The Case for Romance.

[Gfted1]

Rofl, some of you guys remind me of seagull management. If you have nothing to contribute to a subject then why do you participate?

[BruceVC]

Rofl, some of you guys remind me of seagull management. If you have nothing to contribute to a subject then why do you participate?

 

That made me laugh, I'm going to start using that term

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

We can't watch porn at work.

[Gfted1]

While I understand that we have a lot of bullyboys and girls that like to shout down topics and conversations that other people are having because they don't like the subject matter, that's not how things work on these forums. All opinions are welcome as long as they abide by the forum rules and I ask, please lets try to keep things constructive.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The case for/against romance is that you like/dislike them and would/wouldn't like to see resources spent on them.

 

This inclusion or exclusion of romance is not supported by anything other than personal preference.

 

Obsidian has decided not to implement romances in PoE because Sawyer doesn't feel the dev team could do them well.

 

If you would like romance in PoE, you will not get it in the vanilla game. I reccomend waiting for a mod to be released or lobbying for romance if PoE2 is made.

 

If you would like to have a discussion on the merits of romance in RPGs, then perhaps the Computer & Console section is a better venue.

[Sir Chaox]

seagull management.

 

Updated my vocabulary.

[Valsuelm]

 

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? 

 

 

On these forums? Sure, if you mean the Obsidian forums. No, if you mean the PoE forums.

 

When PoE2 is announced there will be forums for that particular game, to discuss possible romance, or anything else relevant to that game. Romances are not relevant to PoE.

 

[Lephys]

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.

I apologize. I was certain that the question I posed would cause anyone asking it to themselves to bump straight into the fallacy. I'll clarify:

 

You claim you've given an example of why romance doesn't belong in a game, when you've actually just presented an example of where/when romance doesn't belong in a game. Basically, if she brought up that same thing in an appropriate situation, instead of an in-appropriate one, the issue you present in that example wouldn't even exist.

 

It's functionally almost the same thing as a bug causing an NPC to respond to some other coded dialogue line that your character didn't just speak. That wouldn't mean that character should NEVER say that out-of-place thing he said. Just that he should say it only in response to what actually makes sense.

 

Also, the semantics argument is a waste of time. The problem arises the second she says the wrong thing at the wrong time, regardless of whether or not it's banter (monologue) or the player is actually prompted to respond. Unless your response option is "WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?! THERE'S A FREAKIN' DRAGON RIGHT THERE! WHO CARES ABOUT MARRIAGE RIGHT NOW?!", and it turns out she's suffering some head trauma and is legitimately incoherent. So, see, that would be another fix to the problem, because what she said would actually fit the circumstances.

 

None of that has anything to do with whether or not anyone should ever talk to your character about marriage at any point in the game. Nor does "romance" require that someone specifically converse with your PC about marriage, or sex, or that the game allow your player to marry and or fornicate with any of the companions. Those are specific extents/degrees of the aspect of romance. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

[makryu]

Trying to be constructive about it, I agree that it will be weird if the world somehow does not incorporate romantic aspects in any of its quests, legends, etc. I hope that Obsidian, despite their apparent disregard for the subject, does not go down that route.

 

On a side note, I'd be all for romance with non-companion NPCs, such as the innkeeper, a king, etc. I think it has been severely underrepresented so far in CRPGs, and generally not seriously taken into account, despite the fact that it would be a natural thing to occur. Plus, I assume its implementation would be a lot less resource intensive than a companion romance.

[Stun]

You claim you've given an example of why romance doesn't belong in a game,

I claimed no such thing. My example was how romances often change the gaming experience for the worse.

 

 

Also, the semantics argument is a waste of time. The problem arises the second she says the wrong thing at the wrong time,

If by "wrong" you mean: "Out of place", "uncanny valley", "gag-worthy", "facepalm inducing", "cheesy and forced", then yes. I'd call that a problem. The core problem, in fact. Romances and combat centric RPGs are generally not a good fit for one another because the "conflicts" are too different between the two.

