The Case for Romance.

[Whitefox789]

^Seems like we can discuss this for the rest of our lives if we wanted to.

[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

 

 

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

 

 

I have an noticed an influx of new promancers lately. So its been interesting hearing  all the new views

[ManifestedISO]

Welp, even I'm kinda tired of it. The only Case for Romance I want to pursue is with Green Shirt Girl. Just throwin' that out there. Totally not a creeper.  

[Bos_hybrid]

<enters/>

 

You guys are still at it? Hmm...

 

<leaves/>

 

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

 

Edited February 28, 2014 by Bos_hybrid

[Monte Carlo]

 

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

 

 

[TrashMan]

 

 

I have an noticed an influx of new promancers lately. So its been interesting hearing  all the new views

 

 

Refugees from BSN.

 

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[BruceVC]

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.

 

 

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.

Of course I want to discuss NPC interaction, who wouldn't. But we haven't finished the discussion around Romance yet, now the ending of this debate may be nebulous but I would consider people finally being reasonable when I have managed to convince someone like you about the necessity and importance of Romance in RPG.

 

Now I'm not being unreasonable because I know I can't persuade someone like Monte

[Malcador]

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.

Would make the forum a better place, I'd say. What's the point of wasting time discussing crap you know won't be in due to the game's feature cutoff (hopefully, anyway) being passed by now.

 

Are you pro-romance people trying taking the oppressed label now ?

[BruceVC]

 

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.

Would make the forum a better place, I'd say. What's the point of wasting time discussing crap you know won't be in due to the game's feature cutoff (hopefully, anyway) being passed by now.

 

Are you pro-romance people trying taking the oppressed label now ?

 

 

No Malc what would make forum a better place is if you guys took issues of social justice seriously and agreed words can be offensive, this is just a discussion around Romance in RPG

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I can't believe this thread is still going.

 

If you're making the claim that NPCs cannot possess depth of character or interaction without being romance-able, you're lying. You are lying. You....are....lying. Believable NPCs are there to breath life into an otherwise static and artificial world. Trying to seduce or become emotionally codependent with an NPC are only singular forms of interaction. NPCs can still possess a wealth of personality without being seduced, much like any person in the actual world does and should.

 

Any claims otherwise are patently false. Admit it. Admit it so this thread can die and the moderators can put a sticky up that Promancers simply need to come to terms with their pathos and find their quasi-emotional fulfillment elsewhere. People harping in X thread for XX pages "on the virtues of interactivity" that only romances provide need to perform some serious introspection. This thread is not about NPC interactivity. That is a lie and we all know it. Some of you just haven't come to terms with it yet.

 

Moving on...

[Monte Carlo]

^ This person is a legend.

[Lord Gorchnik]

I think the biggest issue I have with romance in games is that the romance is scripted and written by someone for your character, this is evident in almost all jRPGs with a love story.  However, in the future I would certainly like to see a game take on the challenge of letting you flesh out your own romantic escapades.  Whether you decide to settle at home and be a family-man, or tag-team with your partner and go on heroic escapades while falling in love over the journey together is all up for you to decide how it plays out.

[BruceVC]

I think the biggest issue I have with romance in games is that the romance is scripted and written by someone for your character, this is evident in almost all jRPGs with a love story.  However, in the future I would certainly like to see a game take on the challenge of letting you flesh out your own romantic escapades.  Whether you decide to settle at home and be a family-man, or tag-team with your partner and go on heroic escapades while falling in love over the journey together is all up for you to decide how it plays out.

 

I like the concept of being able to flesh out my own Romance in game, I'm not sure how practical it would be but it sounds very interactive

Edited February 28, 2014 by BruceVC

[Amentep]

 

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.

 

However, I'm not sure that there was 6-8 months of pro/con discussion prior to the revelation about misses/grazes whereas there has been that for romance. This isn't a topic that we've only gotten a revelation on either, the early indicators from various interviews - like Avellone's - was that romance options for the player character wasn't in their radar for the game.

 

The "Anti-mancers" crowed about those interviews every time they came up.

 

 

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...

 

No there's no real reason to continue the discussion along these lines; the discussion could be shifted to - again - what they've indicated they want to include rather than arguing for/against PC Romance.

 

But then if people want to keep the discussion up for/against romance that's cool too; I just don't think its going to be particularly productive.

 

 

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?

 

I'm not sure - how in the context of a PoE forum - you can advocate romance without advocating romance in PoE.

 

If this was a general discussion on the pros/cons of romance in video games or even video game RPGs specifically it wouldn't be an issue, but pretty much, by default (and IMO) if you have a thread called "THE CASE FOR ROMANCE" in a forum called "PILLARS OF ETERNITY: GENERAL DISCUSSION" the odds aren't that you're actually advocating that romance be in the next Oddworld game.

