The Case for Romance.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Jesus is a well documented titty ****er.

[Whitefox789]

 

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.

 

 

While I agree yes that is the way BG2 did it where once you were prompted to a conversation depending on what you say would decide how much one of your companions would divulge information to you to a point where if you made too many wrong choices your companion would remain silent throughout the rest of your journey.

 

I also agree as well their should be two paths to romance:

1. Lovers Relationship

2. Plutonic Relationship

 

I'm hoping conversation wise it can be triggered either by the player themself or its triggered by your companion. I'm already liking the idea of being able to have the companions your not using within your stronghold doing their own quests.

[GrayAngel]

Really we can talk about it a lot but Obsidian will never make good romance without George Ziest and he is out of it so i prefer they don't do it if we gonna get something like NWN 2 OC romance.

[Hassat Hunter]

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.

They did.

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...

Same could be said for romancers, yet here we talk about them.

Personally I find said updates far more interesting than lore, characters or all the stuff I skip so I can get known to them firsttime INGAME. And not go in knowing all the lore inside out but rather from ingame books, descriptions, conversations etc.

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

The moderators are not developers. Trust me (ex-mod here).

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

They read (most) threads.

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

Well, things already came of it, like durability scrapped after outrage. And who knows what ideas they stole here for PoE, the X-pack, or the sequel... we'll just have to see.

I also agree as well their should be two paths to romance:

1. Lovers Relationship

2. Plutonic Relationship

Where's the money or time for such an implementation. Because, as you might realise, this would DOUBLE the workload (read: costs). Not so much anymore a "simple to add" or "can be done on the side" or "purely optional" if it requires to *double* your companion interactions. That can easily get costly, into the several hundreds of thousands.

[Sir Chaox]

<enters/>

 

You guys are still at it? Hmm...

 

<leaves/>

 

You'll be back.

 

So will I for that matter. 

[Lephys]

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

Much appreciated. I just try to be useful. I know I'm not always useful, but I have no interest in being un-useful. Well, except for the occasional morale-boosting pun. Of course, I think that's useful in moderation,

 

@Others:

 

I quite understand, and even value, the counters to people claiming extreme things. Anyone who's claiming that PoE NEEDS romance and is crap without it could obviously benefit from a perspective adjustment (I don't think they're considering all the things they should be, etc.).

 

What I don't get is why a handful of people making extreme or ill-considered claims suddenly means that a whole thread is useless because even the people just reasonably discussing things are somehow now magically as useless as the extreme claims. It goes both ways. Some "pro-mancers" are going a bit overboard, but that doesn't make romance advocacy, itself, inherently preposterous or extreme. Likewise, some anti-romancers are going a bit overboard, and those particular comments should be addressed as such. They don't mean anyone who's against romance doesn't have a valid point.

 

The point of discussion isn't to figure out which overall stance is right and which one is wrong. It's to uncover the useful reasoning behind both stances (and weed out the irrational feelings of both sides that aren't helpful). To discuss romance and its potential, its pros and cons, what it should do and what it shouldn't. Then, we can all make up our subjective minds about it in our own spare time.

 

And, honestly, if you're sick of romance discussions, then that's great. Really, that doesn't make you bad. But, how's about simply abstaining from taking part in them? Unless you become a moderator and just slice them all off the forums, or develop the power to will them out of existence, posting the textual equivalent of an exasperated sigh every page isn't doing anything but making the thread longer, and wasting your own time (you're not really wasting anyone else's, because they're already here to read the thread.)

 

If you're here in the PoE forums, you probably don't care too much about discussing Call of Duty all day. So, do you go sign up for Call of Duty forums just to post "OMG!!! STILL talking about CAll of Duty?! SHOOTERS ARE SO LAME!!"? My guess is no...

[Amentep]

What I don't get is why a handful of people making extreme or ill-considered claims suddenly means that a whole thread is useless because even the people just reasonably discussing things are somehow now magically as useless as the extreme claims.

I thought the discussion (at least in context of Pillars of Eternity) was rendered magically useless by the developers saying the game wouldn't include romances.

 

As a pro-romance as a viable character interaction kind of poster, I see no point arguing for romance in PoE at this point; I'd rather - at least in context of PoE - look at the kind of character interactions they indicated would be in the game and ponder that.

 

I'm willing to discuss the pros/cons of romance in other games or a sequel to PoE, but honestly at this point posting "But you gotta have romance in PoE because...because...because..." is kinda useless in my opinion. The developers are going in a different direction.

[Lephys]

I thought the discussion (at least in context of Pillars of Eternity) was rendered magically useless by the developers saying the game wouldn't include romances.

This'll be the third time in a month that I reference the "there won't be misses in attack resolution, only grazes" decision, that was followed by apparently-useless-because-a-decision-was-already-made discussion, which Josh and co. didn't find so useless.

