The Case for Romance.

[Monte Carlo]

Actually, while I'm feeling loveable... We've only seen a tiny vanguard of the type of Promancer who would destroy this forum, like a sort of emo-Ebola, were there romances in this game.

 

The rest of the people who like romance might employ a bit of sophistry on threads like this, but the BSN-type oddball hasn't rocked up yet.

 

And of all the really good arguments against romances (for example, content / resource realities) my real argument is YOU WILL SUMMON HARDCORE BSN TYPES HERE.

 

It's like a 1950's Sci-Fi movie. The Anti-Mancers are the military guys at the research station. The Promancers are the scientists.

 

"Oh look!" say the scientists, "a life form."

 

"It'll probably kill us," says colonel Buzzcut. "Shoot it."

 

"No," say the scientists, full of hope and awe, "let us study it, welcome it, nourish it..."

 

"Shoot it!" orders Buzzcut.

 

Of course, the scientists get their way and the alien life-form kills everyone, just like Buzzcut predicted.

 

That's how I feel about Romances / 'romances' or however you want to cut it - this place will sink under the sheer weight of oddballs writing dissertations on the navel secretions of NPC 'x' 'y' & 'z' and whining about why Love Interest Alpha doesn't want to dress up like a nun.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'm not. I am, literally, a loveable huggable care bear. You'd have to cuff yourself to a heavy object to stop yourself wanting to hurl your arms around me.

 

Monte. In your pnp sessions, would you mind having the party readying for an attack, some of the party members psyching themselves up for this big encounter. Getting ready to charge in and then all of a sudden one of the players decides to take time out while they roleplay with another character with their romance in front of everyone. I recall someone in one of these threads saying they do romances in their pnp game. I'm wondering as a DM how you would react to that. Would you be all, awww that's so cute. Lets all take time out and watch the romance unfold.

[Monte Carlo]

I would expunge them with sword and flame.

[makryu]

It's quite funny how this topic stayed alive for at least a couple of days without any input whatsoever from pro-romancers. Quite odd behavior from people who supposedly can't stand the existence of this discussion at all to keep it up.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Yet again, this dude does some drive-by snark and adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever.

[Lephys]

@Lurky:

 

To be fair, I've neither claimed to have read every single post on the subject ever to be posted, nor do I have the time to guarantee that I've done so before posting anything, ever. Not to mention, there's so much debating whether or not there's anything to debate going on, it's a bit hard to just jump back and forth between actual topic discussion and frivolous discussion discussion.

 

I'll try to be brief.

 

Yes, you do generally analyze both sides of something when formally analyzing the dilemma as a whole. However, in a debate, one side merely defends one stance in the matter whilst the other side defends an opposing one. You don't spend time pointing out the other side simply because that's not how it's logistically set up. I don't think anyone would disagree that this is a huge debate amongst the users here (and probably all over the internet, in gaming forums all over), so it seems pretty moot to insist that the author of this thread was somehow obligated to cover both sides. He simply started off by presenting his side, then inviting others to reasonably present the opposing side. Not to mention that I haven't seen an objective analysis of the For Romance stance coming from anyone in the Against section, so I'm honestly not sure upon what grounds any of you are actually attempting to call out the OP.

 

- If you want another type of argument against romance, someone on this thread also mentioned this. Literally nobody in favor of romance answered to him. Neither did you. Again, why should anyone bother to write an analysis for the against side, given that complete lack of reaction?

My apologies. I missed that. For what it's worth, though, I've responded to similar arguments, and I'll respond to this one accordingly:

 

He makes very valid points... about problems with existing games' implementations of romance, specifically.. Besides, the analysis of "rewarding the player with this for these choices could cause the player to feel thusly" could be applied to almost anything else that no one's even arguing against the sheer existence of: Combat (game rewards player with virtual death/feelings of power), manipulative dialogue (game rewards manipulative choices with cool virtual stuff), etc. In which case, the majority of the game shouldn't be implemented, for some reason or another. That, and nothing's requiring romance's implementation in a given game to be "choose the right things and get rewarded with sex."

 

You see, those points, like many, many others, I very much agree with. I think the example romances and such all have flaws that are being pointed out. The disconnect is that I keep seeing people associate those flaws with romance in general, rather than seeing them as data to consider when implementing romance in any way, shape, or fashion in another game.

 

Avellone had this to say for romance in general in Eternity. Of course, he's not the only writer involved, but somebody on the team having a view like that makes me think that "romance" won't be very present in PoE. Probably not inexistant, but given what I linked, maybe we shoudl talk about it less, if we wanted to be proportional.

