The Official Romance Thread

[Natusake]

I suppose that is what would encompass a realistic narrative, but it doesn't seem that realism is among the themes of romance in RPGs these days.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

Other thoughts:

- We need a romance where you get married and the NPC you romanced starts really letting him/herself go. Their character portrait starts getting fatter and fatter and they start getting really defensive and snippy about their weight gain.

 

- Also, it would be interesting to have a romance in which the NPC is actually a con-man/woman. You go through the typical Bioware-style dialogue trees, where you pick the 'nice' dialogue options and play the warrior-therapist and they slowly open up to you. Then one day you wake up and they've ransacked the party's treasure and disappeared. Turns out their entire sad story was a huge lie to sucker you into lowering your guard.

 

To be fair, they would need to give you subtle warnings of what's coming, but I bet a lot of people are so fixated on the typical routine of 'be the super-ultra-nice guy and get laid' that they wouldn't catch on before it was too late. 

 

- How about some romances which aren't between you and some absolutely gorgeous babe/hunk? Make some romances in which the NPC is actually pretty ugly, but has a great personality. Or a romance in which the potential romance partner is sentient, but not humanoid, and therefore the relationship can evolve into love but without possibility of consummation. 

 

I would find all of these things entertaining if done right, but I'm guessing a depressing number of pro-mancers would find anything beyond the standard Japanese dating sim approach ('say the right things to get laid!') to be almost a slap in the face. 

[Lephys]

Why not? If there's a complete absence of any good implementations of romances in past RPGs, then why would anyone conclude that it would be a good idea to put romances in the next RPG?

I dunno. If no one had yet discovered penicillin, then why should anyone assume there's a good way to fight infection out there, and that they should keep looking? I for one am super glad they didn't go "Oh well, SURELY if there was a fantastic way to fight infections, we'd've found it in the last several hundred years. Better not waste our time and effort on something that's obviously impossible, u_u..."

 

Why has anyone ever tried anything that wasn't already accomplished? You tell me. I'm sure if humanity had just always given up on everything that had been attempted a bunch but wasn't successful, we'd all be livin' great right now. 8D

 

Well when you have dead gods as one of the central themes of the story, it's fair to say religion will probably play a part in it. Trying to "take out religion, because some people don't view it as important" as you suggested earlier would seem to goes against that theme. It's not like Obsidian can do a $250K stretch goal for 'Religion' and if the stretch goal is reached, then religion will be added. It sounds rather silly to have those type of themes and story concepts as stretch goals. It comes across as Obsidian has no idea on what the story is about.

Okay... even after I already told you the purpose of that example, you're still acting as though its purpose was to really present a specific thing that should've actually occurred and would've been a splendid plan. Same with "why don't we get rid of religion," which you are answering, it seems, directly after a completely different quote (which is confusing). So, do with that info as you will, I suppose. But none of what you're saying has anything to do with my example's purpose. I'm done with that example, because all it did was make a simple point, and I'm not arguing that Romance should've been a $250,000 stretch goal.

 

No. There are lots of topics where people have stated they don't want something particular in the game. Or they do want something and it gets shot down in flames by other posters. What we don't see is those people creating topic after topic wanting to see that particular thing in the game. They move on. As opposed to the promancers who create topic after topic and beating a dead horse.

Yes. Yes to what I said. No to what you've, once again, arbitrarily changed the point to. That's great that you think there are too many threads about this, but the number of threads about something and their annoyance to you:

 

A) Have absolutely nothing to do with the merits of game design ideas. (It's not like romance's quality as a concept would be higher, somehow, if there were only fewer threads about it.)

 

B) Have absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, which is that "some number of people would consider that wasting development funds" can be said of almost anything in the entire game, depending on who you ask. So, unless we flip a coin or construct a Thunderdome to decide what makes it in and what doesn't, there's got to be some further reason to make such a decision. 8P

 

Also, this thread was specifically created, by a mod, for the discussion of the pros and cons of the incorporation of romance in cRPGs. Not "Wahhhh, we're trying to overturn the decision to leave it out of this game!" So... No. False. We're not beating a dead horse. We're performing an autopsy on that horse.

 

@Death Machine Miyagi:

 

YES! The con-person example is great! See, people just have too narrow of a view of romantic content. And, honestly, I couldn't care less if the number of promancers who liked that was depressing. It should be done anyway, and the Japanese dating sim shouldn't.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

 

Why not? If there's a complete absence of any good implementations of romances in past RPGs, then why would anyone conclude that it would be a good idea to put romances in the next RPG?

