The Case for Romance II

[Stun]

 

Aah, well it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a far more controversial, but totally non-PoE related, subject and do a thread about it here, in order to test your theory out.

The case for Turn-based?

 

The case for Turn-based Dating sims.

 

Edit: The case for Japanese Turn-based dating sims with Insect people. With full voice acting and frequent cutscenes.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

One of the important topics for me when I'm playing a Druid and I'm in animal form and romancing an NPC who is also a druid in animal form..

 

 

fixed.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Hassat Hunter]

No, since it's "bestiality"...

[Stun]

^ you can do that in Skyrim.

 

You can be a Khajiit (cat person) and marry an Argonian (lizard person)

 

Wait.... you can do more than that. You can be a Cat person Werewolf and marry a lizardman. And with mods, you can turn your lizardman spouse into a vampire. So a cat-werewolf marries an undead lizardman. Then, with the ring of Namirra, you can go munch on Nords and Imperials while on your honeymoon

 

So Beastiality + Necrophelia + Cannibalism. *that's* how you do romances right.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Are Developers going too far with this sort of romances? Romancing beasts? Where do you draw the line.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Are Developers going too far with this sort of romances? Romancing beasts? Where do you draw the line.

A gangbang involving a flock of seagulls, The Incredible Hulk, and a Dragon.

[Lephys]

Are you making a case for romances though, or a case for friendships (to various degrees)? Sounds more like the latter to me.

I'm making a case for the existence of desires/feelings between people that go beyond "Yay, let's just hang out sometimes, 8D!"

 

But, to use friendship to make a point, I'd no more welcome friendships done in the style of Bioware romances than I would copy-pasted Bioware "romances." I know it's semantics, but it's a specific use of the word, and it's a specific idea that crops up when you put that S on there. But, yeah, I want to be able to be friendly and I want friendships to be able to develop, where appropriate in the game, but I'd hate to see, for example, the Dragon Age: Origins "Like-o-meter," even if it topped out at "best friends" and didn't go into "Lovers" territory.

 

That's kind of been the core of anything I've said on this topic the whole time, that people just seem to not comprehend. You can take out "romance," specifically, and still be left with a horrible, horrible mechanic. Interactions being strictly platonic doesn't somehow make the implementation of those interactions any better. Crappy Implementation - Romance = Still Crappy Implementation. If Romance, itself, were the culprit, then the mechanics would be fine once it was removed.

[Gfted1]

This is an honest question because the curiosity is killing me.

 

For those of you that didn't want romance in PoE, you "won". As confirmed by the developer, there is no romance in PoE. FACT. What is with the continued animosity in threads that want to discuss it? What do you possibly gain by coming into these threads and calling for closure/movement? Even though its not in the game, you cant even let other people discuss it in peace?

 

To stay on topic, Im neutral on romances. I romanced Jaheira in BG2 and it was alright, never played the DA series so I cant comment on that, and "romanced" everything that didn't get out of my way fast enough in TOR. I could take it or leave it but at the end of the day if its inclusion would negatively impact the end product then I would prefer it not be in the game.

[Stun]

This is an honest question because the curiosity is killing me.

 

For those of you that didn't want romance in PoE, you "won". As confirmed by the developer, there is no romance in PoE. FACT. What is with the continued animosity in threads that want to discuss it?

Well for one thing, we're not quite there yet. In the minds of the more prolific posters of this topic, there's no "FACT".

 

Case in point. From page one:

False. PoE will most likely have romance in it.

Ahem. LOL

 

 

Lets see if I still remember the 5 stages of grief.

 

1) Denial <-----we're here!

2) Anger

3) Bargaining

4) Depression

5) Acceptance

 

 

Considering the fact that since the announcement, we've done more that 50 pages in 2 threads and we're on thread #3, and we've got people here STILL stuck on stage 1.... I really don't think this dead horse will see "peace" any time soon.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Stun

[HoonDing]

One of the important topics for me when I'm playing a Druid and I'm in animal form and romancing an NPC who is also a druid in animal form..

 

Shambling mound is not animal at least.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Drudanae

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

"romanced" everything that didn't get out of my way fast enough in TOR.

Your avatar makes this statement seem hilarious for some reason.

 

To answer your question, it is pretty much standard internet dickishness. You find the same thing with Marvel vs. DC on comic book boards, where some fanboys will spend large amounts of effort trashing something they admit to not reading.

[Stun]

comic book romances!

 

Discuss.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Shambling mound is not animal at least.