I can't read that article at the moment (inaccessible), but I'll gladly read it when I get home. The thing is, my biggest response to this is basically "define 'very present'." Maybe we should talk about it less, but I'm not really comfortable dictating what people can and cannot talk about on a discussion forum, simply because many are sick of hearing about it and get the feeling that its presence in the game at hand will be pretty minor.

 

I've pointed out about eleventy-billion times now that an individual can easily advocate "not very present" romance, and wish to discuss just how present it will/could/should be in the game. Just because I'm here talking about romance doesn't specify the quantity or exact implementation of romance I want. Guessing with assumptions is a lot slower than just asking me. Also, asking me constitutes actual discussion, while assuming doesn't.

 

I would say that the problem wouldn't have ceased to exist, but it would have been diminished. A random comment can be easily ignored, a Serious Discussion About Heartfelt Feelings, not so much. A better example would have been if, instead of asking about marriage right before a bloody battle, Viconia had wanted to discuss the religious beliefs of the last town.

 

Nonetheless, I think that the point is clear: not everybody will find romance discussion appropiate at a given time, and the game has no consistent way to know when that moment is for any given player. Sure, you could make the player initiate the conversation, but then people complain that the NPC has no will of its own and that's unrealistic. So then you'd have to put some serious effort to program NPCs that can judge when certain conversations are okay to have, which is something that even humans have trouble doing. And then people have the gall to say that romances are easy to make?!

 

And before you say "aha, but non-romantic conversations have the same problem!", I disagree. Conversations about a topic related to some place or some concept seem like they'd be far easier to tie to a place and trigger when you're in that place, thus becoming relevant. Conversations about complicated feelings, which would involve time together, context, reputation and other things, would be way harder. And romance especifically is too volatile a topic to screw it up like that.

I think you're bending things a bit, here, to be honest. The simple point was that putting romance into a game in no way causes characters to blurt out out-of-place things the moment they confront a dire situation. I dare say that if you had just finished talking to some NPC lady, regarding some quest, and the quest happened to involve the apple of her eye, and she worriedly vented about him, clinging to their hopes of getting married soon before this troublesome quest-situation arose, THEN Viconia asked if you've ever thought of marriage, it would be remarkably appropriate and perfectly within context. Also, the game knows what dialogue took place, and what the subject was, so it has no problem cue-ing such a remark from a party member, etc.

 

So, I'm going to have to disagree with that whole attribution of those issues to romance, as well.

[makryu]

^ Yet again, this dude does some drive-by snark and adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever.

Pretty sure my 45 posts in these forums have more thought in them than your 5000+

Edited March 6, 2014 by makryu

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'm hoping someone will do a 'Lephys Logic Posting in Lephys Land' chart similar to the Volourn Logic Posting chart. I would but I quickly saw what type of insanity that would entail and quickly ran away from it.

[TMZuk]

 

The Case for Romance is nearly identical: Can't get it anywhere else, so pixel passion has its devotees.

 

So let me get this straight. Because I like a CRPG to have love included, just as I bet it has hate included, it means I can't get in anywhere else and therefore I am a pixel passion devotee?

 

Is that what you are saying?

[Tsuga C]

Is that what you are saying?

No, I was merely playing off of Nonek's post about all of us being unlovable and suggesting that those who consider themselves as such are likely to want some pixel passion. Not all who favor romances fall into that category, of course. Peace.

[Stun]

 

I'll give you a quick example. Not a great one, but it gets the point across. BG2. You're deep in Fiirkrag's dungeon and the game did a wonderful job building up the tension and the atmosphere. You enter Fiirkrag's lair. You hear the low rumbling..... THEN SUDDENLY, OUT OF THE BLUE, VICONIA SPEAKS UP: Viconia: I'm wondering this. Have you ever entertained the notion of marriage?

 

 

WTF. I'm about to fight a dragon, and the game just destroyed the mood for me. Wait, check that. the ROMANCE just destroyed the mood, as they almost always do.

This is an excellent example of the kind of fallacies that are frequently presented against the sheer aspect of romance.

 

Instead of pointing out the flaw here, I'll simply ask:

 

Wait. By all means, point out the so-called fallacy here. I gave a concise example of a core issue with romances in combat centric games: They often do not FIT.

 

But lets see what you have for us.

