The Official Romance Thread

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

The "why" doesn't go away if "have to" is there. It's still there. "Why" means "For what reason."

 

"Why do they have to X" and "Why do they X" are still two completely different questions. I've run out of ways to point that out. That's not even mildly technical, much less ultra technical. It's incredibly simple. Why you have to do something is why it's mandatory. Why you do something is simply the reason you do it. It's two completely different questions, complete with whole words and all. It's not just italicizing one word instead of another. The italicizing was purely to illustrate the word that was giving the sentence the meaning you're pretending it doesn't have.

 

Obviously, what you meant was simply "why do they do it," but you didn't ask that. So I didn't respond to that question, initially. I responded to the one you typed. I don't understand why that's complex, or why you feel the need to insist that only an imbecile would respond the way I did, or gather the meaning I did from your initial question.

 

 

And I've explained many times over the last couple of pages the 'why' part of the question, you still dodged and weaved the question and still want to argue. Even when others have answered it. It's not a hard question to answer.

 

 

I never said you said it was illegal.

 

And, I could've gone and counted how many times, exactly, I've actually clarified it. But, the blatant exaggeration emphasizes the extent to which I've gone to clarify, along with my understandable frustration with the fact that you keep pretending I have yet to provide any rhyme or reason to my initial response to your question. That's what it adds.

 

You don't think it adds anything, clearly. But forgive me for not trusting the judgment of the person who thinks two whole words don't add anything to the meaning of a question.

 

I know I never said it was illegal. I don't know why you're saying I never said it was illegal. I didn't realise you were in the habit of telling me what I never said. Sounds rather pointless telling me things I never said.  It was you who said 'wasn't aware that it was illegal'. I have no idea why you would bring up legalities in this. Or are you exaggerating again? Who knows! It was you who brought it up first. It has nothing to do with the discussion. And it doesn't add anything to state 3000 times. It's just more of your blatant over exaggerations.

 

 

I'm fairly certain I only spent a couple of sentences on it, tops. Your lack of satisfaction with my answer does not denote a problem in my answering the question.

 

Nice selective quoting there. You left the bit out when I said, Anita Sarkeesian knows why developers do it. Have a look at some of her videos and she may be able to explain it to you. Seriously I have no idea why it's so hard for you to give a simple answer on why developers sexualise NPCs in video games instead of 'well I don't know, it could be this or it could be that or something else,' 

Edited July 23, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Darji]

 

 

 

Romance makes the interaction with your group more intimate and intense.  However Romance should not be handled like Bioware it currently  does with Dragon Age or Mass Effect but rather have effects on the story and also evolve during the story. In DA or ME you just play a give gift game and talk to them and in like 30 minutes you fully have maxed out your romance tree.  Make Romance meaningful like they actually did in Baldurs Gate for example. The Witcher 2 also had a more DA similar system but they executed the scenes and interactions much more mature. Also you actually felt some consequences as well. 

Romance wasn't that meaningful in BG2. Not that I didn't enjoy some of them. Romance is not Obsidian's strength, and as I and others have stated; Obsidian has better things to do. We can add romances in later through mods, so there is no need for Obsidian to make them. Areas and mechanics however, will be VERY difficult to mod into the game. This is why we should make the romances and Obsidian should make the core game.

 

Only Obsidian can make the sundae; anyone can add the cherry on top.

 

For me the biggest strength of Obsidian is writing. I really do not care much about mechanics. Especially if its not turn based but I do care about the writing and while people could add romance via mods I would have loved to see Obsidian doing it because of the higher quality.

 

As for Baldurs Gate: It has been a long time since I played it but as far as I remember there was a sense pf progression through the story which is not what happens in let us say DA and ME at all. It is just some kind of minigame nothing else. 

 

Obsidian is good at writing worlds and plots, but not romance. They've tried it and the results were... underwhelming. Bioware is better at it than Obsidian; at least when Bioware isn't being juvenile. You may not care about the mechanics, but you'll still need to deal with them. If the mechanics are bad; the game will be bad. Mods can handle the romance angle, but not areas and core mechanics. Even if we got Obsidian to do the romances; they wouldn't be that great. 

 

The last thing a developer should do is abandon their strengths in favor of their weaknesses. Especially when many people don't even want romances in the game at all, even if they were cost free. Mods allow players who like romance to get what they want in the game, but don't piss off the anti-mancers; who are quite numerous within Obsidian's fanbase.

