The Official Romance Thread

[Darkpriest]

I do not really like romances in RPGs. I have yet to recall a good one. The most recent ones are more like one night stands than romances so I can live without them (cheese texts, behavior and no real story value) I prefer the same lines of dialog to go into fleshing out some backgrounds, or quests or other NPCs to make game more varied. Romance in cRPGs is not really helping that.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

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. 

 

So why not let him answer? And you don't know what Bruce means either. Why jump into this thread with a 'guess' when even you don't know? Seriously, stop trying to defend with guesses and let people answer. And for someone that accuses me of getting hung up on words, you're doing a stellar job by yourself. Stop with the nonsense excuses and jumping into threads engaging in conflicts. You did it with the update thread and now you've done it with this thread. Seems it's you who needs the conflict and not me.

 

 

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?

 

 

So you cherry pick an invalid argument and now call it valid, instead of picking the numerous valid arguments that have been presented in the various threads? LMAO. Well done Lephys. well done.

 

It's probably a good idea when having a discussion to set some ground rules. Like, don't argue from a nonsense stand point? Would you agree that people who talk nonsense isn't a good contribution to this thread?    

 

And now you're claiming everything's about me? Clutching at those straws Lephys. Keep clutching at those straws.

 

 

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. 

 

Well considering you asked me the question with the word 'you', then who are you addressing that question to if not me?  And oh Lephys, stop playing the victim, Hiro doesn't like me card.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Xienzi]

I dislike romance because to write it successfully, one must be quite lucky, or otherwise be extremely gifted with writing. Planescape did it well, but it ultimately just ended with flirting. Which was nice.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Xienzi

[Lephys]

^ See, what if they actually had story value, for one thing? What if you developing a personal relationship with someone meant that they had to abandon some title or path, and/or they became disowned by their house if they were nobility or royalty (because of your character's status or something), and that actually affected how things played out in the world and in the over-arching narrative? Wouldn't that be kind of cool?

 

I know exactly what you mean by preferring the same "lines of dialogue" go into fleshing out lots of other stuff to make the game more varied, but, on that exact same note, romance is something that can make the game more varied. It doesn't when it's like a lot of the typical ones you see, which are, like you said, like one-night stands.

 

 

Why jump into this thread with a 'guess' when even you don't know?

So you know without asking him, but I don't? My apologies, your Omniscient.

 

That's my favorite thing about you, Hiro. You're perfectly willing to call me out on the very same thing you yourself have done.

 

Annnnnnd done with you. *bow*

Edited July 11, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

So you know without asking him, but I don't? My apologies, your Omniscient.

 

That's my favorite thing about you, Hiro. You're perfectly willing to call me out on the very same thing you yourself have done.

Annnnnnd done with you. *bow*

 

 

I wasn't the one who jumped into this thread and started guessing. That was you. Bruce's statement alone confirmed he "has heard every possible objection to Romance and none of them have convinced him with there validity". I simply responded to his statement. Are you suggesting when someone says something like this, it isn't biased or prejudiced? If that's the case, people can use those type of arguments against Bruce and they're completely valid.

 

And what have I done? I simply responded to his statement. It was you who jumped to conclusions and started 'guessing' as to other people's thinking. You even admitted that you're guessing. I haven't called you out, you admitted to it.

 

Annnnnd next time, how about stop jumping in with your admitted guesses. okay.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

For a while, I thought this thread was going to wither on the vine. It left me slightly astonished to see such a thing happen to a romance thread. 

 

Now people are bickering and arguing. All is right with the world. 

[Keyrock]

I'm apathetic toward romance in video games.  I like building meaningful relationships with my companions in RPGs, that may or may not include romances.  PoE is not going to include romances, to the best of my knowledge, I'm fine with that.  If it did wind up having romances, I'd be fine with that too.  Whatever relationships I wind up having with my companions, I want them done right.  And, let's face it, doing romances right in a video game is not easy.  BioWare have had several cracks at it in their games and they've failed miserably every time.  Could Obsidian do better?  Perhaps.  However, if Josh Sawyer and gang feel their time and resources are better spent creating other types of relationships they feel they could do better, I trust in their judgement. 