 

Sorta like Brocoli smothered in chocolate syrrup. Individually these 2 things are fine, but put together the end result is a dish that tastes....wrong.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

I claimed no such thing. My example was how romances often change the gaming experience for the worse.

I'm sorry I mistook you, then. So, you're not saying romance doesn't fit anywhere in the game, but are merely saying that it often is put in specific places in the game where it doesn't fit? 'Cause... that's basically my point, exactly. I'm confused...

 

If by "wrong" you mean: "Out of place", "uncanny valley", "gag-worthy", "facepalm inducing", "cheesy and forced", then yes. I'd call that a problem. The core problem, in fact. Romances and combat centric RPGs are generally not a good fit because the "conflicts" are too different from one another.

By "wrong," I mean "contextually inappropriate or out-of-place." I didn't think I was very vague about my meaning. Maybe I was. *shrug*

 

Sorta like Brocoli smothered in chocolate syrrup. Individually these 2 things are fine, but put together they simply don't fit, and the end result is an abomination.

And yet, if you place both a bag of broccoli AND a container of chocolate syrup in your refrigerator, they co-exist peacefully without forcibly merging with one another into an abomination. Splendid example.

[Lurky]

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.

 

That would be relevant if, you know, the OP had actually started a thread for debating. Instead, he wrote an analysis, and after getting it out of his system he hoped that it would spark some interesting discussion. But what he wrote is an analysis, so it can be critizised as such.

 

I also want to add that the criticisms I gave of that analysis were constructive, in the sense that I pointed out fixable flaws and explained and gave context to the reaction he got. It's not like I attacked him because I felt like it.

 

[rest of the post]

 

So, Lephys, you said that you can't see any argument against romance that convinces you. When people point arguments, you say that the problem is with the existing games' implementations of romance. Even when the argument is that romances are predetermined (and thus exploitable) you say that's a problem of implementation, despite the fact that this one is a characteristic of the entire medium of videogames that merely manifests itself in romances in a particularly unfortunate way.

 

You chalk up everything to the implementation of romances, no matter how varied and broad the problems being pointed out are. It's as if you believed that there's some magical way to implement romances that didn't have any of these problems. The way you answer every criticism with "yeah that's bad, but implementation!" suggests you think they can be fixed, at least.

 

So I have to ask. Is it that you believe that such a thing is possible? As in, now, with our current limited technology on videogame AIs and systems, which means that character interactions will either be scripted and complex (and thus predetermined and exploitable) or emergent and shallow (because nobody has figured yet how to do better than that on a large and commercially viable scale)? Now, with the huge costs that deep character writing entails (some devs have already said that character writing is the biggest writing bottleneck, and other wanted features, such as NPC voice acting, had to be put aside for it)?

 

Because I don't think we're there. Narrative designers like Avellone like to talk about emergent gameplay, and it would be interesting what their plans are for that, but we're not there yet. Emergent character interactions that feel vaguely humanlike will take even longer. Emergent, believable romance that can appeal to a variety of people and fulfill their expectations, even longer. In any case, it seems like a topic better suited for speculation of the future, and completely out of the scope of PoE. I won't bother saying that this thread should be moved, but I honestly think that a forum with a broader scope, like the Computer and Console one, would be better suited for this kind of discussion. Go ahead, create the topic if you're interested in this.

 

Or maybe what you mean is that since all cRPG character interaction systems are flawed in one way or another, we should excuse these flaws when they manifest in romances. However, what if we said that these flaws manifest in worse ways in the case of romances, compared to other character interactions? It seems pretty self evident to me that out of all the possible character interactions, romances are the one that pales the most compared to the real thing, and I'm not sure if they can be improved significatively (or if they should come close to real life romances, at that... I did say they can be addictive, right?). Are you suggesting that we should still cut romances some slack for those limitations? I'm not sure I can agree with that. Content with obvious flaws can still be a drag on the experience for the player, and if some people insist on the presence of that content, the counterpoints should be equally present.

 

In any case, I have to ask: what is your stance, exactly? And what do you think should be done to end with all these implementation problems, since you think they're not problems inherent to romance? I want to know your opinion on that, at least, even if you're not an expert on the topic.

