The Case for Romance.

[BruceVC]

est

e

This thread has taken a turn for the worst.

 

And as I read more Q&A's over this game and the subject of companion interaction and romances, I truly feel like I will not play PoE anymore. I've really discovered that story and characters are my number one requirement in RPG's and to hear that Josh won't include romances because they're "too time consuming" or "too difficult to implement correctly" - while straightforward - seems like a cop-out. If they can spend time shooting for Baldur's Gate level of interaction with companions, then going the extra distance and implementing romances shouldn't be a stretch given their ideal foundation of interaction. And if you're bad at writing romances, find someone who is better. 

 

Romances add another layer of deeper connection and intimacy to characters that you have grown to care about. They provide another foil for the protagonist and help highlight the changes and character arc that occur throughout the story. They help show the emotional change in the protagonist that occurs throughout the story as well, providing a glimpse beyond the achievements and well-won battles, to help provide a more three-dimensional character.

 

Without Romance, you lack all of that. Even with basic interactions with companions, you lack a sense growth and development with your character - you lack empathy. Companions just become some other person that you're supposed to care about without caring about them. You're supposed to form bonds with, but not too strongly. They go from intimate friends to passing acquaintances, people that are around you to help you beat battle A or to defeat boss B. 

 

Yet, I know that the consensus in this thread has been largely anti-romances and I'll concede defeat. But, I know that I'll leave now having given up on this game. The Case for Romance has been given and ignored. 

 

Guys I need to make a very important point and the only reason I'm making this point is because I don't want people to not want to support PoE because of the fact there won't be Romance or rather because of the reasons given by Obsidian. Gideon raises a valid point that certain people  share when he feels that if Obsidian doesn't have the resources to implement Romance properly "how can they get other types of party interaction immersive and interesting". So in a way he is questioning the whole PoE experience and I get that

 

But there is another possible dynamic here. What if Obsidian genuinely feels that Romance in RPG is childish and below there level of creativity. But of course they can't say this to people who pledged to support the game who like Romance. It would insulting and offensive and illicit a deluge of negative responses along the lines " oh so now I'm childish but my money is good enough" or something similar

 

So what's the easiest way to get attention off the implementation of Romance? You say you can't implement it properly or don't have the resources. What promancer is now going to still insist on a subpar Romance integration? Its a good way to explain why you can't do something in a game without offending people. But there is a risk where people like Gideon now question the validity of the whole game and can other components be done properly if they can't do Romance

 

So my advice is lets respect the fact that Obsidian won't have Romance and lets support the game financially, as the franchise expands we may get Romance in the  future. But lets not assume that the reasons given for not including Romance are really the reasons they state. And  it doesn't necessarily mean they can't create a very entertaining RPG that's is immersive and interesting around party interaction because we all know Obsidian is more than capable

[Lephys]

Might I just add that when determining what to put in a game and what not to, you're not really "adding" anything. You have to formulate a blueprint of how many floors you're going to have before you can add or remove anything.

 

Granted, I think what BruceVC is saying still stands, mostly. I'm all for romance, in concept, but the fact is that they can only put X number of different things into the game, and they've prioritized others over romance. And that's perfectly fine. Obviously people are welcome to their opinions, but I encourage the demanders of romance to give the game a shot, nonetheless, as I really don't think the existence of romance forms the linchpin of the entire game's design.

 

I'm all for discussing the possibilities and impacts of both the implementation of romance and its absence, but these things can be considered without unnecessarily insisting that romance simply MUST be in the game.

[BruceVC]

Might I just add that when determining what to put in a game and what not to, you're not really "adding" anything. You have to formulate a blueprint of how many floors you're going to have before you can add or remove anything.

 

Granted, I think what BruceVC is saying still stands, mostly. I'm all for romance, in concept, but the fact is that they can only put X number of different things into the game, and they've prioritized others over romance. And that's perfectly fine. Obviously people are welcome to their opinions, but I encourage the demanders of romance to give the game a shot, nonetheless, as I really don't think the existence of romance forms the linchpin of the entire game's design.

 

I'm all for discussing the possibilities and impacts of both the implementation of romance and its absence, but these things can be considered without unnecessarily insisting that romance simply MUST be in the game.

 

Lephys I want to add I really enjoy your perspective on topics. I'm not saying this because at times you "like" my posts or agree sometimes with the promancer sentiment. Your posts are generally interesting, logical and you make good points by leaving emotion out if it. I have seen how you debate on several topics and its impressive. I'm glad I haven't  been on the opposing side of your view because you make a formidable debating opponent

[Monte Carlo]

This thread has taken a turn for the worst.