I dunno. If no one had yet discovered penicillin, then why should anyone assume there's a good way to fight infection out there, and that they should keep looking? I for one am super glad they didn't go "Oh well, SURELY if there was a fantastic way to fight infections, we'd've found it in the last several hundred years. Better not waste our time and effort on something that's obviously impossible, u_u..."

 

Why has anyone ever tried anything that wasn't already accomplished? You tell me. I'm sure if humanity had just always given up on everything that had been attempted a bunch but wasn't successful, we'd all be livin' great right now. 8D

 

Romance is not some tangible invention, like penicillin. Nor is it some problem to be solved by a multi-generational accumulation of knowledge and technology. It is already a successful form of social expression in real life.

 

The problem is that it's impossible to recreate that success in something as inherently limited as a 50hr video game where the player is only involved vicariously. The last 25 years of video game romances illustrate developer attempts to force that square peg into the round slot... with absolutely zero progress ever (unlike the field of medicine, for example, where progress is constantly being made, thereby explaining why something that was once deemed impossible can eventually become possible)

Edited July 17, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 Okay... even after I already told you the purpose of that example, you're still acting as though its purpose was to really present a specific thing that should've actually occurred and would've been a splendid plan. Same with "why don't we get rid of religion," which you are answering, it seems, directly after a completely different quote (which is confusing). So, do with that info as you will, I suppose. But none of what you're saying has anything to do with my example's purpose. I'm done with that example, because all it did was make a simple point, and I'm not arguing that Romance should've been a $250,000 stretch goal. 

 

What purpose was that? To make up hypotheticals that don't make sense? $250K stretch goal for Romances. Lets leave religion out because it's not important to some people despite it being one of the themes in the game. Stretch goals for story concepts is just silly. Yeah, lets have a stretch goal for morality and ethics because for some people it's not important and it's okay to leave it out. Or better yet, lets have a stretch goal of $250K for morality and ethics in the game. It sounds absurd and the backers would be like WTF? What does that mean? How do you measure that? And your infinite amount of money question makes no sense. No one in the real world has infinite money so there's no point coming up with ridiculous hypotheticals.

 

So you would be okay that Obsidian never has a stretch goal for Romance? Great. Thanks for that.

 

 

 Yes. Yes to what I said. No to what you've, once again, arbitrarily changed the point to. That's great that you think there are too many threads about this, but the number of threads about something and their annoyance to you:

 

A) Have absolutely nothing to do with the merits of game design ideas. (It's not like romance's quality as a concept would be higher, somehow, if there were only fewer threads about it.)

 

B) Have absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, which is that "some number of people would consider that wasting development funds" can be said of almost anything in the entire game, depending on who you ask. So, unless we flip a coin or construct a Thunderdome to decide what makes it in and what doesn't, there's got to be some further reason to make such a decision. 8P

 

Also, this thread was specifically created, by a mod, for the discussion of the pros and cons of the incorporation of romance in cRPGs. Not "Wahhhh, we're trying to overturn the decision to leave it out of this game!" So... No. False. We're not beating a dead horse. We're performing an autopsy on that horse.

 

No to what you said. Yes to what I said. And I never said it was all about me. Nice try but you failed. You mentioned Romance seems to be the 'poster child' of why people are against it. Well if you have so many threads created on this topic and so many posters against it, the attention will be drawn to it. If you have one thread created by somebody about what they want to see in a game and there's a lot of opposition to it, and that person moves on and nobody else brings it up, that will be forgotten. And no one will remember that thread from 18 months ago.

 

The thread was created by a mod to stop all the romance threads continually being opened which was the case. The mod wanted to keep the poo in one litter tray instead of multiple threads. So nice trying to say it was 'Wahhhh, we're trying to overturn the decision to leave it out of this game' tactic when it wasn't the case. You're arguing against yourself on this one.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

Romance is not some tangible invention, like penicillin, or the printing press. Nor is it some problem to be solved by a multi-generational accumulation of knowledge and technology. It is already a successful form of social expression in real life.

Yes... because this debate is about whether or not we should invent romance. *facepalm*

 

Putting romance into an RPG is a goal and a process. Just like staving off infection. A goal, and a process (treat with things until infection successfully staved).