 

As a pro-romance as a viable character interaction kind of poster, I see no point arguing for romance in PoE at this point; I'd rather - at least in context of PoE - look at the kind of character interactions they indicated would be in the game and ponder that.

According to your own line of reasoning, there's just as little point in arguing against it, since it's already not in the game, right? Also...

 

I'm willing to discuss the pros/cons of romance in other games or a sequel to PoE, but honestly at this point posting "But you gotta have romance in PoE because...because...because..." is kinda useless in my opinion. The developers are going in a different direction.

You do realize that the post you just quoted me on specifically pointed out that not every comment advocating romance is stating "but you gotta have romance in PoE," right?

 

Example time. If you're throwing a party, and you decide to buy 3 bags of chips, is it pointless for me to make observations regarding the effects of that decision, and the effects of, say, the hypothetical of buying a different amount of chips? I might point out to you that there will be 50 people at the party, and that you may very well run out of chips before everyone's had any, much less their fill. Would I be somehow DEMANDING that you buy more chips? No. I'm not even telling you you must buy more chips. You may not care if everyone gets chips. You may be on a budget, etc. And yet, observing the effects of your decision is still useful. I could even hate chips myself, and STILL objectively point out the impact of the amount of chips you decide to buy upon your party.

 

Just because you don't use something doesn't mean it isn't useful. You might keep a hammer in a toolkit, and you may not need it while changing some brake pads. That doesn't mean hammers are useless. It just means you didn't use one for the task at hand.

 

If Obsidian doesn't wish to use romance, then that's fine. But we can still talk about its usefulness and brainstorm about it, in case they find anything useful in that.

 

I really doubt there's going to be literally NO romance whatsoever in the game (no NPCs courting one another or falling in love, etc.), so discussing the potentiality for romance and its effective implementation into the game is hardly irrelevant. Even if the devs read this discussion whilst writing an NPC, and get some tiny insight from it, then it was useful to them.

 

It's a friggin' discussion forum for crying out loud. If you cut out all the discussion of things that aren't likely to be in the game, this would be a sad place.

 

Besides... If the decision were "Romance is IN!", how many people do you think would be in here worried telling people "OMg, stop pointing out reasons you think this shouldn't be in the game. It's in, forever, darnit! Get over it!"

[makryu]

    I agree that there is little point in arguing about romances to be present. Still, by posting in the forums we're making clear that there are perfectly reasonable backers who are disappointed at their absence. To refrain from posting because our personal tastes at CRPGs somehow inexplicably offend some people is to let these people's visions prevail unchallenged as if they represented the backers' views as a whole, which couldn't be farther from the truth. As has already been proven at other occasions, the devs are influenced by what's posted here.

[khalil]

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.

 

It's not romance in and of itself, as much as the fact that in BG2 (which this game seems to lean closer to than it does to torment) the romance subplots were the closest thing you ever got to meaningful interaction with party members. Removing that, all you have left is Minsc saying things about his pet spelljammer crossover and Jan talking about his uncle Barfo Bungus and that time he lost the golem eating contest. (Not that there's anything wrong with Jan, he was my favorite companion, but I'd trade him out for Morte in a heartbeat.)

And yes, I did compare Icewind Dale to Diablo. They were both combat heavy games with terribly written plots. The difference is IE combat was terrible, leaving Icewind Dale with no redeeming value whatsoever.

Wizard Highlander was a joke about how the Baldur's Gate series is about a bunch of supernaturally powerful pricks who gain power by killing each other.

Give the Kurgan a bunch of spikes and he'd be a dead ringer for Sarevok. (His fur cape goes on to become the Candlekeep Wolf, scourge of first level magic-users and enemy of all that is good in this world.)

Edited February 27, 2014 by khalil

[Lurky]

If Obsidian doesn't wish to use romance, then that's fine. But we can still talk about its usefulness and brainstorm about it, in case they find anything useful in that.

 

I really doubt there's going to be literally NO romance whatsoever in the game (no NPCs courting one another or falling in love, etc.), so discussing the potentiality for romance and its effective implementation into the game is hardly irrelevant. Even if the devs read this discussion whilst writing an NPC, and get some tiny insight from it, then it was useful to them.

 

It's a friggin' discussion forum for crying out loud. If you cut out all the discussion of things that aren't likely to be in the game, this would be a sad place.

 

Besides... If the decision were "Romance is IN!", how many people do you think would be in here worried telling people "OMg, stop pointing out reasons you think this shouldn't be in the game. It's in, forever, darnit! Get over it!"

I'm not sure that's a very wise thing to say. The pages and pages of discussion about it, and the flamey posts they can still gather would tell me that it's not just a simple discussion. It's far too emotionally charged for that, and as such, I'd say it deserves a more cautious treatment than that.