 

And as I read more Q&A's over this game and the subject of companion interaction and romances, I truly feel like I will not play PoE anymore. I've really discovered that story and characters are my number one requirement in RPG's and to hear that Josh won't include romances because they're "too time consuming" or "too difficult to implement correctly" - while straightforward - seems like a cop-out. If they can spend time shooting for Baldur's Gate level of interaction with companions, then going the extra distance and implementing romances shouldn't be a stretch given their ideal foundation of interaction. And if you're bad at writing romances, find someone who is better. 

 

Romances add another layer of deeper connection and intimacy to characters that you have grown to care about. They provide another foil for the protagonist and help highlight the changes and character arc that occur throughout the story. They help show the emotional change in the protagonist that occurs throughout the story as well, providing a glimpse beyond the achievements and well-won battles, to help provide a more three-dimensional character.

 

Without Romance, you lack all of that. Even with basic interactions with companions, you lack a sense growth and development with your character - you lack empathy. Companions just become some other person that you're supposed to care about without caring about them. You're supposed to form bonds with, but not too strongly. They go from intimate friends to passing acquaintances, people that are around you to help you beat battle A or to defeat boss B. 

 

Yet, I know that the consensus in this thread has been largely anti-romances and I'll concede defeat. But, I know that I'll leave now having given up on this game. The Case for Romance has been given and ignored. 

 

kthxbye

[BruceVC]

 

This thread has taken a turn for the worst.

 

And as I read more Q&A's over this game and the subject of companion interaction and romances, I truly feel like I will not play PoE anymore. I've really discovered that story and characters are my number one requirement in RPG's and to hear that Josh won't include romances because they're "too time consuming" or "too difficult to implement correctly" - while straightforward - seems like a cop-out. If they can spend time shooting for Baldur's Gate level of interaction with companions, then going the extra distance and implementing romances shouldn't be a stretch given their ideal foundation of interaction. And if you're bad at writing romances, find someone who is better. 

 

Romances add another layer of deeper connection and intimacy to characters that you have grown to care about. They provide another foil for the protagonist and help highlight the changes and character arc that occur throughout the story. They help show the emotional change in the protagonist that occurs throughout the story as well, providing a glimpse beyond the achievements and well-won battles, to help provide a more three-dimensional character.

 

Without Romance, you lack all of that. Even with basic interactions with companions, you lack a sense growth and development with your character - you lack empathy. Companions just become some other person that you're supposed to care about without caring about them. You're supposed to form bonds with, but not too strongly. They go from intimate friends to passing acquaintances, people that are around you to help you beat battle A or to defeat boss B. 

 

Yet, I know that the consensus in this thread has been largely anti-romances and I'll concede defeat. But, I know that I'll leave now having given up on this game. The Case for Romance has been given and ignored. 

 

kthxbye

 

 

Monte I know you joking but we shouldn't want any prospective fan of PoE to want to leave, especially over a misunderstanding. We want every single person who likes RPG to be financially supportive of this new franchise. Surly you can see the advantages of this?

[Hassat Hunter]

I'm agreeing with BruceVC? What's the world coming to?
(And yeah, I really don't have anything more productive to say here)

[BruceVC]

I'm agreeing with BruceVC? What's the world coming to?

(And yeah, I really don't have anything more productive to say here)

yeah that is weird

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I believe there may be a new add on for backers from Obsidian. Perhaps the promancers can check out the backer portal for this new add-on for their order. A book for all modders out there.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[khalil]

A: Why is this thread still here?

B: Bruce VC, as someone who isn't being financially supportive of this, it's because all signs point closer to Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale than Planescape Torment.

Only game on the IE that wasn't a complete piece of ****, so naturally it's the one that got brushed over so everyone could get all nostalgic about wizard highlander and diablo: **** edition.

[Monte Carlo]

Ah, the sweet smell of butt-hurt.

 

Bruce, there are people here whose entire post-count consists of romance content. Some hardcore promancers will only play games with romances in. This one doesn't have them. QED.

 

 

 

as someone who isn't being financially supportive of this, it's because all signs point closer to Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale than Planescape Torment.
Only game on the IE that wasn't a complete piece of ****, so naturally it's the one that got brushed over so everyone could get all nostalgic about wizard highlander and diablo: **** edition.