 

Obsidian should be Obsidian; not Bioware jr.

 

 

 

Bioware's romance is straight out insulting. If you think this is a good standard to do than I do not know anymore. Bioware is not the Bioware they were when Baldurs Gate was made. A ton have changed in this company.  I would say even  JRPgs which are mostly aimed at teenagers  have better romance plots than Bioware and that by far. I would even go much farther and say that even low budget Hentai dating sim RPGs have better romance plots and options than Bioware had after Baldurs Gate. 

 

Also how do you know that obsidian is bad at romance or better writing romance? Again I am not saying they should do it as a side object because than it is just meaningless to begin with. But rather bring in into the story. Let it progress through the story and not through grinding your conversation options etc.  As for the fanbase does not want it. I think you are wrong. Again they do not want Bioware romance. They do not want to grind through conversations to get their little sex scene. That is not what romance should be in games in the first place. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

Nice selective quoting there. You left the bit out when I said, Anita Sarkeesian knows why developers do it. Have a look at some of her videos and she may be able to explain it to you. Seriously I have no idea why it's so hard for you to give a simple answer on why developers sexualise NPCs in video games instead of 'well I don't know, it could be this or it could be that or something else,' 

 

 

Hiro why is no one interested in the post  that Namutree stated for the reason that developers sexualize NPC's ? Don't worry about Anita and her explanations, I am a feminist but I don't always agree with her. She is almost militant in her campaign for equality and sometimes I think she does the cause of gender equality more harm than good

 

Namutree stated

 

"The reason why developers anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human npcs is to try and create the illusion that the npcs are real. People have sexual aspects to them, so when they sexualise npcs; they can seem more human. That makes role-playing more convincing for some people. There are also strong emotions that can easily be brought out through sexuality. Those feelings can make a player feel connected to a world "

 

This is a positive explanation and makes sense, why don't you focus on this?

[Namutree]

 

 

 

Hiro why is no one interested in the post  that Namutree stated for the reason that developers sexualize NPC's ? Don't worry about Anita and her explanations, I am a feminist but I don't always agree with her. She is almost militant in her campaign for equality and sometimes I think she does the cause of gender equality more harm than good

 

Namutree stated

 

"The reason why developers anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human npcs is to try and create the illusion that the npcs are real. People have sexual aspects to them, so when they sexualise npcs; they can seem more human. That makes role-playing more convincing for some people. There are also strong emotions that can easily be brought out through sexuality. Those feelings can make a player feel connected to a world "

 

This is a positive explanation and makes sense, why don't you focus on this?

 

Hiro did take an interest in my post and has mentioned it more than once.

 

Hiro now wants Lephy's opinion on the matter, but feels that he is dodging the question by over-analyzing the way Hiro phrased it.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Hiro why is no one interested in the post  that Namutree stated for the reason that developers sexualize NPC's ? Don't worry about Anita and her explanations, I am a feminist but I don't always agree with her. She is almost militant in her campaign for equality and sometimes I think she does the cause of gender equality more harm than good

 

Namutree stated

 

"The reason why developers anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human npcs is to try and create the illusion that the npcs are real. People have sexual aspects to them, so when they sexualise npcs; they can seem more human. That makes role-playing more convincing for some people. There are also strong emotions that can easily be brought out through sexuality. Those feelings can make a player feel connected to a world "

 

This is a positive explanation and makes sense, why don't you focus on this?

 

Also Bruce, I don't know why you left out one of the most important parts of Namutree's post:

 

"To put it bluntly; adding sexuality to a npc is an easy way to manipulate a player's emotions and create a connection to the game world."

 

So you're okay with developers manipulating a players emotions with sexualised NPCs? 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Hiro why is no one interested in the post  that Namutree stated for the reason that developers sexualize NPC's ? Don't worry about Anita and her explanations, I am a feminist but I don't always agree with her. She is almost militant in her campaign for equality and sometimes I think she does the cause of gender equality more harm than good

 

Namutree stated

 

"The reason why developers anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human npcs is to try and create the illusion that the npcs are real. People have sexual aspects to them, so when they sexualise npcs; they can seem more human. That makes role-playing more convincing for some people. There are also strong emotions that can easily be brought out through sexuality. Those feelings can make a player feel connected to a world "

 

This is a positive explanation and makes sense, why don't you focus on this?

