Jump to content

Recommended Posts

From now on, this will be the thread where you can discuss in-game romances and its bearing on Pillars of Eternity.

 

But first, I want to make something perfectly clear, because it's been brought up a few times now.

 

There is absolutely no concentrated effort to close romance threads on the part of the mods, and there never was. The reason romance threads often get closed is because people tend to go off-topic or derail the thread by making fun of or insulting those who disagree with their view, not because it's about romances. In other words, the problem with these threads is everyone who immediately decides to derail the thread simply because they are tired of the subject, not the people wishing to discuss it.

 

Romance in PoE Thread Rules

 

- This thread is for people who wish to actually discuss the roleplaying merits of romances (or lack thereof) in regards to Pillars of Eternity. You can lament or celebrate that they are not included, argue why the game would have been better or worse, give examples from games that did it well or did it poorly, talk about modding efforts to add it in, or discuss how it might be included in future expansions or installments and anything related to those subjects.

 

- Anyone posting simply to go "psh, silly promancers / anti-mancers" or "I'm so tired of this subject, we've done this a million times" or "I will boycott if it has/doesn't have romances" will find their posts deleted. If the thread goes off-topic or gets very hostile, it will get pruned.

 

- Other romance threads will either be deleted or merged into this one.

 

Knock yourselves out.

  • Like 11

The sky had never seemed so sky, the world had never seemed so world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am okay with not being any romance, but if they add it at some point it would be great still :) the game to me isnt about that but its a nice bonus

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally not all that interested in romances, but I can see them adding value to replayability and I am ALWAYS pro-character interaction. More fleshed out NPC's makes the world more immersive and I'd say romance options add to that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy romances but I think you can still have deep and amazing connections with the NPCs without it.  Now Obsidian has to prove me right.  No pressure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mundane romances in CRPGs just feel contrived to me. If there is any romance at all, I think I'd prefer to see it have some surprising novelty. How about a romance with a soul trapped inside a strange creature, or even an inert object? To interact personally, you'd need to travel to a spirit realm where physical substance has less influence. Or you could have a romantic interaction with a person from another time period (through magical means), then try to track down the current form of the person and have to deal with the consequences of their current condition.

  • Like 1

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mundane romances in CRPGs just feel contrived to me. If there is any romance at all, I think I'd prefer to see it have some surprising novelty. How about a romance with a soul trapped inside a strange creature, or even an inert object? To interact personally, you'd need to travel to a spirit realm where physical substance has less influence. Or you could have a romantic interaction with a person from another time period (through magical means), then try to track down the current form of the person and have to deal with the consequences of their current condition.

 

I suspect because those themes might be way too complex for optional side content.  Particularly a time travel plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imho its because of new vegas that i KNOW obsidian can make deep relationships with other party members without going down the "romance" path.

im for romance being in the future games as long as they dont shove it down our throats or only be able to get the best outcome because u romanced up a party member. Yes u can hide goodies behind romance paths and options but do not put no where near the best stuff or outcomes behind romances because then that passively pushes players into being romances. That i cannot stand.

otherwise i have no sag in yay or nay in future games. Fonv showed u can have deep connections with party members without sexin or romancing it up with them, so as long as its not forced or passively pushed onto us, either way im fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent thread

 

My view on Romance has been more or less consistent from the beginning. Any RPG that allows you to get to know your party members should offer Romance, this leads to a more immersive RPG experience and a deeper and more memorable interaction with those party members

 

 

You notice I said  "Any RPG that allows you to get to know your party members" so this wouldn't  apply to RPG like IWD

 

I also think purely from a realism perspective if you are on some  epic quest to save the world and you have people with you that are prepared to die for you and you are attracted to them  why wouldn't Romance develop naturally?

 

That what was unrealistic in Planescape, Romance never seemed to flourish with party members despite the possible attraction

  • Like 1

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the romance fixation. I was fine with it in BG2 because I could ignore it if I felt it was too sappy and you weren't beat over the head with it from what I recall. Some of the more zealous supporters come off as a bit obssesed, to the point that nothing else will do. Seems a bit too all or nothing, especially considering there are several other types of relationships between party members that can occur.

 

I personally would prefer kraken battles.