Edited July 11, 2014 by Keyrock

[HoonDing]

[ManifestedISO]

Meanwhile, near the wellspring of all things role-playing, I noticed today the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons will encourage freedom of thought regarding sexual identity and behavior. For the first time ever, that I'm aware of. From the just-released, free PDF of Basic Rules ...

 

 

You can play a male or female character without gaining any special benefits or hindrances. Think about how your character does or does not conform to the broader culture's expectation of sex, gender, and sexual behavior.

 

You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. 

 

Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide. 

 

I'm struck by the common sense of it, and it's neat that Wizards acknowledges freedom of choice in an RPG without beating my brow over social justice--as do the caricatures of cRPG's seem inclined. 

 

If Obsidian could replicate this happy inclusivity in a streak-free finish, then I'd be in favor of a storied PoE intimacy. The ick of inclusion for the sake of inclusion appears to be too much, at this point, though.   

[Stun]

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

I've got one. It may be one you've heard already or maybe it's not, but it's especially relevant, currently. And it is an example of why my "objection" to romances goes beyond just my specific personal taste.

 

A couple of days ago, Bioware held a DA:I Q&A session and followed it up with the release of 15 minutes of its E3 gameplay footage. It was a major info-dump. It covered almost every aspect of the game, and the gameplay footage focused almost exclusively on Exploration and combat.

 

And what was the result? Romance discussion from the fans. And nothing else. Here we have a highly anticipated RPG and its developers are comprehensively attempting to present its features. In vain. The fan base, apparently, is not interested in the RPG's robust Combat system. Or its exploration. Or even its plot. They only care about the 8 romances that were announced. Something isn't right, here. Dating simulators and RPGs are NOT interchangeable terms.

 

Thankfully, it's just Bioware and its hopeless BSN fanbase. But if this becomes industry norm... where nothing matters in an RPG but its romances, that will be the day there's no longer such a thing as RPGs. Do you want this? I don't. And that is why I rejoice whenever a major RPG developer like Obsidian releases an RPG with no romances.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Stun

[Silent Winter]

I'm in favour of well-written, thematically relevant romances that fit the characters.

I'm against shoe-horned romance for the sake of it.

 

I thought BG2 romances were ok (taking baby to fight the big boss notwithstanding). (though the timing could have been better - "You want to talk about that NOW?  There's a fire-giant trying to kick the door down!"

I thought NWN2 romance was shoehorned in and the atop-wall "hey, let's do it." moment was 'WTF where'd that come from?'

 

It *can* be done well - it needs to be a part of the world and characters and planned from the beginning as an arc with enough variety.  It therefore needs significant resource contribution as part of developing that character with/without romance arc.  The 'romance' shouldn't be just a "We're on the romance dialogue path or off it." but should rather be a cumulation of regular dialogue interaction and in-game actions leading to the blossoming of a relationship.

 

...just don't ask me 'how?'

[BruceVC]

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?

 

 

For the record Lephys is 100 % correct about what I was meaning. I am not suggesting that there isn't a valid reason to not include Romance but when I hear the reasons from people they don't convince me. In other words the justification for Romance is always better than the reasons to leave them out

 

But of course as I mentioned there are RPG that don't need Romance as they don't have any party interaction anyway, like IWD

[dr membrano]

So because this is a role-playing game are promancers in favor of allowing anyone to romance anyone else or are you all suggesting that there be prescribed relationships that occur between certain individual characters automatically? Isn't it discriminatory to prevent me from having a gay interracial romantic relationship of my choosing? 

 

Can we also talk about how difficult it would be to role play a love interest with a non-player character?

[BruceVC]

 

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

I've got one. It may be one you've heard already or maybe it's not, but it's especially relevant, currently. And it is an example of why my "objection" to romances goes beyond just my specific personal taste.