 

While I'm at it, I also make the same question to whoever bothered to read this wall of text. Should anything be done about the problems of romances, is it worth it? If yes, what do you think should be done?

[Stun]

So, you're not saying romance doesn't fit anywhere in the a game, but are merely saying that it often is put in specific places in the games where it doesn't fit?

Fixed. You're doing this deliberately, aren't you.

 

 

By "wrong," I mean "contextually inappropriate or out-of-place."

But depending on a game's plot and nature, this can mean the entire game. And often does.

 

And yet, if you place both a bag of broccoli AND a container of chocolate syrup in your refrigerator, they co-exist peacefully without forcibly merging with one another into an abomination. Splendid example.

In this analogy, the refrigerator would not be the game. It would be, like, the development studio. The game is the finished product (the dish). Edited March 7, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

That would be relevant if, you know, the OP had actually started a thread for debating. Instead, he wrote an analysis, and after getting it out of his system he hoped that it would spark some interesting discussion. But what he wrote is an analysis, so it can be critizised as such.

It can be, yes. I didn't say it couldn't be. I just think there's constructive criticism, and nonconstructive criticism. For example, I wouldn't tell you you spelled some stuff wrong, and not say what you misspelled or how to spell it correctly. Nor would I pretend that nothing you spelled correctly mattered anymore, simply because you didn't do everything perfectly.

 

You don't have to accept the OP's one-sided analysis or be interested in actually acknowledging what it does say. But then, you don't have to post in this thread at all, either. *shrug*

 

I also want to add that the criticisms I gave of that analysis were constructive, in the sense that I pointed out fixable flaws and explained and gave context to the reaction he got. It's not like I attacked him because I felt like it.

They were constructive towards the thread author's knowledge of what would've made his first post better, but they (and many others' criticisms, although you're at least being a lot more reasonable than most) aren't really doing any good for the discussion, the productivity of which is not the sole obligation of the thread-starter.

 

I mean, someone could start a thread with simply "I want to know what everyone's thoughts are on the potential for eating at taverns being a thing in PoE," and everyone could just reply with "You didn't even post your OWN thoughts on it!" all day long, for pages and pages. And yet, the discussion doesn't actually go anywhere unless people share their thoughts. It's not like someone else being less constructive than they could've been somehow makes your doing the same thing okay. In this example, I'd share my thoughts, then say "you probably could've posted YOUR thoughts on this, too, thread author."

 

So, Lephys, you said that you can't see any argument against romance that convinces you. When people point arguments, you say that the problem is with the existing games' implementations of romance. Even when the argument is that romances are predetermined (and thus exploitable) you say that's a problem of implementation, despite the fact that this one is a characteristic of the entire medium of videogames that merely manifests itself in romances in a particularly unfortunate way.

I'm really not trying to be snarky here, but everything in a video game is literally pre-determined. It's all just a bunch of code, executed in succession. It cannot execute unless it was pre-determined and compiled into the program before you even started playing the game. You only get a given dialogue response when certain conditions are met.

 

You're not wrong about romance being pre-determined, but I'm not seeing the significance there, or the distinction from anything else in the game.

 

You chalk up everything to the implementation of romances, no matter how varied and broad the problems being pointed out are.

That's simply not true. People have hardly presented everything to me. They've presented a handful of very specific examples, each of which were not actually pointing a finger at romance, itself.

 

I could pick something all the presenters of these examples/arguments like instead of hate, like combat or something, and point out examples of how "combat causes problems" all day long, from existing games, and I guarantee you no one would say "You're right... because of those examples, combat should not be in any RPG." No, they'd tell me exactly what I'm telling you. "Yeah, but that just tells us [/i]how not to do combat[/i], not whether or not to do combat." That's the response I'd get, and rightfully so.

 

I haven't seen a valid, inherent component of something as general as "romance" being problematic to the point of making sure the game is completely devoid of it.

