitless. You have plenty of valid points, and yet they have nothing to do specifically with my words, because I already acknowledge that crappy romance is crappy.

  • 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

No. Romances are more than that because to be done right they must linger and be NPC exclusive

 

They're an island of their own. Period.

Yep, they're on an island of their own... with faction associations... and pretty much any other ongoing, mutually-exclusive components. Exclamation point.

Edited by Lephys
  • 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

Stop strawmanning.

Oh, THE IRONY.

 

But, do continue on with the conversation...


^

 

 

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

 

Stop strawmanning.

Oh, THE IRONY.

 

Oh, THE BASELESS CLAIMS.

 

I hope they make you feel better at least.

  • 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

Romances are just like crafting boots.... :wub:  make me some boots woman! :devil:

 

 

 

I'm not game to say that to my girlfriend. :skull:  

 

 

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romances are just like crafting boots.... :wub:  make me some boots woman! :devil:

 

 

 

I'm not game to say that to my girlfriend. :skull:  

 

 

Then your girlfriend is forever cursed to be devoid of such truth! Clearly, u_u...

 

Also, who said YOU were immune from the obligation to craft boots? Sexist! o_o

 

If only one of you crafts boots, how do you expect the romance not to fail? Gyah...

Edited by Lephys

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
LOL

 

No, man. Video game romances are not like crafting. They're like... your girlfriend wanting "cuddle time" with you when you've got your friends over and you're watching the super bowl. Doesn't mean you can't have a girlfriend, Or that you can never "cuddle" or that these things aren't "interactions". It just means you don't do cuddle time with your girlfriend when you've got your friends over and you're watching the super bowl.

 

 

    I must say this analogy is all too revealing of the mindset behind romance hate. Needless to say, some of us don't see video game romances like that at all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think the news that romance won't be specifically included in PoE has been successfully broadcast. More significantly, we've reached the post count limit.

  • Like 2

“Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...