 

Hiro did take an interest in my post and has mentioned it more than once.

 

Hiro now wants Lephy's opinion on the matter, but feels that he is dodging the question by over-analyzing the way Hiro phrased it.

 

Really? Because it seems like despite a relevant answer Hiro is still asking " why  developers sexualize NPC's"

 

I don't see the point in asking someone a questions when you know the answer yourself unless you have some ulterior motive to extend the debate in a way that is not applicable?

[BruceVC]

 

 

Hiro why is no one interested in the post  that Namutree stated for the reason that developers sexualize NPC's ? Don't worry about Anita and her explanations, I am a feminist but I don't always agree with her. She is almost militant in her campaign for equality and sometimes I think she does the cause of gender equality more harm than good

 

Namutree stated

 

"The reason why developers anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human npcs is to try and create the illusion that the npcs are real. People have sexual aspects to them, so when they sexualise npcs; they can seem more human. That makes role-playing more convincing for some people. There are also strong emotions that can easily be brought out through sexuality. Those feelings can make a player feel connected to a world "

 

This is a positive explanation and makes sense, why don't you focus on this?

 

Also Bruce, I don't know why you left out one of the most important parts of Namutree's post:

 

"To put it bluntly; adding sexuality to a npc is an easy way to manipulate a player's emotions and create a connection to the game world."

 

So you're okay with developers manipulating a players emotions with sexualised NPCs? 

 

 

I am because I see this as a positive way to add realism and make  the RPG experience more immersive. The levels  of party interaction are important and do add to the overall believability of the whole RPG experience

[Namutree]

 

 

Bioware's romance is straight out insulting. If you think this is a good standard to do than I do not know anymore. Bioware is not the Bioware they were when Baldurs Gate was made. A ton have changed in this company.  I would say even  JRPgs which are mostly aimed at teenagers  have better romance plots than Bioware and that by far. I would even go much farther and say that even low budget Hentai dating sim RPGs have better romance plots and options than Bioware had after Baldurs Gate. 

 

Also how do you know that obsidian is bad at romance or better writing romance? Again I am not saying they should do it as a side object because than it is just meaningless to begin with. But rather bring in into the story. Let it progress through the story and not through grinding your conversation options etc.  As for the fanbase does not want it. I think you are wrong. Again they do not want Bioware romance. They do not want to grind through conversations to get their little sex scene. That is not what romance should be in games in the first place. 

 

Obsidian tried romance in Alpha Protocol. It was unimpressive. When I said Bioware was better, I was referring to their better examples when they weren't pandering to a degenerate crowd of booty chasers. The reason not to tie the romance into the story is then you have Obsidian writing romance, and not improving the core experience.

 

Let the Modders handle romance. Think of Obsidian as ammonia and romance as bleach. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Really? Because it seems like despite a relevant answer Hiro is still asking " why  developers sexualize NPC's"

 

I don't see the point in asking someone a questions when you know the answer yourself unless you have some ulterior motive to extend the debate in a way that is not applicable?

 

But then you're okay with Lephys' evasive and argumentative debating style of avoiding the question for pages on end, unless they have some ulterior motive to extend the debate in a way that is not applicable?

 

And I'm still waiting for you Lephys to answer the question on why developers sexualise NPCs in video games. Even Anita Sarkeesian's videos will help you with this one.

[Lephys]

And I've explained many times over the last couple of pages the 'why' part of the question, you still dodged and weaved the question and still want to argue.

Negative. You've "explained" that your question "why do they have to sexualize...?" was, in actuality, "why do they sexualize...?", and that I'm somehow being ridiculous by acting as though there's a difference in the first place. Once you actually brought it to my attention that your only interest was in the answer to "why do they" instead of "why do they have to," I then answered your question. You don't like my answer. Too bad. Doesn't mean I didn't properly answer it. You asked me why other people do something. I told you as much as I know.

 

Different developers do it for different reasons, I'm sure. People are complex, and we aren't a hivemindd, so no, I couldn't tell you with certainty why all developers who've ever sexualized NPCs do so.

 

Furthermore, I'll say that it seems rather weird that the second an NPC isn't hideous, that NPC becomes "sexualized," as if they're somehow forcibly molded into an attractive being, unnaturally. I guess people in the world can just happen to be quite physically attractive, but people in a fictional world that we've created aren't allowed to be?