 

People have perfectly valid reasons to frown upon romance, because we're creatures of habit. There are plenty of bad examples, and flaws and problems throughout existing games' romance components. If 70% of the populous all had terrible, near-drowning experiences every time they visited a body of water, I wouldn't expect them to LIKE water. However, if they tried to convince me water was bad, I'd tell them that simply isn't the case. It can be dangerous, sure, but water itself isn't bad.

 

What do I want? First of all, as I've said oodles of times before, what I advocate is romance, as an aspect of character choice/interaction (no different than greed, hostility, etc.), not romances with an S. The word usage wouldn't be such a big deal, if the plural didn't evoke such a specific setup.

 

I think my character (and others) could be subject to romantic feelings/inclinations in certain situations, and that this could affect various other things in the game. I think my character can become romantically fond of another character without having an entire sub-system of the game devoted to winning over that character and/or progressing to the point of tent-sharing and making out at every stop on our travels, much less marriage and children.

 

I really, truly do not know how to emphasize this any harder. I can make 8 billion examples that are exactly the same thing, and yet people still pretend I'm being really, really vague about this or something, or it's some mystical concept. Degrees/extents. Just because I can't be evil and take over the world doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to make selfish/greedy decisions. Just because I don't want my character to joke in response to everything anyone says, even when talking to the matron of that orphanage that just burned down with 50 orphans in it, doesn't mean I don't want sarcastic and witty dialogue options to choose from ever in the whole game.

 

Just because I don't want a Bioware romance arc doesn't mean I want a game full of characters who never ever develop romantic feelings/fondness/desire, etc. "Oh, that person who lives, permanently, at your stronghold, the place to which you return/visit about 100 times throughout the game? Yeah, you can never ever choose to be more fond of them than of anyone else, ever. You're just platonic with everyone in existence, because it's either that or the two of you partake in a game-long side mission, the reward for which is sex, marriage, and children."

[Lephys]

Fixed. You're doing this deliberately, aren't you.

What, making sense?

 

So, your argument is "Right as you're facing a great dragon is not the time for someone to talk to you about marriage, therefore, there's obviously never any time it would ever be appropriate for anyone to ever talk to you about marriage."?

 

You just said you weren't claiming romance shouldn't be in a whole game, hence my question above. Please make up your mind.

 

But depending on a game's plot and nature, this can mean the entire game. And often does.

Awesome. Is this the case with PoE? If so, please explain, if you don't mind.

 

For the record, the entirety of Legend of Zelda games is basically non-stop combat, puzzle-solving, and traveling, and yet the entire plot essentially revolves around a romance. And yet, there are no "get Princess Zelda to like me and marry me and have my babies" minigames.

 

In this analogy, the refrigerator would not be the game. It would be, like, the development studio. The game is the finished product (the dish).

So everything in the game is always mixed with everything else in the game? That's what you're saying? You have dialogue, WHILE fighting, WHILE solving puzzles, WHILE sneaking past things, WHILE purchasing goods, WHILE upgrading your stronghold, WHILE crafting things?

[Stun]

So, your argument is "Right as you're facing a great dragon is not the time for someone to talk to you about marriage, therefore, there's obviously never any time it would ever be appropriate for anyone to ever talk to you about marriage."?

Would you stop trying to make my argument for me? Thanks. Leave that to me. I'm better at it.

 

Ok. The marriage dialogue occuring right before the fight with Fiirkrag was just one example. In a party-based, combat centric RPG, there's going to be plenty of others. Having romantic dialogue when you're in an ancient crypt filled with undead is one. Having romance dialogue when there's 4 other people in the party at your side, listening to you, is another.

 

It simply doesn't work that well. Romance works fine in NON-combat centric RPGs. Romance worked fine in, say, Planescape Torment.

 

You just said you weren't claiming romance shouldn't be in a whole game

Yep. You're doing this on purpose. I said no such thing. I neither said Whole, or Part or any fraction. Because I wasn't talking about game parts. I was talking about types of games.

 

 

But depending on a game's plot and nature, this can mean the entire game. And often does.

Awesome. Is this the case with PoE? If so, please explain, if you don't mind.