 

Discussing the merits and flaws of videogame romances involving the player might be a valid point, but if that is the only intention behind these topics, then why post them on the PoE forums, when it's confirmed that such thing won't be featured? There's the Computer and Console forum, which seems perfectly suited for this discussion. You'll be bothered far less there, too. Why not move the discussion?

[Lephys]

Discussing the merits and flaws of videogame romances involving the player might be a valid point, but if that is the only intention behind these topics, then why post them on the PoE forums, when it's confirmed that such thing won't be featured? There's the Computer and Console forum, which seems perfectly suited for this discussion. You'll be bothered far less there, too. Why not move the discussion?

First of all, you're not ever going to find a single, unified intention behind an entire topic. Topics are made up of everyone who dares jump in and discuss.

 

That being said, yes, a lot of this applies to RPGs in general, but so does oodles of stuff in these forums. However, we're talking about them as they pertain to PoE. We don't know enough of PoE to only discuss things that we know for sure will be relevant and or fit in perfectly with the rest of the game's design, hence all the game mechanics discussion topics and brainstorming about what could be in.

 

I agree that romance has been discussed an awful lot on these forums (and probably in all RPG forums everywhere), but this thread is here because it's pertinent to the fact that it pertains to a recent decision made specifically regarding PoE. If we're going to present feedback discussion about PoE's design, then doing it in some general RPG forum isn't doing Team Eternity much good.

 

Of course, I'm not about to tell you it would somehow be preposterous to have this discussion in a non-PoE specific forum. But, like I said, the same goes for a lot of other things. Durability. Why was durability being discussed in PoE forums when people were just talking about why they don't like durability in cRPGs? Because it was specifically brought up in relation to PoE's design.

 

Anywho, where this discussion takes place isn't a big deal. It could easily be moved. But, none of us really have the power to do that. And, even if it gets moved, it doesn't change the fact that it's a valid discussion, is all. So, maybe it should be moved, and then continued by those who seek to continue it.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'm hoping everyone will jump in and post something, clocking up numerous pages so eventually this thread can be closed.

 

Also, if there's going to be discussion about romances in crpgs, then perhaps open up a thread in the 'Computer and Console' sub forum and make your case there. Creating new threads in the PoE forums on things that's been confirmed isn't going to be in a game, is just trolling the PoE forum.

 

[Whitefox789]

I'm hoping everyone will jump in and post something, clocking up numerous pages so eventually this thread can be closed.

 

Also, if there's going to be discussion about romances in crpgs, then perhaps open up a thread in the 'Computer and Console' sub forum and make your case there. Creating new threads in the PoE forums on things that's been confirmed isn't going to be in a game, is just trolling the PoE forum.

 

 

 

You do have a good point...

 

Where's the money or time for such an implementation. Because, as you might realise, this would DOUBLE the workload (read: costs). Not so much anymore a "simple to add" or "can be done on the side" or "purely optional" if it requires to *double* your companion interactions. That can easily get costly, into the several hundreds of thousands. 

 

I'm not saying this should be implemented into PoE (I respect Josh Sawyers decision as a developer) I was merely saying this is how romance should be done in games. This is a forum on the discussion of the element of romance.

 

Though like Hiro pointed out this should probably be out of the PoE forums.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Whitefox789

[Lurky]

That being said, yes, a lot of this applies to RPGs in general, but so does oodles of stuff in these forums. However, we're talking about them as they pertain to PoE. We don't know enough of PoE to only discuss things that we know for sure will be relevant and or fit in perfectly with the rest of the game's design, hence all the game mechanics discussion topics and brainstorming about what could be in.

 

I don't think discussion about narrative is on the same footing as discussion about gameplay and mechanics. We have a lot of information about the latter, as most updates deal with that, and we can expect some things about how the gameplay will work. Thus, we are in a much better position to suggest changes and improvements to that, because we know some of the nitty gritty of how it'll work and we can extrapolate from the rest of the IE gameplay to fill in the gaps.

 

We know very, very little about the narrative and the companions, though, which means we aren't really in a position to suggest improvements, or to suggest that romances would improve the narrative. We can't extrapolate advice from IE stories either, because they were so different from each other and because that's an area that Obsidian surely won't recycle. Only the people at Obsidian have the detailed information to know how to improve it, they have evaluated that romances are not worth pursuing, and we're not really in a position to discuss that. Considering their posts about companion design and story design and tidbits of lore it seems like the narrative is being paid a good chunk of care and attention, but we don't know enough to know if they're doing a good job. We can only hope that they do, because they have a reputation for being good at this sort of thing.

 

I agree that romance has been discussed an awful lot on these forums (and probably in all RPG forums everywhere), but this thread is here because it's pertinent to the fact that it pertains to a recent decision made specifically regarding PoE. If we're going to present feedback discussion about PoE's design, then doing it in some general RPG forum isn't doing Team Eternity much good.