  • Like 8

"Take your child murderin' god and shove his him up his own ass."-Volorun

 

"...the vote of a black redhead disabled homosexual transsexual Jew should probably be worth the same as at least a hundred white heterosexual Christians."-Rostere

 

"i can think of many women i would gladly sleep with, but not a single one that i would want as a girlfriend/wife... neither real nor fictional."-teknoman2

 

"I'm all for killing dogs in film." - algroth

 

"Iselmyr is the one who did GOMAD... Aloth is lactose intolerant" -ShadySands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mundane romances in CRPGs just feel contrived to me. If there is any romance at all, I think I'd prefer to see it have some surprising novelty. How about a romance with a soul trapped inside a strange creature, or even an inert object? To interact personally, you'd need to travel to a spirit realm where physical substance has less influence. Or you could have a romantic interaction with a person from another time period (through magical means), then try to track down the current form of the person and have to deal with the consequences of their current condition.

 

In Star Wars: The Old Republic, female Imperial agents can date a human who is part of an alien insectoid hive mind. That was pretty weird...

 

Personally all I want in a romance-able character is someone who's likeable.

Edited by ashtonw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how very enlightened. our notion o' a single romance thread were adopted by the mods. creation o' this thread shows impressive judgement.

 

but as to romance, we hate the biowarian companion sexification mini-game. romance in a crpg and the companion mini-game is not the same thing, but as long as they is treated the same, we will necessarily be against romance.

 

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 2

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, just like all the previous "official" threads. :p

 

We do it to keep all the poo contained to one litter box. Then it reaches critical mass, we close it, wait a little while, and then open anew. Its the circle of life. 

  • Like 8

image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really have no idea why people are so obsessed with "romances". Ignoring the fact that they are always awful and creepy ( even P:T's which is one of the better tries) they get even more creepy when people gush over them like they do. Bioware's forums are literally infested with threads about romances and it rubs me the wrong way. The thing I don't get is the obsession itself, that is the most bizarre thing for me, but I digress. I really can't say if PoE will be better off without romances, because how can you quantify such a thing? It's like saying it will be better off without a murder mystery, but we don't have any way to know that. If the game calls for creepy wish fulfillment then sure, knock yourself out. KoToR 2 didn't have romances, but your companions did vie for your affections and Mira even turned you down which was awesome and showed that she is a person with her own desires and preferences and isn't just a puppet waiting for you to sweep her off her feet. Visas even confessed that she loved you, but she loved you for the right reasons and it didn't come off as sad. I think that's fine and it's normal for people to fall for you when you are a strong and capable person. You actively trying to get into their pants however, goes into a strange wish fulfillment territory which adds nothing to anything, but make your balls feel big (I suppose; I really have no idea what people get out of romancing characters in video games).

 

 

The point I'm trying to painfully make is that sometimes romance in video games is acceptable and appropriate, but most of the time it isn't. It just comes off as weird and fan service-y and at the cost of being disconnected from the game just so it can smother you in its fan service-y blubbery rolls.

Edited by Christliar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care about "romance" but if you give me the chance to e-sex the pixels then that's what I'm doing

 

creep.gif

  • Like 7

Free games updated 3/6/19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard every possible objection to Romance and none of them have convinced me with there validity

 

The objections generally fall into a few camps, I'll discuss two

 

  • "Its weird that people want Romance in a RPG...that's creepy. Get a RL girlfriend " or other similar inane criticism

A persons walks a slippery slope when they suddenly decide what constitutes acceptable RPG content. Who is anyone to tell anyone else what defines there RPG journey? I can easily throw the same point at basically every other kind of component that people enjoy in RPG..."why do you want deep lore around cities and races...don't you know its just a game" or " but why is the armour design important...wow that's weird". Trust me anyone can make irrelevant comments around things that don't concern them. People shouldn't judge what others enjoy in an RPG

 

  • I don't like Romance because the writing is juvenile and immature.

I hate to point out the obvious but this is an RPG, not a Mills and Boone love story. You can't seriously expect a development company who would have talented writers to somehow inspire you with there interpretation of Romance. If you want something that realistic watch Gone with the Wind or Cold Mountain. Also most people who claim this is the reason they don't like  Romance don't really like it anyway. So I doubt even a well written Romance would have them in the promancer army. So for me this is a spurious  argument and is just an easy way to dismiss Romance

 

 

Finally, and this is something I have never understood. All Romance should be optional. So if its optional why would you object to the implementation of it?