 

A couple of days ago, Bioware held a DA:I Q&A session and followed it up with the release of 15 minutes of its E3 gameplay footage. It was a major info-dump. It covered almost every aspect of the game, and the gameplay footage focused almost exclusively on Exploration and combat.

 

And what was the result? Romance discussion from the fans. And nothing else. Here we have a highly anticipated RPG and its developers are comprehensively attempting to present its features. In vain. The fan base, apparently, is not interested in the RPG's robust Combat system. Or its exploration. Or even its plot. They only care about the 8 romances that were announced. Something isn't right, here. Dating simulators and RPGs are NOT interchangeable terms.

 

Thankfully, it's just Bioware and its hopeless BSN fanbase. But if this becomes industry norm... where nothing matters in an RPG but its romances, that will be the day there's no longer such a thing as RPGs. Do you want this? I don't. And that is why I rejoice whenever a major RPG developer like Obsidian releases an RPG with no romances.

 

 

This is a good point raised and I can understand the frustration, here is an opportunity to discuss important game features and all people wanted to discuss was Romance. For me Romance is only an important part of party interaction. But there are many more important things in a RPG

 

I don't want to defend what those promancers did, because for me it was a wasted opportunity, but all I'll say is this just goes to show how relevant  Romance is for people. Wouldn't you rather have those types of vociferous fans buying your game and committed to the future of the franchise? Give them there own section on a forum and let them discuss what they want so they don't disrupt other conversations  But by including Romance in an RPG you do get certain type of loyalty, you just need to manage it

[Silent Winter]

 

But of course as I mentioned there are RPG that don't need Romance as they don't have any party interaction anyway, like IWD

 

Have you tried the IWD NPC-Mod?

Limited in scope (only one possible party, with a couple of class options) - but includes romance (as well as character development for the rest of the party too)

[BruceVC]

So because this is a role-playing game are promancers in favor of allowing anyone to romance anyone else or are you all suggesting that there be prescribed relationships that occur between certain individual characters automatically? Isn't it discriminatory to prevent me from having a gay interracial romantic relationship of my choosing? 

 

Can we also talk about how difficult it would be to role play a love interest with a non-player character?

 

Good questions. I am very supportive of inclusivity in Romance options so there should be bisexual, straight and gay options if possible. And of course interracial relationships would be provided. But I don't think interracial Romance is even an issue anymore?

 

 

But not very character can be Romanced by every person. Some need to be exclusive to a certain group. For example Viconia is the option for a straight male Romance

[Hiro Protagonist II]

For the record Lephys is 100 % correct about what I was meaning. I am not suggesting that there isn't a valid reason to not include Romance but when I hear the reasons from people they don't convince me. In other words the justification for Romance is always better than the reasons to leave them out

 

But of course as I mentioned there are RPG that don't need Romance as they don't have any party interaction anyway, like IWD

 

So you agree with Lephys that you were exaggerating. tsk tsk. If you're exaggerating, how about you mention it. Otherwise it comes across as something you're serious and stand by. How can people on this board take you seriously if you make what appears to be a serious post but then turn around and say, 'oh, but I was exaggerating.'

 

Leaving aside games like IWD where your companions are generated by yourself. Lets talk about rpgs with companions that are already in the game. Do you stand by your position that no one on this board has convinced you of the validity of not having romances in rpgs, having given every possible reason that they could come up with why they feel romances shouldn't be in the game?

 

Also, could anyone convince you with a valid reason you would accept that a rpg with companions already in the game would benefit without romances?

Edited July 11, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[BruceVC]

 

 

But of course as I mentioned there are RPG that don't need Romance as they don't have any party interaction anyway, like IWD

 

Have you tried the IWD NPC-Mod?

Limited in scope (only one possible party, with a couple of class options) - but includes romance (as well as character development for the rest of the party too)

 

 

Sounds good

 

But what about the fact the characters are all custom created, does the Mod add personalities to your party?

[Stun]

but all I'll say is this just goes to show how relevant  Romance is for people.

No. It only shows how relevant romance is for Bioware fans.