 

As I said, we don't know enough about the narrative aspects of PoE to give advice on implementation and possible specific pitfalls. We can only do that in general terms, which isn't doing Team Eternity any favors either. At least if it were on the general forum the discussion could benefit other games.

 

Of course, I'm not about to tell you it would somehow be preposterous to have this discussion in a non-PoE specific forum. But, like I said, the same goes for a lot of other things. Durability. Why was durability being discussed in PoE forums when people were just talking about why they don't like durability in cRPGs? Because it was specifically brought up in relation to PoE's design.

 

And then the devs said their thing on durability, there was some fallout caused by their decision, and the discussion eventually died off. Now the devs have said their thing on romance, so a similar process should be expected.... except that it's not clear that romance discussion will ever die off, because some people are just too attached to it. Hence why some people are giving this particular topic a little nudge.

[makryu]

The passionate way some people are trying to dissuade others from discussing this topic is proof enough to me that it deserves to be present on this very board. Whether it provides insight for the devs or not isn't for anyone but the devs to evaluate, and even that (the supposed usefulness for the devs) wouldn't be an ultimate parameter to consider it worthy of discussion or not.

[centurionofprix]

my poor, poor men.

[Lephys]

Long story short, here's the sub-text for the "Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion" forum:

 

"Talk about your gameplay experiences, hopes & dreams for Pillars of Eternity here."

 

Looks to me like people are talking about their gameplay experiences with romance (both critically as well as inspirationally), and sharing and discussing their hopes and dreams for PoE. Hardly an injustice, methinks.

 

Nowhere does it state "If the game probably isn't already going to have it, you're no longer allowed to share such hopes and dreams or discuss anything of the sort, u_u."

Edited February 28, 2014 by Lephys

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Some people like Romances, this thread, the various mods for BG2, and the following love interests get is evidence enough. That is understood by the posters here and Obsidian.

 

However, Obsidian has decided not to implement romances due to lack of resources. A bummer for some, but not the end of the world. PoE will be a fantastic game, if the designs of Sawyer and narratives of Avellone aren't enough to satisfy, I honestly can't comprehend why you would back the project in the first place.

 

Unless you mod them into the game, PoE will not have romances. The dev team simply isn't going to do them. They might pop up in a sequel(keep hoping Bruce), but they will not be in this game.

 

Now that I've said that, would anyone like to discuss NPC interaction?

 

I've always felt that most NPC interactions fell short. It would be nice to see more reactivity to the PC's actions than in BG2.

[Nonek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0gryfllhhI

[Hiro Protagonist II]

My dad always played his records on the old record player and that was one of them. The same with Engelbert Humperdinck. He still has them... and the old record player. Haven't been around to his place for a while.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

Now that I've said that, would anyone like to discuss NPC interaction?

 

I've always felt that most NPC interactions fell short. It would be nice to see more reactivity to the PC's actions than in BG2.

Hells yeah. Of course, it should honestly probably be a separate topic, either new or existing. Promise not to get mad when I mention anything even remotely resembling characters taking a mere personal interest in one another? No "leading up to sex!", or "because it's a love story!". Just good ole dynamics to characters simply bonding with/liking your PC, and actual effects from that.

 

Like, I'd actually love to see the tradeoff for striking up a personal conversation with a companion in a given situation being that you're both more distracted than usual, and are caught in a much worse position than if you had been all "Shutup and keep watch! This isn't a game!", etc.

[Nonek]

I was going to say that it only came out a bit back, then I totted it up and estimated that was about thirty years ago, Tempus Fugit indeed.

[BruceVC]

I'm hoping everyone will jump in and post something, clocking up numerous pages so eventually this thread can be closed.

 

Also, if there's going to be discussion about romances in crpgs, then perhaps open up a thread in the 'Computer and Console' sub forum and make your case there. Creating new threads in the PoE forums on things that's been confirmed isn't going to be in a game, is just trolling the PoE forum.

 

I'll be honest, I never get tired of this discussion. Just when I think I need a break or I've heard every possible point someone adds a different perspective around the importance of Romance, so this discussion is almost interminable with all the possible nuances

[tajerio]

 

I'm hoping everyone will jump in and post something, clocking up numerous pages so eventually this thread can be closed.

 

Also, if there's going to be discussion about romances in crpgs, then perhaps open up a thread in the 'Computer and Console' sub forum and make your case there. Creating new threads in the PoE forums on things that's been confirmed isn't going to be in a game, is just trolling the PoE forum.

 

I'll be honest, I never get tired of this discussion. Just when I think I need a break or I've heard every possible point someone adds a different perspective around the importance of Romance, so this discussion is almost interminable with all the possible nuances

 

 

"Interminable" is definitely the right word.  Unless it's "insufferable."