 

It's got nothing to do with tangibility. Video games aren't tangible. They're just code. It's no different from putting anything else successfully into a video game. It is a problem to be solved, actually. Just like any video game design concept, ever. "How do we lay out this plan? How do we code this? How does it fit into the rest of the game's design?" Take your pick.

 

Go ask Obsidian if video game development isn't largely problem-solving. The whole game is the solution to the "problem" of "My computer doesn't already simulate all this stuff. I have to figure out how to get it to do that, successfully, so that I can enjoy the results." And poof, you have a game if you succeed.

 

 

@Hiro:

 

I'm sorry my example and its explanation went over your head. I don't know how to clarify it for you, so I'm gonna hafta give up on that. Apologies.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

Yes... because this debate is about whether or not we should invent romance. *facepalm*

 

Putting romance into an RPG is a goal and a process. Just like staving off infection. A goal, and a process (treat with things until infection successfully staved).

 

It's got nothing to do with tangibility. Video games aren't tangible. They're just code. It's no different from putting anything else successfully into a video game. It is a problem to be solved, actually. Just like any video game design concept, ever. "How do we lay out this plan? How do we code this? How does it fit into the rest of the game's design?" Take your pick.

 

Go ask Obsidian if video game development isn't largely problem-solving. The whole game is the solution to the "problem" of "My computer doesn't already simulate all this stuff. I have to figure out how to get it to do that, successfully, so that I can enjoy the results." And poof, you have a game if you succeed.

Your absurd penicillin example assumes a field of study where progress is constantly being made.

 

Problem: Attempts over the last 25 years to implement *good* romances in video games has not shown a shred of progress. So I'll ask again: what makes you think tomorrow's video game romances will succeed?

[PieSnatcher]

Holy smokes who are you Lephys and what have you done with Slowpoke Lephys?

 

And something on topic:
Do people hate the concept of romances in an RPG, or have they just concluded that based on every example so far, it would probably detract from the overall experience? Just curious.

Personally, I'm totally fine with said concept, but I completely understand how previous romance options in games can sour one's taste for them.

Edited July 17, 2014 by PieSnatcher

[BruceVC]

@ Hiro and Stun

 

Lephys makes a lot of good points, maybe you should read carefully what he says without disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. Just a thought

[Hiro Protagonist II]

@ Hiro and Stun

 

Lephys makes a lot of good points, maybe you should read carefully what he says without disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. Just a thought

 

No he doesn't and your post is just a troll post. How about actually contributing something useful instead of trolling? You make no mention of any points and throw a veiled attack at us for not reading carefully. Yep, a troll post. Nothing else to contribute. Perhaps, you should be the one that needs to read carefully before suggesting it to others. 

Edited July 17, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[PrimeJunta]

@PieSnatcher I have the feeling there's a bit of talking-past-each-other going on here too. Perhaps people are using somewhat different definitions of 'romance.' I, for example, am categorically opposed to 'romance as dating game,' as in BG2, NWN2, the ME's, the DA's, and so on. However, I am not categorically opposed to 'romance as central plot driver,' as in Planescape: Torment.

 

I haven't heard even the most ironclad antimancers object to PS:T's romance, to my recollection (@Stun?). On the other hand, I do get the feeling that most promancers seem to be talking about the former, what with talk of 'romance options,' comparing the charms of Viconia as opposed to Aerie or Leliana as opposed to Morrigan, and so on.

 

I do feel very strongly that the 'dating game' style of romance is a bad idea and actively detracts from the games in which it is present. It's not a matter of better writing or making a better dating minigame; it's just fundamentally bad and wrong and shouldn't be done at all.

Edited July 17, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Stun]

Do people hate the concept of romances in an RPG, or have they just concluded that based on every example so far, it would probably detract from the overall experience? Just curious.

Both. Conceptually, there's not a whole lot of difference between a friendship in an RPG and a romance in an RPG, except that the latter requires the usual expressions of affection, like "I love you too!", or an ESRB-policed sex scene, or the uncanny valley of 2 avatars kissing and hugging. And none of these add anything to a video game that a mature adult gamer would equate with "depth".

 

Thus romances in video games are little more than a gimmick... a gimmick that can cause damage to the game's integrity. But the real problem is that they're a rather expensive gimmick and development studios adjust their budgets accordingly when choosing to put them into a game. I'd rather that money and time go elsewhere... into fundamental game features, not gimmicks.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Stun

[BruceVC]

 

Do people hate the concept of romances in an RPG, or have they just concluded that based on every example so far, it would probably detract from the overall experience? Just curious.