[BruceVC]

 

For the record Lephys is 100 % correct about what I was meaning. I am not suggesting that there isn't a valid reason to not include Romance but when I hear the reasons from people they don't convince me. In other words the justification for Romance is always better than the reasons to leave them out

 

But of course as I mentioned there are RPG that don't need Romance as they don't have any party interaction anyway, like IWD

 

So you agree with Lephys that you were exaggerating. tsk tsk.

 

Leaving aside games like IWD where your companions are generated by yourself. Lets talk about rpgs with companions that are already in the game. Do you stand by your position that no one on this board has convinced you of the validity of not having romances in rpgs, having given every possible reason why they feel romances shouldn't be in the game?

 

Also, could anyone convince you with a valid reason you would accept that a rpg with companions already in the game would benefit without romances?

 

 

Hyperbole is common on these forums, you know that

 

 

Yes it may be possible, its just unlikely you will convince me that a game without Romance is better than a game with Romance

 

But maybe I need to clarify something important. I am hugely supportive of party interaction and getting to know your party members and what motivates them

 

And for me Romance is just a natural extension of this party interaction. So you would have to convince me that interacting with your party members in a RPG is a bad idea or bad game design before I will admit Romance is a bad concept. And that's going to be a very tough sale

[BruceVC]

 

 

Hyperbole is common on these forums, you know that

 

Yes it may be possible, its just unlikely you will convince me that a game without Romance is better than a game with Romance

 

But maybe I need to clarify something important. I am hugely supportive of party interaction and getting to know your party members and what motivates them

 

And for me Romance is just a natural extension of this party interaction. So you would have to convince me that interacting with your party members in a RPG is a bad idea or bad game design before I will admit Romance is a bad concept. And that's going to be a very tough sale

 

 

Perhaps cutting the hyperbole Bruce and the discussion can flow a lot better and it wouldn't need to go off topic. And there's topics on this forum where hyperbole isn't used and discussions do flow better. You know that. And using it just because others do doesn't help your argument.

 

So in other words, it would be next to impossible to convince you which comes back to your original statement. And now you admit no one on these boards over the last two years has convinced you otherwise. One minute you're agreeing with Lephys that you're exaggerating and now you're saying no one has convinced you over the last two years and it will be a tough sell for anyone to do so. It doesn't appear to be exaggeration or hyperbole after all with your statement, but rather truth.

 

 

Don't get confused by someone who exaggerates a general point to someone who exaggerates a fact. They are totally different

 

For example if I say " no one has convinced me " doesn't mean no one can convince me. This is not the same as me saying "all Romance is bad ". This is very subjective as  end of the day this boils down to a personal preference around how you feel about Romance and there current implementation in RPG

[Faerunner]

Are there going to be romances in this game?

 

If there are, I'm all for it. They're just put down so often in the thread by devs and users alike that I assumed there weren't going to be any.

[BruceVC]

 

Don't get confused by someone who exaggerates a general point to someone who exaggerates a fact. They are totally different

 

For example if I say " no one has convinced me " doesn't mean no one can convince me. This is not the same as me saying "all Romance is bad ". This is very subjective as  end of the day this boils down to a personal preference around how you feel about Romance and there current implementation in RPG

 

Well you admitted that no one has convinced you over the last 2 years. And there's been very good points and arguments raised for no romance in those 2 years. You also say it's 'unlikely' and will be a hard sell for anyone to convince you. Straight away you're already in defensive mode against those who would argue for no romance.

 

I think it's important in any discussion to be honest with your fellow posters on one's stance on particular subjects. If you have someone who's dug their heels in for 2 years dismissing the points others have raised in that time, and now saying to posters it's unlikely you're going to convince me and you have to do a hard sell, then that shows your prejudice and bias. That's not exaggeration at all.

 

 

Sorry Hiro but I obviously can't get you to understand my point anymore than I have explained. I am at a loss on how to proceed. I'll say this one more time, I am not bias or defensive. I am just not convinced by all the arguments that Romance shouldn't be part of an RPG

 

Are there going to be romances in this game?