 

Would the problem in that example have ceased to exist if Viconia had blurted out some random bit of dialogue -- still completely unbefitting of the situation -- that simply had nothing to do with romance? What if she had said "I wonder if the next tavern we come across will have Elvish wine... it's quite delicious.", for example?

That would be ambient banter. Not dialogue. The example I gave was the latter, where the NPC talks to the player character and the player character responds. In such situations The gameplay literally stops so that the PC and the NPC can engage in a dialogue. But YES, if I'm about to fight a dragon, I do not expect nor want the game to instantly force me into some immersion-killing chit-chat with an NPC about their taste in wine. I'd much rather those NPCs act a little more realistic, and engage me in a discussion about, you know, that giant, fire-breathing dragon that is right in front of them.

 

By the way, Bioware actually acknowledged that specific issue with BG2, and they fixed it. In subsequent games, like DA:O, Romance dialogue happened at camp... or it happened when the player decided to pursue it.

[BruceVC]

I'm hoping someone will do a 'Lephys Logic Posting in Lephys Land' chart similar to the Volourn Logic Posting chart. I would but I quickly saw what type of insanity that would entail and quickly ran away from it.

 

Hi Hiro

 

I don't know  but Lephys makes a lot of sense from where I'm sitting? I have to be honest but sometimes I wonder if you anti-romancers don't agree with this logic only because traditionally you always debate with him? In other words even if Lephys is right ...you still won't acknowledged it. Its worth considering...you and others may be doing this subconsciously

And come on you can't compare him to Volo.,..Volo makes no sense 99 % of the time and is more interested in absurd and controversial comments than real debate

[BruceVC]

Hi Everyone,

 

Pretty polarizing topic...I understand that. 

 

It's interesting that we can fantasize about slaying oversized rodents or toothless bandits with a glowing sword or a fireball but fantasizing about romantic encounters in the same game is "weird" or perhaps a sign of desperation.  That was just an observation not an accusation.

 

Marrying/Dating characters in game or having romantic relationships never really enticed me though observing characters in romantic terms was.  Maybe I'm just a pervert who likes to watch couples but I do believe romantic stories between other characters would add a nice balance to the game.  It seems like it would provide a stark contrast to the murder and mayhem we'll find on our adventure.  Romance between characters also provides the potential for a more sympathetic reaction from the player when one of them dies.

 

In summary:  I do not need another girlfriend, especially a demanding snake eyed virtual one, but I would like to watch a NPC's girlfriend.

 

Good post, I have made similar points before and the response from certain anti-romancers is a deep psychological analysis of the difference between violence in video games and RPG Romance, it never makes sense to me.

 

For me it seems hypocritical that it is acceptable for certain  people to discuss and want magic, complex quests, realistic armour, deep lore, varied  interaction with party members, loads of monsters, deities and demigods, a choice of classes and unique races but the consideration of Romance is anathema? It just seems selective around what constitutes a meaningful RPG experience...

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Hi Hiro

 

I don't know  but Lephys makes a lot of sense from where I'm sitting? I have to be honest but sometimes I wonder if you anti-romancers don't agree with this logic only because traditionally you always debate with him? In other words even if Lephys is right ...you still won't acknowledged it. Its worth considering...you and others may be doing this subconsciously

And come on you can't compare him to Volo.,..Volo makes no sense 99 % of the time and is more interested in absurd and controversial comments than real debate

 

 

Hi Bruce

 

I don't know but Lephys has shown how he's flip-flopped over this romance topic, saying he's not discriminating and seeing reasonable people and their positions on both sides of the argument, then completely disregards what he previously said. And now he's a biased promancer and can't see any points on the against argument. He's admitted he doesn't know of any on the against side he would agree with. Are you all for biased posters posting their bias now?

 

Also, are you labelling me an antiromancer? Because I'm far from it. Perhaps you should read my posts where I said I liked certain romance in some games when I played them before jumping to conclusions which you seem to do a lot. Consider traditionally you always take Lephys' side and like all his posts. In other words even if Lephys is wrong (which is usually the case) ...you still won't acknowledged it. Its worth considering...you and others may be doing this subconsciously

 

And Lephys makes no sense 99 % of the time and is more interested in being argumentative than real debate.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[BruceVC]

 

 

Hi Bruce

 

I don't know but Lephys has shown how he's flip-flopped over this romance topic, saying he's not discriminating and seeing reasonable people and their positions on both sides of the argument, then completely disregards what he previously said. And now he's a biased promancer and can't see any points on the against argument. He's admitted he doesn't know of any on the against side he would agree with. Are you all for biased posters posting their bias now?