 

No, in the case of PoE we've got the Developer simply saying there will be no romances because they don't have the resources to do them. LOL In a forum with Sane people, this would normally end the discussion outright. But some of us aren't sane, are we Lephys.

 

For the record, the entirety of Legend of Zelda games is basically non-stop combat, puzzle-solving, and traveling, and yet the entire plot essentially revolves around a romance. And yet, there are no "get Princess Zelda to like me and marry me and have my babies" minigames.

Good for Zelda. I myself am thinking about trying to mod romances into Tetris.

 

 

In this analogy, the refrigerator would not be the game. It would be, like, the development studio. The game is the finished product (the dish).

So everything in the game is always mixed with everything else in the game?

 

What? Do you have a problem with your refrigerator that you'd like to discuss with us? Edited March 7, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Good for Zelda. I myself am thinking about trying to mod romances into Tetris.

 

 

They already have the phallic symbols _l_  that can already slot into other blocks. A Porn Tetris. Oh yeah, Tetris needs some loving and romancing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

Would you stop trying to make my argument for me? Thanks. Leave that to me. I'm better at it.

You are seriously baffling. I asked a question. If I was trying to make an argument for you, it wouldn't have ended in a question mark.

 

Ok. The marriage dialogue occuring right before the fight with Fiirkrag was just one example. In a party-based, combat centric RPG, there's going to be plenty of others.

Quite frankly, I don't care if there are a billion. The number instances you can come up with that don't support romance-based conversations doesn't in some way nullify any instances that do. Like when you're chillin' at a tavern, or playing the part of courting nobles to infiltrate an event at a palace/manor, etc.

 

Point out that there aren't any instances that would feasibly support any degree of romance in a game like PoE, and I'll gladly acknowledge that. Pointing out more situations that don't support it isn't really helping. "Also, while the characters are unconscious... that would be silly for them to talk about romance. Or, as an expletive-reflex-response to being hit by a sword, or basically whenever crap's hitting the fan, etc.".

 

It simply doesn't work that well. Romance works fine in NON-combat centric RPGs.

 

 

I'd agree that it hasn't worked that well. Still don't agree that it somehow is incapable of working that well. Combat-centric does not mean "there's literally never not combat." There's plenty of other banter, philosophical discussion, etc. that goes on during lulls in the intenseness. *shrug*. People get bored while traveling, or while waiting on night time to execute plans, etc. I don't know why people's emotions and fondness are off-limits, but your character has all the time in the world to listen to various NPCs recant the entire history of factions and nations, and your companions get to tell you their life stories throughout the game.

 

Totally no room for "you know, I feel like at some point when the world hasn't gone crazy and we're not on a schedule, you and I could actually enjoy some peace together." Shun the topic! SHUN IT! *makes cross with fingers*. Oh, Druid companion wants to talk about botany? Okie dokie.

 

Yep. You're doing this on purpose. I said no such thing. I neither said Whole, or Part or any fraction. Because I wasn't talking about game parts. I was talking about types of games.

The only thing I'm doing is trying to figure out what the hell kind of magical syntax you require in order for things to not be nonsense. You see these marks " " ? When you see those around words, that's when I'm claiming to be quoting your exact words. Otherwise, I'm merely using general words to describe the idea I think you conveyed.

 

Example: If you say "It's sunny outside right now," then I might say, "So, you're saying it's not night-time?" I'm not suggesting your exact words were "it's not night-time." I'm asking if my words are accurately describing the idea/information you conveyed.

 

I can't believe I just had to explain that...

 

There are only so many possibilities of potential point here. You're either saying romance doesn't belong in this game (because of game type, or whatever reason you'd like), or that it belongs in some amount of the game, but not in the rest of the game (wherever you'd like to make that division), OR that it belongs literally anywhere in the game. There are no possibilities beyond those three, at the most macro-level of this possibility tree.

 

Please, comprehend this, process it, then respond. Instead of just looking at the screen and going "Oh, I see Lephys typed some words. Better go ahead and assume they don't make sense, and apply a super-specific scope to his statement so that I can technically say it's wrong." 

 

 

But depending on a game's plot and nature, this can mean the entire game. And often does.