 

I mean, look at this BS. Diablo comparison? ORLY? Because it doesn't have romances? And what is 'Wizard Highlander?' I think I'd like it.

 

Close the thread. Please. and the other one. They get annoying and creepy and add nothing to the forum.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Monte Carlo

[Stun]

As for Gideon, so basically you tell us that unless the NPC is romanceable it will be shallow? And only romance option lets you care for other characters? And that romance is the only deep bobd you can form? Dude that is the definition of being shallow.

That is precisely what he's saying. And what other people here and on the other thread have been saying: No romances means we're gonna get shallow NPCs and weak interactions. As ridiculous and demonstrably false as such a claim is, it's still being made repeatedly by many people on this forum.

 

I remember debating with someone on the other thread who swore up and down that no one is really arguing such a thing, even as we sit here and watch a bunch of drama queens making such claims every time they post.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Stun

[Malcador]

Without Romance, you lack all of that. Even with basic interactions with companions, you lack a sense growth and development with your character - you lack empathy. Companions just become some other person that you're supposed to care about without caring about them. You're supposed to form bonds with, but not too strongly. They go from intimate friends to passing acquaintances, people that are around you to help you beat battle A or to defeat boss B.

 

You can't have empathy without romance ?  You do have friends, right ? Same deal. And stop with the martyr crap.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Jesus titty****ing Christ.

 

1. No Romance =/= No companion interaction. It is possible to have interactive content that isn't romance content.

 

2. The case for/against romance is that you like/don't like it and therefore you want/don't want it in the game. This is a subjective preference, not something that can be proved with science or anything else.

 

3. The devs have decided they will not do romance in PoE because they don't think they could do it well with the resources available. If you want it in the next PoE, fork over more $$$ and hope for the best.

[Alfiriel]

The sad part is the devs do not even take the time to explain design decisions like that which clearly intetest a lot of people.

 

this is not limited to romance... crafting was explained a bit better but still more than lackluster same as stats.

 

Instead they give me updates about which development steps are needed to design a room... which while technical interesting for some sure is not what is really interesting to most players...

 

This time would be better used for community interactions at the forums... beyond closing threads for reaching postcont.

Sure a lot of filth is written here but many topics also have great points or ideas... or valid concerns in it.

 

A kickstarted game gives the best chance to interact closely with the own playerbase use it...

[rjshae]

<enters/>

 

You guys are still at it? Hmm...

 

<leaves/>

[SqueakyCat]

The sad part is the devs do not even take the time to explain design decisions like that which clearly intetest a lot of people.

 

this is not limited to romance... crafting was explained a bit better but still more than lackluster same as stats.

 

Instead they give me updates about which development steps are needed to design a room... which while technical interesting for some sure is not what is really interesting to most players...

 

This time would be better used for community interactions at the forums... beyond closing threads for reaching postcont.

Sure a lot of filth is written here but many topics also have great points or ideas... or valid concerns in it.

 

A kickstarted game gives the best chance to interact closely with the own playerbase use it...

 

They did explain their decision.  You just didn't like the answer.

 

Regarding the updates, there's about 75,000 backers to this project and only a small percentage that make use of these forums.  They use the updates to e-mail and keep their large backer base informed as well as connecting with people on this forum.

 

"Sure a lot of filth is written here" . . . and this is why I, for one, am happy with their decision.  Had the decision gone the other way, these forums would look the way they did the first few weeks of the Kickstarter with threads like "I want to shag romance the furry detective dude".

 

This is a nice place.  I'd like to see it stay that way.

[BruceVC]

Jesus titty****ing Christ.

 

1. No Romance =/= No companion interaction. It is possible to have interactive content that isn't romance content.

 

2. The case for/against romance is that you like/don't like it and therefore you want/don't want it in the game. This is a subjective preference, not something that can be proved with science or anything else.

 

3. The devs have decided they will not do romance in PoE because they don't think they could do it well with the resources available. If you want it in the next PoE, fork over more $$$ and hope for the best.

 

Kaine you making a lot of assumptions in that post and we trying to debate from a perspective of facts

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

This is a nice place.  I'd like to see it stay that way.

 

It's a pleasure Ma'am. We work hard to keep it so. Dirty, dispiriting work, but good for the soul.

 

They'll be back, but we'll be waiting.

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

The sad part is the devs do not even take the time to explain design decisions like that which clearly intetest a lot of people.