 

Also, are you labelling me an antiromancer? Because I'm far from it. Perhaps you should read my posts where I said I liked certain romance in some games before jumping to conclusions which you seem to do a lot. Consider traditionally you always take Lephys' side and like all his posts. In other words even if Lephys is wrong (which is usually the case) ...you still won't acknowledged it. Its worth considering...you and others may be doing this subconsciously

 

And Lephys makes no sense 99 % of the time and is more interested in being argumentative than real debate.

 

 

Hi again Hiro

 

I think you being unfair to Lephys or rather his posting style, just because a person acknowledges another point or says " I can see what you are saying " that doesn't mean he is flip-flopping or contradicting his original position. Personally I think some of these debates could do with some healthy objectivity. I see this lacking primarily from the anti-romance position.

 

But I don't want to stifle debate in any regard or suggest people shouldn't post what they feel, I just think we should engage in debate without the view of intransigence.

 

Also I would disagree with Lephys if I felt was wrong, but I just find myself aligned to his general sentiment. Remember a debate is greater than one persons perspective. Often we can learn a new opinion if we just go into the debate with an open mind.

Edited March 6, 2014 by BruceVC

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Hi again Hiro

 

I think you being unfair to Lephys or rather his posting style, just because a person acknowledges another point or says " I can see what you are saying " that doesn't mean he is flip-flopping or contradictingg his original position. Personally I think some of these debates could do with some healthy objectivity. I see this lacking primarily from the anti-romance position.

 

But I don't want to stifle debate in any regard or suggest people shouldn't post what they feel, I just think we should engage in debate without the view of intransigence.

 

Also I would disagree with Lephys if I felt was wrong, but I just find myself aligned to his general sentiment. Remember a debate is greater than one persons perspective. Often we can learn a new opinion if we just go into the debate with an open mind.

 

 

Hi again Bruce.

 

Not being unfair at all. Perhaps if you need to stop white knighting and making stuff up? Actually go and read what he has written? Serious question. Can you stop making stuff up Bruce? because you're doing it now. He also said the against crowd has made 'reasonable points' and acknowledged this and now flipped flopped and now he's saying, he can't see any points on the against argument. He's admitted he doesn't know of any on the against side he would agree with. Total contradiction.

 

And how about you being objective? You say these debates could do with some healthy objectivity. This is lacking primarily from the pro-romance position. Lephys is a case in point. And so are you. You should take some of your own advice about one's perspective. And thank you for confirming your bias with Lephy's view point. Perhaps you need to have an open mind when debating with people.

 

In fact, your whole post is one giant troll and flame bait.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Hi again Hiro

 

I think you being unfair to Lephys or rather his posting style, just because a person acknowledges another point or says " I can see what you are saying " that doesn't mean he is flip-flopping or contradictingg his original position. Personally I think some of these debates could do with some healthy objectivity. I see this lacking primarily from the anti-romance position.

 

But I don't want to stifle debate in any regard or suggest people shouldn't post what they feel, I just think we should engage in debate without the view of intransigence.

 

Also I would disagree with Lephys if I felt was wrong, but I just find myself aligned to his general sentiment. Remember a debate is greater than one persons perspective. Often we can learn a new opinion if we just go into the debate with an open mind.

 

 

Hi again Bruce.

 

Not being unfair at all. Perhaps if you need to stop white knighting and making stuff up? Actually go and read what he has written? Serious question. Can you stop making stuff up Bruce? because you're doing it now. He also said the against crowd has made 'reasonable points' and acknowledged this and now flipped flopped and now he's saying, he can't see any points on the against argument. He's admitted he doesn't know of any on the against side he would agree with. Total contradiction.

 

And how about you being objective? You say these debates could do with some healthy objectivity. This is lacking primarily from the pro-romance position. Lephys is a case in point. And so are you. You should take some of your own advice about one's perspective. And thank you for confirming your bias with Lephy's view point. Perhaps you need to have an open mind when debating with people.

 

In fact, your whole post is one giant troll and flame bait.

 

 

Wow, so much for the pleasantries. I was enjoying the cordial nature of our responses

 

 I see you playing the infamous "Troll card". Don't you ever get tired of using that as a reaponse to someones opinion when you have nothing constructive to say? Apparently not

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Wow, so much for the pleasantries. I was enjoying the cordial nature of our responses

 

 I see you playing the infamous "Troll card". Don't you ever get tired of using that as a reaponse to someones opinion when you have nothing constructive to say? Apparently not

 

 

When you make stuff up and you know you're making stuff up, then you're clearly trolling. It's not a troll card Bruce. How about making some constructive comments instead of making stuff up? Or are you just going to keep trolling? Because that's what you've been doing these last few posts. The usual dodge and avoid tactics. Avoiding questions. Nothing constructive to say. Anything constructive to say? Apparently not

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Too many goddamn walls of text.