 

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.

But we're not talking about buying a product, we're talking about creating a narrative entertainment.

 

A closer example would be that I decided to write a novel set in the future and using a first contact scenario and you arguing that I would be better off spending my time writing about subsistence farmers in China because that's what some people would rather read.

 

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'm not exactly sure what 17 pages of this thread are going to detail within this context that the last few months haven't already mined, to be honest.

 

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.

And that's fine, but that's not what I've gotten that this thread is about. What I've gotten is that people want to discuss romance with their player character, not NPC romance.

 

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 didn't say you couldn't discuss it and far be it from me to suggest that. What I did say - and believe - is that such discussion was rendered useless by Obsidian's decision. There's a difference.

 

And I may not be right, but its my $.02.

[SqueakyCat]

This topic hasn't just been discussed for the past 6 - 8 months -- it's been over 17 months (the first one appearing on 14 September 2012).  The discussion has been ongoing since,  generally contained to a single thread.

 

The Devs would have had to lose all cognitive function to have not been aware of this polarizing ongoing discussion. 

 

They have made their decision, and yet some people still think if they continue to push for their inclusion, the Devs will suddenly realize (after 17 months in a coma apparently) they need to be included.  Seriously, reread what Josh said and really let it sink in as I don't see any wiggle-room there:

 

Even if 100% of fans wanted them, I don't believe we have the time and other resources to implement them well.  I am not inherently opposed to romances, but I don't want to spend time implementing something I'm not confident we will be able to execute at a high level of quality.

 

Discussion of possible romantic themes in side-quests should be discussed in a different thread as these discussions have clearly (and always) been about the player character.

[Amentep]

Man...time really flies then.  Doesn't feel like 17 months.

[Clawdius_Talonious]

While I'll admit that I've never been the biggest fan of romances in games, I am inclined to agree with Obsidian that it takes a lot of resources invested into it (time and trouble, at the very least) to make it fit seamlessly into a game. I imagine that a great amount of effort has been put into companions already, shoehorning romance in now doesn't seem like it would be an option.

[Lephys]

I'd very much like clarification on whether or not specifically romance arcs as the stereotypical promancers advocate are what's out of the question, or if romance in any possible capacity whatsoever is out of the question.

 

If NPCs feel romantically about one another all over the place, it's going to be mighty weird to have none of your PC's interaction ever touch that sector of the emotional spectrum, ever. I mean, there aren't manipulation arcs in the game, but I'd expect for options to manipulate NPCs. There aren't fear arcs in the game, but I'd expect to be able to make people fear me. What with the reputation system they're going for (as I've already pointed out, but will do so again, since it seems to have gone completely ignored), people will have -- what did they call them... Dispositions? I think Josh said they might end up calling them something else -- individual/personal preferences/perspectives on your PC. So, again, it seems extremely feasible for my character to be able to "romance" the noble's daughter, even if only to infiltrate his mansion and gather information about him, and/or handle some other situation. Take your pick on the situation. But, "romance" is merely another manner of interacting with/eliciting an emotional response/attachment from a given person.

 

Doesn't mean there has to be an entire lineage of quests and content involving ultimately coming to marry and settle down with one of a handful of lucky bachelorettes in the game.

 

Hell, if two NPCs are in love with one another, maybe you get the chance to cast an illusion spell to look like some girl's betrothed, again, only to get access to stuff you otherwise wouldn't, and you have to play the part. OMG! YOU'RE ROMANCING! BURN IT! Oh wait, that's actually kind of cool, and has nothing to do with a Bioware dating-sim arc.

 

See, stuff like that. You know, stuff that's actually worth discussing, but that many in here are too busy pointing out all the stuff that isn't worth discussing to even notice.

[Lurky]

I'd very much like clarification on whether or not specifically romance arcs as the stereotypical promancers advocate are what's out of the question, or if romance in any possible capacity whatsoever is out of the question.

I'm curious, are you asking the devs what kind of romances are out, or are you asking the antimancers what kind of romance they oppose?

 

If NPCs feel romantically about one another all over the place, it's going to be mighty weird to have none of your PC's interaction ever touch that sector of the emotional spectrum, ever. I mean, there aren't manipulation arcs in the game, but I'd expect for options to manipulate NPCs. There aren't fear arcs in the game, but I'd expect to be able to make people fear me. What with the reputation system they're going for (as I've already pointed out, but will do so again, since it seems to have gone completely ignored), people will have -- what did they call them... Dispositions? I think Josh said they might end up calling them something else -- individual/personal preferences/perspectives on your PC. So, again, it seems extremely feasible for my character to be able to "romance" the noble's daughter, even if only to infiltrate his mansion and gather information about him, and/or handle some other situation. Take your pick on the situation. But, "romance" is merely another manner of interacting with/eliciting an emotional response/attachment from a given person.