 

You can romance shambling mounds?

 

To keep this on topic and as a church going Christian with high morals. I'm still stuck on the question of romancing beasts and other questionable things in crpgs.

 

It comes down to the determination of what should be done and what should not be done.  Morals deal with behaviours as well as motives. I also understand that morals differ among cultures and there are morals that are relative. For example, Bowing is morally acceptable in one culture and kissing the cheek is in another.  But there are other morals which seem to be universally true.  For example, it is morally wrong to torture babies merely for your personal pleasure.

 

Subjects of morality vary but deal with "oughts" of person to person relationships as well as person to animal, and person to environment. So with this in mind, what would be the motives, the behaviours and the type of culture where romancing a beast or different types of vegetation be acceptable? Is it right (virtuous) or wrong (sinful) to do so? And ultimately, we will see this various options of romance in PoE 2?

[Lephys]

Well for one thing, we're not quite there yet. In the minds of the more prolific posters of this topic, there's no "FACT".

 

Case in point. From page one:

False. PoE will most likely have romance in it.

Ahem. LOL

 

If you can't comprehend that "we're not going to be doing romances" doesn't mean the game will be devoid of anything even remotely label-able as "romance," I don't know how to help you. I didn't invent words and their meanings.

 

And come on... I'm like... amateur-lific, at best.

[Whitefox789]

Hiro Protagonist II, on 06 Mar 2014 - 11:59 PM, said:

 

I once did a smurf party in IWD.

 

How did the smurfs fare against Icasaracht in HoW?

 

 

Also regarding to your question on morals and whats right and wrong.

 

One other factor you forgot to include is the time period of those actions as well.

 

For the case of whats right and wrong that is dependant of the society itself if someone goes out of those boundaries laid out by that society they will be punished for it.

 

 

The thing in the end that you have to really look at is what do 'you' think is morally right and wrong?

Edited March 8, 2014 by Whitefox789

[Undecaf]

 

Aah, well it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a far more controversial, but totally non-PoE related, subject and do a thread about it here, in order to test your theory out.

 

The case for Turn-based?

 

 

A case for TB combat could actually be a more interesting discussion than this one.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Undecaf

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

We've already had that. It devolved into one group saying TBers were too slughish to keep up and the other saying RTers didn't like difficulty or taking actions they couldn't take back.

[Undecaf]

We've had this one too; several times, and with the same conclusions going in circles.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Undecaf

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

True, but there currently isn't a thread about TB.

 

Feel free to start one if you want to discuss it.

[Undecaf]

True, but there currently isn't a thread about TB.

 

Feel free to start one if you want to discuss it.

 

Nah, I don't think it's worth my time starting one. People realised that no such thing as TB would happen with this game (and when I asked Sawyer about a late inclusion with the expansion pack; it was a close to zero chance), so the discussion drowned. Just saying it would be more interesting.

[makryu]

Somebody in part one asked if someone believed romances could be fixed, if it was worth the effort, and how. I'll bite and try to answer a bit of it.

 

First off, most criticism I've read in these forums regarding romance in general is easily reduced to personal taste. Some believe gaming is like superbowl, other don't want anything messing with their combat simulators. In summary, CRPGs are a macho thing and sissies who like romance should get out/ phase out/ shut up. Others believe romance in games means sex (a perversion in their perfect world where violence is the only pleasure allowed) with the added offense of having annoying feelings attached. These critics can't really be answered, since it's just personal preference, no matter how much some try to portray it otherwise.

 

In my opinion, a good, complete, expansive CRPG can only benefit with the inclusion of a wide variety of dialogue simulating all sorts of human relationships. CRPGs were known in the past for pushing the envelope in the portrayal of human interactions. It's one of the truly distinctive features of the genre when compared to others. I think ruling romance out is a bad move, since it means restricting precisely one of the distinguishing features of the genre, which I mentioned above.