 

this is not limited to romance... crafting was explained a bit better but still more than lackluster same as stats.

 

Instead they give me updates about which development steps are needed to design a room... which while technical interesting for some sure is not what is really interesting to most players...

 

This time would be better used for community interactions at the forums... beyond closing threads for reaching postcont.

Sure a lot of filth is written here but many topics also have great points or ideas... or valid concerns in it.

 

A kickstarted game gives the best chance to interact closely with the own playerbase use it...

 

 

This is a nice place.  I'd like to see it stay that way.

 

 

But Squeaky darling don't you think there is always room for improvement in life, I never settle for the status quo. I believe in constantly aspiring to great heights and looking at ways to improve my temperament. Nice is fine but we need to aim for inspiration

[BruceVC]

 

This is a nice place.  I'd like to see it stay that way.

 

It's a pleasure Ma'am. We work hard to keep it so. Dirty, dispiriting work, but good for the soul.

 

They'll be back, but we'll be waiting.

 

 

 

You make me laugh, I have this image of you as some sort of sheriff and the promancers (me included  ) being chased out of town....it really made me laugh

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Kaine you making a lot of assumptions in that post and we trying to debate from a perspective of facts

'Fraid not, Bruce. Everything I've said is based on fact and can be verified. If you don't believe that, play PST(1), read the definition of subjective(2), and read the interview with Sawyer where no romances was confirmed(3).

[Whitefox789]

 

 

Secondly all Romance options are optional, I'll say that again...optional. Why do people care so much about something that wouldn't impact there game if they didn't want to partake in it but it does make a difference to fans of this type of component of an RPG? I see this as a little selfish.

 

 

Exactly! All it does is gives the player more options whats wrong with that? (Personally me I could take it or leave it)

 

If I could only account one of the romances that left an impression on me it was the surprising romance between a player and Aribeth's spirit in NWN: HotUD.

 

Just the whole after the Mephisopheles thing... Where Aribeth stayed by the hero's side until his/her death it just makes you think how it feels on Aribeths side to not be able to share the ordeal of living that the hero still has to go through (pain, sickness, slowly dying).

[Amentep]

 

Secondly all Romance options are optional, I'll say that again...optional. Why do people care so much about something that wouldn't impact there game if they didn't want to partake in it but it does make a difference to fans of this type of component of an RPG? I see this as a little selfish.

 

If the characters have no interactivity outside of the romance (say, Aerie) then the loss of an interactive character is felt by anyone who chooses not to pursue the romance; in essence the romance is no longer optional if you want to use that character unless you just want an unintersting roster filler.

 

Exactly! All it does is gives the player more options whats wrong with that? (Personally me I could take it or leave it)

 

If I could only account one of the romances that left an impression on me it was the surprising romance between a player and Aribeth's spirit in NWN: HotUD.

 

Just the whole after the Mephisopheles thing... Where Aribeth stayed by the hero's side until his/her death it just makes you think how it feels on Aribeths side to not be able to share the ordeal of living that the hero still has to go through (pain, sickness, slowly dying).

 

To be fair, that it gives a player "more" options isn't exactly correct.

 

As I mentioned before, the way BG2 game did romance was that there was, essentially one path for the character and you could progress to a certain degree in the relationship with that character without romancing but that the larger interaction was unplayable if you didn't romance, leaving some characters (pretty much everyone but Jaheria) a cipher if you didn't follow the romance.

 

To do romance right you actually need to do two paths (intertwined or not), one so the character is interesting and able to divulge lore without being romanced as well as being romanced.  This does give you more, but only because you're creating more content.

 

If Obs has 10 NPCs and thus 10 character interactions, they have a choice add romances (which now adds character interactions) or keep to 10 character interactions which means that for some of those character the ONLY interaction you have with them is pursuing their romance.  So you stay the same, but if the only interaction for a NPC is romance and the character isn't romance, the person not pursuing the romance has a character who not only isn't responsive (so just takes a slot) they can't impart any world lore to the player.

[sesobebo]

 

Kaine you making a lot of assumptions in that post and we trying to debate from a perspective of facts

'Fraid not, Bruce. Everything I've said is based on fact and can be verified. If you don't believe that, play PST(1), read the definition of subjective(2), and read the interview with Sawyer where no romances was confirmed(3).

 

 

he might have been talking about christ's titties.

[Monte Carlo]

nvmnd

Edited February 27, 2014 by Monte Carlo