Awesome. Is this the case with PoE? If so, please explain, if you don't mind.

 

No, in the case of PoE we've got the Developer simply saying there will be no romances because they don't have the resources to do them. LOL In a forum with Sane people, this would normally end the discussion outright. But some of us aren't sane, are we Lephys.

 

Good for Zelda. I myself am thinking about trying to mod romances into Tetris.

That would've been effective sarcasm if romance had been modded into the Zelda games, instead of just an inherent part of them. Instead, it was arbitrary sarcasm, and conveys no constructive point whatsoever.

 

What? Do you have a problem with your refrigerator that you'd like to discuss with us?

... *Jackie Chan face of ultimate confusion*...

 

... What? Okay... I'm going to give this a shot:

 

You see, in a refrigerator, ingredients are separate from one another. Your ketchup and bread and cheese and vegetables aren't all in one container, or in any way joined with one another. Then, in a dish (as in a food dish), some number of ingredients are combined into a unified entity. Thus, if a game is like a dish, then that means all its ingredients are combined into one thing. Every spoonful of soup you scoop and eat consists of all the various ingredients in the soup. In a video game, you don't buy new equipment and manage your inventory and converse with NPCs and fight kobolds, all at the same time. Every "spoon" of game you eat can be made out of different ingredients, because all the ingredients of the game are not conjoined with one another.

 

You just criticized my use of the refrigerator as a metaphor for the game, with the components of the game being ingredients inside the refrigerator. Then, when I pointed out the "everything in a dish is all combined" point, you made a remark about a refrigerator. I do not comprehend why you would even mention a refrigerator if you had already dismissed that aspect of the metaphor, and I made no further mention of it at that point.

 

I would almost swear you're just here to entertain yourself. You act as though the simplest remarks are confusing and elaborate.

[ManifestedISO]

Seagulls look cool out over the ocean, swerving, swooping, rarely pooping. But then they flock to lightpoles in parking lots right above my black car and poop with abandon. A fitting state bird for Utah, I say. 

[Stun]

Quite frankly, I don't care if there are a billion. The number instances you can come up with that don't support romance-based conversations doesn't in some way nullify any instances that do.

They don't? So then would you support Romances in Tetris? After all, a Romance won't fit in tetris 99.9% of the time, but there's that one instance with the long straight piece that you can drop upright to eliminate 4 rows.... that's an emotional enough situation to allow a Romance to flourish. Right? Your Lephy-Logic says yes.

 

 

 

 

I'd agree that it hasn't worked that well. Still don't agree that it somehow is incapable of working that well. Combat-centric does not mean "there's literally never not combat." There's plenty of other banter, philosophical discussion, etc. that goes on during lulls in the intenseness. *shrug*. People get bored while traveling, or while waiting on night time to execute plans, etc. I don't know why people's emotions and fondness are off-limits, but your character has all the time in the world to listen to various NPCs recant the entire history of factions and nations, and your companions get to tell you their life stories throughout the game.

 

Totally no room for "you know, I feel like at some point when the world hasn't gone crazy and we're not on a schedule, you and I could actually enjoy some peace together." Shun the topic! SHUN IT! *makes cross with fingers*. Oh, Druid companion wants to talk about botany? Okie dokie.

Oh, now THERE'S a concept: "Aah, we just got done doing that gigantic dungeon and selling off all our loot. We have downtime until tomorrow when we take on the next giant dungeon. hey wait, I know, lets engage in a LOVE discussion together!

 

lol

Edited March 7, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

 

Good for Zelda. I myself am thinking about trying to mod romances into Tetris.

 

They already have the phallic symbols _l_  that can already slot into other blocks. A Porn Tetris. Oh yeah, Tetris needs some loving and romancing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's what I'm talkin about!