 

I agree that relationship meters, buying off NPCs with presents and making everyone bissexual is not the way to go. But I don't see this fact (that romances in CRPGs have taken an odd turn) as meaning the death of the concept in the genre. Here are some ideas that are entirely within the realm of possibility and I think could certainly improve the implementation of romance (and other interactions, for that matter):

 

- I think all CRPG developers should take a lesson from major conversations in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The framework in which it inserted the important dialogues, with varying responses even to the same chosen options and an added emotional tone, and the way it tried to turn dialogue into a game in itself without making it ridiculous like, say, Oblivion, are all ideas I think CRPGs could benefit from;

 

- Stop making romances only a matter of accumulating influence/ giving the right answers. Insert the option to have a NPC fall in love when saved during a deadly encounter, even if no effort had been made before towards that. Use presents only to further dialogue, not accumulate points. Don't punish those who don't romance NPCs by adding equivalent friendship dialogue trees to be pursued. Seriously allow for romance with non-companion NPCs. Explore the possibilities of when love doesn't go well: vengeful heartbroken NPCs, companions that won't fall in love no matter what despite still having the options to attempt it, companions that will spend the night with the PC then never want to get close to them afterwards, etc.;

 

- Don't go excessively formulaic, such as "obligatory sex night before final battle";

 

- Even when inserting romance, don't put it needlessly in the spotlight. A game with romance involving only non-companion NPCs could well accomplish that since party dynamics could be only minimally affected;

 

- Find writers who like the subject to write your romances well;

 

 

I know it's just the tip of the iceberg, but it's more than enough for me to advocate better romance attempts instead of no romances.

[Stun]

 

Well for one thing, we're not quite there yet. In the minds of the more prolific posters of this topic, there's no "FACT".

 

Case in point. From page one:

False. PoE will most likely have romance in it.

Ahem. LOL

 

If you can't comprehend that "we're not going to be doing romances" doesn't mean the game will be devoid of anything even remotely label-able as "romance," I don't know how to help you. I didn't invent words and their meanings.

 

Are you dense? Sawyer was clear, and un-vague. And he didn't just say there'd be no Romances in PoE, he also gave the reason why there wouldn't be. He said that they didn't have the resources to do them to the Game's standards.

 

That means no half-assed romances. That means no "type of romance not seen in other games". That means no "unrealized romances" (like the ones you're describing - like what NWN2 had with Neeshka, Shandra and Bishop)

 

 

How you can interpret NO to mean "yes" or "sorta" is beyond me. You must be in serious denial.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Stun

[Sir Chaox]

Hopefully I'm getting this right, but I think he (Lephys) means:

 

Romances - interactions the PC can have with companions/NPCs that can result in a lengthy relationship in some way

 

Romance - any kind of romantic plot line, such as a quest you receive to help a young man seduce his crush or perhaps watching two characters have a loving exchange, that may or may not involve the PC in a very short-term, brief way

 

Obviously, most people are referring to romances and not romance. I would suspect that romance might still be in the game, but romances are definitely out.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Sir Chaox

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

How did the smurfs fare against Icasaracht in HoW?

 

The fight was pretty good. Having 6 little blue smurfs running around was quite fun. My party consisted off:

 

Hefty (Fighter)

Vanity (Fighter. He really is a Fighter and not a Lover)

Greedy (Thief. Obvious choice and sometimes didn't share any loot he found)

Smurfette (Cleric)

Brainy (Cleric / Illusionist)

Papa Smurf (Illusionist)

 

One of the strengths of IWD is to create parties you wouldn't normally do in a crpg.

 

 

 

Also regarding to your question on morals and whats right and wrong.

 

One other factor you forgot to include is the time period of those actions as well.

 

For the case of whats right and wrong that is dependant of the society itself if someone goes out of those boundaries laid out by that society they will be punished for it.

 

The thing in the end that you have to really look at is what do 'you' think is morally right and wrong? 

 

I was actually asking the question. What do you think is morally right and wrong. If someone in real life were to ask you what types of crpgs you play and what romances did you like, do you include those with the beast and vegetation romances? If not, why not? Would you be happy to see these types of romances in PoE 2? Is there no boundary you would cross for the chance to romance with something you would normally not do in real life.

[Stun]

Hopefully I'm getting this right, but I think he (Lephys) means:

 

Romances - interactions the PC can have with companions/NPCs that can result in a lengthy relationship in some way

 

Romance - any kind of romantic plot line, such as a quest you receive to help a young man seduce his crush or perhaps watching two characters have a loving exchange, that may or may not involve the PC in a very short-term, brief way

I know precisely what he means. The first one isn't a romance. It's the usual friendship/comraderie present in most party-based games with fleshed out NPCs. And the second one is NOT what anyone is talking about when they ask: "will this game have romances?". It certainly wasn't what the interviewer asked Sawyer in the euro-gamer article that spawned this obnoxiously long, 3-thread discussion

 

So no. Sawyer was clear. And Blunt. And he was speaking as a developer who knows the standard gaming terminology.... which is what everyone but Lephys is using.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Stun