Both. Conceptually, there's not a whole lot of difference between a friendship in an RPG and a romance in an RPG, except that the latter requires the usual expressions of affection, like "I love you too!", or an ESRB-policed sex scene, or the uncanny valley of 2 avatars kissing and hugging. And none of these add anything to a video game that a mature adult gamer would equate with "depth".

 

Thus romances in video games are little more than a gimmick... a gimmick that can cause damage to the game's integrity. But the real problem is that they're a rather expensive gimmick and development studios adjust their budgets accordingly when choosing to put them into a game. I'd rather that money and time go elsewhere... into fundamental game features, not gimmicks.

 

 

This type of view is why we never seem to find any kind of middle ground, if you can't at least try to understand that Romance is not some sort of "gimmick" for promancers then we will never agree on anything

 

Its this dismissive nature that just because in your opinion there haven't been meaningful Romance implementations in the past that must mean there can't be any meaningful Romance in the future I find counterproductive to reasonable debate

 

Also this biased view that somehow optional Romance  impacts the integrity of the game....wow you talk about hyperbole. Can you give examples where the general consensus of a gaming community or where gaming journalists have made statements like "this game was ruined because of Romance"?

 

I get you don't approve of Romance but your post is laughable with its relevancy, sorry Stun nothing personal. Just being honest 

[Stun]

if you can't at least try to understand that Romance is not some sort of "gimmick" for promancers then we will never agree on anything

I wouldn't ever waste my time trying to understand any promancer. Nor to I care if their gaming tastes are so shallow that they need a gimmick to enjoy an RPG.

 

PS: no offense, of course, Bruce. Here, have a smilie:

Edited July 17, 2014 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

if you can't at least try to understand that Romance is not some sort of "gimmick" for promancers then we will never agree on anything

But the thing is... it is a gimmick, and it does negatively impact games, like turning the warship Normandy into Love Boat. (Again, excluding Deionarra-style fully integrated into the story romance.)

[Silent Winter]

*Is temporarily confused by the new avatar->

So, unless we flip a coin or construct a Thunderdome to decide what makes it in and what doesn't, there's got to be some further reason to make such a decision. 8P.

I vote Thunderdome!!

I mean, the game would be rubbish but the development stage would be greatly entertaining.

Other thoughts:

These are all good suggestions - doing something *with* romance rather than having *a romance* as a separate and disconnected mini-game.

 

...Perhaps people are using somewhat different definitions of 'romance.' I, for example, am categorically opposed to 'romance as dating game,' as in BG2, NWN2, the ME's, the DA's, and so on. However, I am not categorically opposed to 'romance as central plot driver,' as in Planescape: Torment.

...

I do feel very strongly that the 'dating game' style of romance is a bad idea and actively detracts from the games in which it is present. It's not a matter of better writing or making a better dating minigame; it's just fundamentally bad and wrong and shouldn't be done at all.

Snipped for brevity - I largely agree here.

If romance is to be done well, it can't be a minigame added onto an existing (romanceless) game.  It needs to be built into the themes and characters and not just be "I'll pick one of the wimmin, choose 'option 1' in conversation and then have her fall for me"

Hard to do well but not impossible to have romance in a game.  It's just hardER to do with a 'create your own character' rpg (vs. predefined with backstory)

[Stun]

 

if you can't at least try to understand that Romance is not some sort of "gimmick" for promancers then we will never agree on anything

But the thing is... it is a gimmick, and it does negatively impact games, like turning the warship Normandy into Love Boat. (Again, excluding Deionarra-style fully integrated into the story romance.)

 

And even Deionarra wasn't so much a romance as it was a plot device designed to instill emotions like guilt and regret, rather than love or affection. It was a gimmick too, but it gets a pass because it was a brilliant plot tool. Regret and guilt are quite difficult to implement correctly in a video game.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

And even Deionarra wasn't so much a romance as it was a plot device designed to instill emotions like guilt and regret, rather than love or affection. It was a gimmick too, but it gets a pass because it was a brilliant plot tool. Regret and guilt are quite difficult to implement correctly in a video game.

 

 

I'm afraid I don't quite understand you. Could you define what you mean by "gimmick" in this context?

[Stun]

 

And even Deionarra wasn't so much a romance as it was a plot device designed to instill emotions like guilt and regret, rather than love or affection. It was a gimmick too, but it gets a pass because it was a brilliant plot tool. Regret and guilt are quite difficult to implement correctly in a video game.