  • Like 4

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[*]"Its weird that people want Romance in a RPG...that's creepy. Get a RL girlfriend " or other similar inane criticism

That's not the weird part. The weird part is the level of obsession over the romances and the creepiness comes from a feeling that some people get some kind of inner satisfaction from the whole thing. The kind of satisfaction that goes beyond simple want of more roleplaying options in an RPG. It represents some deep personal issues and that is what sets most people's creep radar off. It's also a bit voyeuristic, but that's another discussion. (at least I think that's the case, I may be completely wrong, but something gives me the feeling I'm not far from the truth)

 

I suppose I understand that games offer a way to explore ourselves and that's great. Sexuality and romantic relationships are a big part of life and I understand many people are uncertain of themselves and of those topics. I'm not trying to be judgmental about the whole thing, but I may be coming off as such. It's just that *that* level of obsession that is shown on these forums and Bioware's forums is what seems weird and bizarre to many people. Romances being horribly written is just part of the whole problem. (and, boy, are they *horribly* written (most of them))

Edited by Christliar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • I don't like Romance because the writing is juvenile and immature.

I hate to point out the obvious but this is an RPG, not a Mills and Boone love story. You can't seriously expect a development company who would have talented writers to somehow inspire you with there interpretation of Romance. If you want something that realistic watch Gone with the Wind or Cold Mountain. Also most people who claim this is the reason they don't like  Romance don't really like it anyway. So I doubt even a well written Romance would have them in the promancer army. So for me this is a spurious  argument and is just an easy way to dismiss Romance

 

Books are immersive because you surrender your disbelief and absorb yourself in the story and let it lead you through it. However, in a RPG, you assume the role of a character. It is your thoughts are decisions that are influencing the story. Yet your entire involvement in the outcome boils down to a handful of menu picks.

 

When I only have a few cookie-cutter choices for how I respond, and none of them fit my concept for the character, then it is can be completely immersion-breaking, regardless of the quality and maturity of the writing. The result is that I have no emotional involvement, no concern about the characters, and little interest in the outcome. This is the inherent flaw in the current generation of menu-driven CRPGs, and no amount of panning of that argument is going to improve the experience for me.

 

Can you prove to me that this problem can be fixed? If not, then it is hardly spurious. This is also why I want something completely different from the run of the mill romances, because it adds a deep level of the unexpected to my choices and engages my interest.

Edited by rjshae

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would prefer kraken battles.

Maybe krakens battle as part of their mating ritual. 8P

 

Seriously though, the main problem with "typical" video game romances is that they're so isolated. They feel more like an afterthought or add-on than a part of the game. They're never just a natural part of playing your character. Hell, it's why we call them "romances," as a whole separate thing in the game, and we don't call other entire sets/types of character interactions "angers" or "manipulations" and make whole threads about them.

 

I know there are reasons they aren't plugging it into this game, specifically, but I hope that there's at least some subtle residual potential for fondness and affection between characters in the writing of PoE, even if it's not pursuable unto some "relationship" status or marriage or something. I think it's best that these things don't really work like that anyway. If the story encompasses a good year or more of stuff, and characters are with each other through it all, then MAYBE when all's said and done, and you've both actually survived, it might make sense to actually settle down and choose marriage or something like that. Otherwise, it's simply developing fondness and such. It's almost no different from any other choices you have to make regarding other characters, or factions; who you're going to support/back, who you're going to do stuff for, who you don't like, etc., except it's just a different type of relationship. A more personal one for your character.

 

You don't have to write in scenes of expression of undying love, etc., and dates and stuff. That's when it gets ridiculous. The world is still the world, and the narrative is still the narrative. "Romance" should just be one of the sets of paths you can take to the same destination, not some random isolated path that just leads through a garden of sunshine and bunnies in the midst of bloody invasions and world-endangerment.

 

I say again, if it were ever in PoE (or a sequel or something with the same mechanic structure), it should function as a facet of reputation. And it should be a very long-term development. Not "Hey, remember when we got through that cave like 30 minutes ago? LET'S GO MAKE BABIES NOW, AND ALWAYS STAY BY EACH OTHER'S SIDES!"

  • Like 4

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hey, remember when we got through that cave like 30 minutes ago? LET'S GO MAKE BABIES NOW, AND ALWAYS STAY BY EACH OTHER'S SIDES!"

:lol:


image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard every possible objection to Romance and none of them have convinced me with there validity

 

We can all change our prejudice and bias. Maybe one day you can too.

 

 

A persons walks a slippery slope when they suddenly decide what constitutes acceptable RPG content.