 

I highly doubt there's going to be romance all over the place. Not even in real life is romance all over the place, but rather in some places only, usually private. Most people are concerned with other things in public, and I expect that to carry into the game too.

 

With that said, what you are referring to is usually known as seduction, not romance. It is possible that seduction could be an available option for the player as a way to get what you want from NPCs. It certainly seems less costly to implement than romances, as they're a far less volatile subject (no player feelings have to be taken into consideration), and cost of implementation is the stated reason why romances aren't in.

 

Hell, if two NPCs are in love with one another, maybe you get the chance to cast an illusion spell to look like some girl's betrothed, again, only to get access to stuff you otherwise wouldn't, and you have to play the part. OMG! YOU'RE ROMANCING! BURN IT! Oh wait, that's actually kind of cool, and has nothing to do with a Bioware dating-sim arc.

 

See, stuff like that. You know, stuff that's actually worth discussing, but that many in here are too busy pointing out all the stuff that isn't worth discussing to even notice.

 

It would be very cool to discuss possible NPC interactions we could have in the game, indeed. Sadly, that's not happening, partly because people's attention is currently focused on this one specific type of interaction they want and can't have, and instead of moving on, people keep focusing on it, some of them even claiming that all other interactions are meaningless in comparison to it. Under that light, surely you can understand now why some people want this particular topic of discussion to die off, right? To clear the minds of people and clear the way to other forms of discussion.

 

In other words, it's not so much "let's also talk about this, along with that" as it is "people are too drained to talk about this because that is hogging all the attention and energy of people". If you say "well then, don't focus on that then", I would like to ask what is your advice to achieve that goal, because people's interests seem to lie elsewhere.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Lurky

[SqueakyCat]

Lephys, it should be abundantly clear what these particular Romance threads are discussing -- the PC.  What you are discussing is outside that parameter.

 

If you want to discuss possible romantic themes in side-quests, you should start a thread.  If you want to discuss other companion interactions you'd like to see in the game, start a thread.  Posting about those things here will neither get the attention nor a response from the Devs. as they have already made their decision regarding the topic under discussion.

 

In, literally, dozens of these threads spanning more than 17 months, the Devs. have made an appearance precisely 2 times -- once when Josh announced their decision to not include romances, and the second occasion was in the same thread when a Dev. confirmed the cost involved.  That's it.  In over 17 months, that's it.  They aren't looking for inspiration in this thread (thankfully) because they are not writing romances.

 

A stark contrast is the amount of discussion the Devs. have had regarding game mechanics.  Could it be they don't want to discuss their story? 

[Stun]

Lephys, it should be abundantly clear what these particular Romance threads are discussing -- the PC.  What you are discussing is outside that parameter.

Thank you.

 

Watching Lephys take this already mind-numbingly mundane topic into a tangent even less interesting, was getting pretty annoying.

 

 

 

A stark contrast is the amount of discussion the Devs. have had regarding game mechanics.  Could it be they don't want to discuss their story?

Yep. Exactly. And we got hints of that a little while back during the big backer site roll out when Josh was being interviewed by the various gaming media outlets. Whenever they'd ask a story or companion related topic he'd give a quick smile and say: No comment.

 

They really ARE deliberately keeping a CIA-like silence on PoE's story. Good for them. I love every kind of spoiler when it comes to an anticipated game....except when it comes to story plots.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Hell, if two NPCs are in love with one another, maybe you get the chance to cast an illusion spell to look like some girl's betrothed, again, only to get access to stuff you otherwise wouldn't, and you have to play the part. OMG! YOU'RE ROMANCING! BURN IT! Oh wait, that's actually kind of cool, and has nothing to do with a Bioware dating-sim arc.

 

That's way too creepy for me. Casting an illusion spell on yourself to look like someone else so you can romance that person's betrothed.

 

I don't want to even go there.

[Hassat Hunter]

They really ARE deliberately keeping a CIA-like silence on PoE's story. Good for them. I love every kind of spoiler when it comes to an anticipated game....except when it comes to story plots.

And yay for that.

 

But apparently *some* people read into that as 'the game will be diablo, they don't care about story.'

Read the above... they care. They care a lot.

[makryu]

<Takes a look at most anti-romance replies>

 

<Suddenly realizes why the CRPG genre is in its current sad state of irrelevance and game starvation in the industry>

[Monte Carlo]

^ LOL. Really. LOL.

 

And you refute the butt-hurt allegations.

 

I couldn't find a picture of Jack Nicholson with any more fruit, sorry.