 

PoE will not have romance because the devs don't think they can do it well. If this bothers you, find the turn-basers, combatXPers, fantasyhatinghipsters, antibalancers, and every other group of butthurt **** and make your own game. PoE isn't for ya'll.

[BruceVC]

Too many goddamn walls of text.

 

. PoE isn't for ya'll.

 

Okay great idea, but don't you think that a person can enjoy PoE even if there isn't Romance? Surly thats possible ....

[Valsuelm]

 

Too many goddamn walls of text.

 

. PoE isn't for ya'll.

 

Okay great idea, but don't you think that a person can enjoy PoE even if there isn't Romance? Surly thats possible ....

 

 

Possible sure. But one wonders when this thread and others concerning the topic are still going on despite the announcement there will be no romance. You don't see similar threads on subjects like PoE on the console or PoE as a 3D game despite some on these forums having wanting them in the past. They generally accept what they want isn't going to be in the game after being told so and move on, but not many of those in favor of romance.

 

Why the romance folks can't let this subject die is beyond me. Swallow the loss and wait for PoE2 is what should be done, not clutter up this forum with the banality of this thread.

 

This thread really belongs in Computer and Console though as it has little to nothing to do with PoE at this point.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Too many goddamn walls of text.

 

. PoE isn't for ya'll.

 

Okay great idea, but don't you think that a person can enjoy PoE even if there isn't Romance? Surly thats possible ....

 

 

Possible sure. But one wonders when this thread and others concerning the topic are still going on despite the announcement there will be no romance. You don't see similar threads on subjects like PoE on the console or PoE as a 3D game despite some on these forums having wanting them in the past. They generally accept what they want isn't going to be in the game after being told so and move on, but not many of those in favor of romance.

 

Why the romance folks can't let this subject die is beyond me. Swallow the loss and wait for PoE2 is what should be done, not clutter up this forum with the banality of this thread.

 

This thread really belongs in Computer and Console though as it has little to nothing to do with PoE at this point.

 

 

Sounds like you are firmly in the anti-romance camp...it doesn't seem like you think Romance should be in RPG?

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Sounds like you are firmly in the anti-romance camp...it doesn't seem like you think Romance should be in RPG?

 

 

What I think on the subject doesn't matter too much at this point in regards to PoE, but I will say in general that romance in a game is not a black and white issue for me. If this thread is moved out of the PoE forum I'll debate the pros and cons of romance in a game with you. But so long as this thread is here, I'll lobby to have it moved out, as I would any other thread that won't die that has little to nothing to do with PoE. We may as well be discussing the merits of making PoE a POV game instead of isometric, that's how much this subject really doesn't belong in this forum at this point. I actually wonder why the mods haven't moved it out, they are usually overactive in my opinion in other matters, though perhaps the only ones paying attention here are pro-romance.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Sounds like you are firmly in the anti-romance camp...it doesn't seem like you think Romance should be in RPG?

 

 

What I think on the subject doesn't matter too much at this point in regards to PoE, but I will say in general that romance in a game is not a black and white issue for me. If this thread is moved out of the PoE forum I'll debate the pros and cons of romance in a game with you. But so long as this thread is here, I'll lobby to have it moved out, as I would any other thread that won't die that has little to nothing to do with PoE. We may as well be discussing the merits of making PoE a POV game instead of isometric, that's how much this subject really doesn't belong in this forum at this point. I actually wonder why the mods haven't moved it out, they are usually overactive in my opinion in other matters, though perhaps the only ones paying attention here are pro-romance.

 

 

Those are good points but can you say with certainty there won't be Romance in PoE 2, until Obsidian confirms this the discussion is surly relevant on these forums? 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Okay great idea, but don't you think that a person can enjoy PoE even if there isn't Romance? Surly thats possible ....

Yes, a person can and I will. I doubt the more enthusiastic promancers will.

 

Those are good points but can you say with certainty there won't be Romance in PoE 2, until Obsidian confirms this the discussion is surly relevant on these forums?

 

We can't say with certainty that there will be a PoE2, so no.

 

If and when PoE2 is announced, feel free to start lobbying for romance.