 

Very true Bruce. And this equally applies to those who want romances in RPGs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The key word there being "equally." :)

 

Also, it's good to know that, in order to disagree with something, one is required to be prejudiced and biased. I never knew that.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The key word there being "equally." :)

 

Also, it's good to know that, in order to disagree with something, one is required to be prejudiced and biased. I never knew that.

 

No. Wrong again Lephys.

 

Bruce has said he's heard of every possible argument and not convinced of their validity. This includes every possible argument that been presented over the last two years on this forum including arguments that are valid. That's not just disagreeing. That's full blown prejudice and bias. And that means anyone who presents a valid argument, Bruce will sweep away because he's already heard every possible argument.

 

And it's very hard to discuss a topic when someone will disagree on any points raised regardless if they're valid. Bruce will just disagree on anything that isn't romance.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get hung up on ultra-technical specifics of words too much, man. Well, when it's convenient, at least.

 

You'd have to ask Bruce (or just assume crap, I guess, since that seems to be working for you), but I'm fairly certain that his use of "every" is just typical human exaggeration for "I've been around long enough to hear an awful, awful lot of counter-arguments." And, as far as "valid" goes, I think he meant that they didn't validate the definiteness of romance being inherently a bad thing to put into a game. Thus, his opinion of romance remains what it is.

 

For example, "But look at this game! Game X did romance, remember? And it was terrible!". That's a perfectly "valid" point. It's not false or somehow invalid. But it's not a valid argument in direct support of the conclusion "and therefore trying to put romance in a game = fail," because nothing about it says that that specific way of attempting it has exhausted all possibilities for its implementation.

 

And it's very hard to discuss a topic when someone will disagree on any points raised regardless if they're valid.

How did you put it? Oh yes... this applies equally to people who don't like romance. :) How do you think it feels to have to raise valid points about the merits of romance in game design, only to have them disregard them all as invalid?

  • Like 3

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get hung up on ultra-technical specifics of words too much, man. Well, when it's convenient, at least.

 

You'd have to ask Bruce (or just assume crap, I guess, since that seems to be working for you), but I'm fairly certain that his use of "every" is just typical human exaggeration for "I've been around long enough to hear an awful, awful lot of counter-arguments." And, as far as "valid" goes, I think he meant that they didn't validate the definiteness of romance being inherently a bad thing to put into a game. Thus, his opinion of romance remains what it is.

 

For example, "But look at this game! Game X did romance, remember? And it was terrible!". That's a perfectly "valid" point. It's not false or somehow invalid. But it's not a valid argument in direct support of the conclusion "and therefore trying to put romance in a game = fail," because nothing about it says that that specific way of attempting it has exhausted all possibilities for its implementation.

 

Well Lephys the fact is you are WRONG again. I don't get hung up on ultra-technical specifics of words. In fact I think it's you who does.

 

So you now ask me to ask Bruce what he means and then immediately defend Bruce by saying he's exaggerating? Why don't you let Bruce defend himself instead of jumping in defending him.

 

And your example is pure rubbish. I've never argued that point. But nice try anyway.

 

 

 

How did you put it? Oh yes... this applies equally to people who don't like romance. :) How do you think it feels to have to raise valid points about the merits of romance in game design, only to have them disregard them all as invalid? 

 

Is this aimed at me? Well in that case, you are WRONG again. I've never been an antimancer. In fact, if you've ever read my posts in romance threads you will find that I'm okay with romances if they fit the story and themes of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you now ask me to ask Bruce what he means and then immediately defend Bruce by saying he's exaggerating? Why don't you let Bruce defend himself instead of jumping in defending him.

 

No, I simply pointed out that you don't really know what someone means until you ask them. Then I presented what was clearly my best guess at what he means, as was evident by the "I'm fairly certain" part. "Fairly" inherently implies a degree of certainty below maximum.

 

And your example is pure rubbish. I've never argued that point. But nice try anyway.

I didn't even remotely claim you did. My example was merely an example of what was an argument against Bruce's stance, so that I could illustrate the fact that, while presenting a valid point, it didn't validly prove a definitive value for romance itself. Thus, it was an example of something someone like Bruce would call "not valid" in the "Romance: Yes or no?" debate. Perfectly un-rubbish.

 

Why do you think everything's about you? "LOLZ, I didn't say that, so you LOSE at attacking me!" Maybe I was just making an example. Did you ever think of that?

 

Is this aimed at me? Well in that case, you are WRONG again.

 

No it isn't. But I can see how you might think it was, since you don't like me and liberally exercise your skills of assumption.

Edited by Lephys
  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...