 

I'm afraid I don't quite understand you. Could you define what you mean by "gimmick" in this context?

 

I'll try. Ok, first off, The game does not let you romance Deionarra. She's dead before you begin it. But the game does let you talk to her ghost, and her dad, and read her journals, and find her ring, and experience her sensory stone. But none of that is for the purpose of "romancing her". It's for the purpose of rubbing your nose in the pure douchebaggery of one of your past incarnations. But it's not really necessary, because the game already does a good job reminding you, over and over and over and over, that you used to be a Douchebag. Deionarra is just there to add that extra 'I treated her like crap and I regret it now' element/dimension that many people think a personal story must have to be all edgy and emotionally deep. Edited July 17, 2014 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

And even Deionarra wasn't so much a romance as it was a plot device designed to instill emotions like guilt and regret, rather than love or affection. It was a gimmick too, but it gets a pass because it was a brilliant plot tool. Regret and guilt are quite difficult to implement correctly in a video game.

This is what I mean by different definitions. Deionarra was the only plot device in any cRPG I've played that comes close to my understanding of 'romance' in the classical, literary sense. She, however, has nothing to do with 'romance' in the dating-game/harem-anime/dime-store-romance-novel sense. So at least some of us may be talking at cross-purposes.

 

I.e., I'm all for more Deionarra, but dead against more Aerie.

[BruceVC]

 

 

And even Deionarra wasn't so much a romance as it was a plot device designed to instill emotions like guilt and regret, rather than love or affection. It was a gimmick too, but it gets a pass because it was a brilliant plot tool. Regret and guilt are quite difficult to implement correctly in a video game.

 

I'm afraid I don't quite understand you. Could you define what you mean by "gimmick" in this context?

 

I'll try. Ok, first off, The game does not let you romance Deionarra. She's dead before you begin it. But the game does let you talk to her ghost, and her dad, and read her journals, and find her ring, and experience her sensory stone. But none of that is for the purpose of "romancing her". It's for the purpose of rubbing your nose in the pure douchebaggery of one of your past incarnations. But it's not really necessary, because the game already does a good job reminding you, over and over and over and over, that you used to be a Douchebag. Deionarra is just there to add that extra 'I treated her like crap and I regret it now' element/dimension that many people think a personal story must have to be all edgy and emotionally deep.

 

 

Wow that's very cynical considering how popular the Deionarra Romance arc is amongst people who aren't even committed Promancers, it seems like you would only  be happy if there was no implementation or interpretation of any Romance in a RPG?

 

So lets approach this a different way, what would be your definition of an acceptable Romance arc in a RPG?

[Stun]

Wow that's very cynical considering how popular the Deionarra Romance arc is amongst people who aren't even committed Promancers, it seems like you would only  be happy if there was no implementation or interpretation of any Romance in a RPG?

 

So lets approach this a different way, what would be your definition of an acceptable Romance arc in a RPG?

LOL

 

There is no Dionarra romance arc in planescape torment. The game presents her to you as irreversibly DEAD.

 

And last I checked, not even the committed promancers are into Necrophilia.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Stun

[BruceVC]

 

Wow that's very cynical considering how popular the Deionarra Romance arc is amongst people who aren't even committed Promancers, it seems like you would only  be happy if there was no implementation or interpretation of any Romance in a RPG?

 

So lets approach this a different way, what would be your definition of an acceptable Romance arc in a RPG?

LOL

 

There is no Dionarra romance arc in planescape torment. The game presents her to you as irreversibly DEAD.

 

And last I checked, not even the committed promancers are into Necrophilia.

 

 

Can you answer the question, what would be an acceptable Romance arc in a RPG?

[Stun]

Can you answer the question, what would be an acceptable Romance arc in a RPG?

One that deliberately mocks the entire concept of video game romances... and does it via dry wit.

 

Interestingly enough, Obsidian has the perfect writer on their staff for such an undertaking. Chris Avellone.

[BruceVC]

 

Can you answer the question, what would be an acceptable Romance arc in a RPG?

One that deliberately mocks the entire concept of video game romances... and does it via dry wit.

 

Interestingly enough, Obsidian has the perfect writer on their staff for such an undertaking. Chris Avellone.

 

 

Sorry that's not an answer that makes sense to me, maybe you can give me an example of a game where this has been implemented before? I prefer to dwell in the world of practical examples...not Never Neverland case studies