 

If there are, I'm all for it. They're just put down so often in the thread by devs and users alike that I assumed there weren't going to be any.

 Sadly no, but we can hope and still discuss Romance so hopefully they will be in PoE 2

[PrimeJunta]

@BruceVC and others -- IMO you're discussing the wrong question. "Should romance be a part of cRPG's" is too general. "Which cRPG's should feature romance" is a better question.

 

IMHO romance does not fit most cRPG's. It did not detract horribly from BG2 or NWN2 OC because it had so little impact; it was just a half-dozen glued-on dialogs per character scattered through the game, which you could easily ignore. OTOH it has made a huge mess of every BioWare game post Jade Empire.

 

Take Mass Effect for example. Because they had to put in scads of romance, they turned the Normandy into a high school summer camp. I've recently been playing ME2 (finally) and it's actually impossible to play Shepard in the most obvious, natural, logical way -- a tough-as-nails warship captain requiring discipline and military etiquette, as in, crew snapping to attention when s/he enters the room, addressing him/her as "sir" or "Commander," and not taking every opportunity to share details about their sex lives/species-specific mating rituals, plus awkwardly-written flirts. (Never even mind overt disrespect. I should've had the option to throw Miranda in the brig for the remainder of the mission--or, hell, space her--over the way she talks back.)

 

That's a direct consequence of romance-centric party interaction writing. The disciplined military atmosphere would not have been conducive to romance, so they didn't write in that atmosphere, even though the damn thing takes place in a war, or a warship, with everybody in uniform. The only role-playing options that writing added were options to romance different crew members. If you're not interested in romancing any of them, you're left in the cold.

 

I would not object to a cRPG where romance was written in from the ground up, i.e. where it was a fundamental plot driver and motivation. PS:T was arguably just this and it was brilliant. I do object--strongly--to shoehorning romance into games where the fundamental plot drivers are something completely different--a curse, defeating the ancient evil that has risen again, finding the McGuffin, destroying the McGuffin or whatever. The Lord of the Rings would not have been improved if Sam and Frodo had declared their undying love for each other while crawling up Mount Doom.

[BruceVC]

@BruceVC and others -- IMO you're discussing the wrong question. "Should romance be a part of cRPG's" is too general. "Which cRPG's should feature romance" is a better question.

 

IMHO romance does not fit most cRPG's. It did not detract horribly from BG2 or NWN2 OC because it had so little impact; it was just a half-dozen glued-on dialogs per character scattered through the game, which you could easily ignore. OTOH it has made a huge mess of every BioWare game post Jade Empire.

 

Take Mass Effect for example. Because they had to put in scads of romance, they turned the Normandy into a high school summer camp. I've recently been playing ME2 (finally) and it's actually impossible to play Shepard in the most obvious, natural, logical way -- a tough-as-nails warship captain requiring discipline and military etiquette, as in, crew snapping to attention when s/he enters the room, addressing him/her as "sir" or "Commander," and not taking every opportunity to share details about their sex lives/species-specific mating rituals, plus awkwardly-written flirts. (Never even mind overt disrespect. I should've had the option to throw Miranda in the brig for the remainder of the mission--or, hell, space her--over the way she talks back.)

 

That's a direct consequence of romance-centric party interaction writing. The disciplined military atmosphere would not have been conducive to romance, so they didn't write in that atmosphere, even though the damn thing takes place in a war, or a warship, with everybody in uniform. The only role-playing options that writing added were options to romance different crew members. If you're not interested in romancing any of them, you're left in the cold.

 

I would not object to a cRPG where romance was written in from the ground up, i.e. where it was a fundamental plot driver and motivation. PS:T was arguably just this and it was brilliant. I do object--strongly--to shoehorning romance into games where the fundamental plot drivers are something completely different--a curse, defeating the ancient evil that has risen again, finding the McGuffin, destroying the McGuffin or whatever. The Lord of the Rings would not have been improved if Sam and Frodo had declared their undying love for each other while crawling up Mount Doom.

 

That's a good post and you have raised some good points. I want to respond to this later in more detail but I have some work I need to do now