 

I wonder if Tetris forums suffer through 25-page Romance threads.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I once did a smurf party in IWD. They were Gnomes that I changed their skin colour to blue. My party had Hefty, Greedy, Vanity, Brainy, Smurfette and Papa Smurf. Whenever they went to an inn to sleep for the night, I usually caught Papa smurf trying to be Smurfette's sugar daddy. Sometimes I was looking at my other party members that I didn't notice Papa smurf in Smurfette's room. Hefty was oblivious to all this as he spent time practicing his sword skills in his own bedroom even though he only used Maces and Axes in combat. Brainy was too socially inept to strike up a romance so he just studied his mage spells. Vanity was too much in love with himself to even notice all this going on. Some of their character protraits would change over the course of the game. Especially when Smurfette turns from innocence abused to Dominatrix. I still have the save games. I'll post screen shots if anyone is interested.

 

Smurfette Dungeon Dominatrix. I always wondered what that dungeon under the Kuldaher inn was for. I always felt she had a bit of drow in her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See, you don't need to have romance or romances in games to not have romance or romances in games. I win.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[BruceVC]

I once did a smurf party in IWD. They were Gnomes that I changed their skin colour to blue. My party had Hefty, Greedy, Vanity, Brainy, Smurfette and Papa Smurf. Whenever they went to an inn to sleep for the night, I usually caught Papa smurf trying to be Smurfette's sugar daddy. Sometimes I was looking at my other party members that I didn't notice Papa smurf in Smurfette's room. Hefty was oblivious to all this as he spent time practicing his sword skills in his own bedroom even though he only used Maces and Axes in combat. Brainy was too socially inept to strike up a romance so he just studied his mage spells. Vanity was too much in love with himself to even notice all this going on. Some of their character protraits would change over the course of the game. Especially when Smurfette turns from innocence abused to Dominatrix. I still have the save games. I'll post screen shots if anyone is interested.

 

Smurfette Dungeon Dominatrix. I always wondered what that dungeon under the Kuldaher inn was for. I always felt she had a bit of drow in her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See, you don't need to have romance or romances in games to not have romance or romances in games. I win.

 

Hi Hiro

 

I don't understand your post or see how it is relevant to the case for Romance, are you now saying you want Romance in PoE or you only want Romance if our characters are Smurfs? Maybe you could start a thread raising the point  "will Smurfs be a race choice" ....I will support you if you make a compelling argument but it will really have to be good as I feel the inclusion of Smurfs will be incongruous to a fantasy setting. Can you explain your point as the analogy is lost on me

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Hi Hiro

 

I don't understand your post or see how it is relevant to the case for Romance, are you now saying you want Romance in PoE or you only want Romance if our characters are Smurfs? Maybe you could start a thread raising the point  "will Smurfs be a race choice" ....I will support you if you make a compelling argument but it will really have to be good as I feel the inclusion of Smurfs will be incongruous to a fantasy setting. Can you explain your point as the analogy is lost on me

 

 

It was pretty obvious what I was saying. Read my post again. The devs don't need to put romance or romances in the game for there not to be a romance or romances in the game. Do you know what role playing means? Do you know what role playing games are? Perhaps looking it up. Digest what it means. If you're still having trouble with its meaning, then have someone in real life explain it to you. And once you understand, you can get back to me.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Hi Hiro

 

I don't understand your post or see how it is relevant to the case for Romance, are you now saying you want Romance in PoE or you only want Romance if our characters are Smurfs? Maybe you could start a thread raising the point  "will Smurfs be a race choice" ....I will support you if you make a compelling argument but it will really have to be good as I feel the inclusion of Smurfs will be incongruous to a fantasy setting. Can you explain your point as the analogy is lost on me

 

 

It was pretty obvious what I was saying. Read my post again. The devs don't need to put romance or romances in the game for there not to be a romance or romances in the game. Do you know what role playing means? Do you know what role playing games are? Perhaps looking it up. Digest what it means. If you're still having trouble with its meaning, then have someone in real life explain it to you. And once you understand, you can get back to me.

 

 

Why are you in such a mood, I hate it when you shout

 

I still don't get what you are saying, if there is no Romance in a game then how would I have the Romance option as a choice for deeper party interaction. I must see the options for Romance like in DA in order for there to be Romance. I don' think even you understand what you are saying....maybe someone can explain it to me?

Edited March 7, 2014 by BruceVC