 

Again, I get that stuff like Isabela from DA2 is a bit overboard, perhaps. However, that's more because she just wasn't done very well, and not at all because she was sexy. Real people have a right to "sexualize" themselves, and so do fictional people who are modeled after realistic people.

 

It doesn't really matter that they're not humans. If they have very human-like physiologies, and they are susceptible to things like physical attraction in a way similar to humans, and they're capable of sexual reproduction, etc, then having characters who are sexually expressive and/or quite attractive is not at all out of bounds.

 

It's all about extents. If literally every person in the world is just the epitome of human stripper, and they're all just dancing around performing stripper dances, then the game's blatantly pandering to the real-life human who's playing it. That doesn't mean that having people scattered throughout the world who happen to also be appealing to the real-life human is somehow wrong or unnatural.

 

I know I never said it was illegal. I don't know why you're saying I never said it was illegal. I didn't realise you were in the habit of telling me what I never said.

I didn't tell you what you didn't say. I only told you what I never claimed you said.

 

 

Nice selective quoting there. You left the bit out when I said, Anita Sarkeesian knows why developers do it.

In what way have I selectively quoted? You said I spent pages on an answer to your question, and I pointed out that I've only really spent a handful of sentences on the answer. Then, in reference to your claim that I was having problems answering, I simply pointed out that providing an answer you aren't happy with is not the same thing as struggling to answer. I answered just fine. You simply aren't satisfied with the answer I provided. Which is your prerogative, so I don't mind.

 

If a child asks his father "Are we going to Disneyworld today?", and the father says "Nope," does that mean he had trouble answering, or that he hasn't properly answered the question?

 

Furthermore, if you already knew the answer to the question you were asking me, then why didn't you simply state why they do it? Anyone would still be perfectly free to contest that explanation, or contribute to it, etc. That's kind of how a discussion works.

 

Or, we could all ask questions that aren't what we actually want to know, then mock people for supposedly being ignorant for not answering the question to our satisfaction. *shrug*. Maybe that's the best and most productive solution.

[BruceVC]

 

Really? Because it seems like despite a relevant answer Hiro is still asking " why  developers sexualize NPC's"

 

I don't see the point in asking someone a questions when you know the answer yourself unless you have some ulterior motive to extend the debate in a way that is not applicable?

 

But then you're okay with Lephys' evasive and argumentative debating style of avoiding the question for pages on end, unless they have some ulterior motive to extend the debate in a way that is not applicable?

 

And I'm still waiting for you Lephys to answer the question on why developers sexualise NPCs in video games. Even Anita Sarkeesian's videos will help you with this one.

 

 

To be honest I don't see the debate like that, I think Lephys has been very reasonable and forthright in responding to you?

 

But I have to say I also at times don't follow all the nuances of your debates with Lephys as it gets confusing..and I'm sure I'm not alone?

[Lephys]

Hiro now wants Lephy's opinion on the matter, but feels that he is dodging the question by over-analyzing the way Hiro phrased it.

I'm fairly certain he couldn't care less about my opinion on the matter. What he wants is more kindling for his fire. I could (and I've done this) say "yes, you're right. I hadn't thought of it that way. My bad.", and he'd say "HAH, you're just being sarcastic!", because he thinks I'm out to get him for some reason.

 

I'll not deny that I type a lot, but it's not as if I'm responding to ghosts here.

[Namutree]

 

 

Really? Because it seems like despite a relevant answer Hiro is still asking " why  developers sexualize NPC's"

 

I don't see the point in asking someone a questions when you know the answer yourself unless you have some ulterior motive to extend the debate in a way that is not applicable?

 

But then you're okay with Lephys' evasive and argumentative debating style of avoiding the question for pages on end, unless they have some ulterior motive to extend the debate in a way that is not applicable?

 

And I'm still waiting for you Lephys to answer the question on why developers sexualise NPCs in video games. Even Anita Sarkeesian's videos will help you with this one.

 

 

To be honest I don't see the debate like that, I think Lephys has been very reasonable and forthright in responding to you?

 

But I have to say I also at times don't follow all the nuances of your debates with Lephys as it gets confusing..and I'm sure I'm not alone?

 

It's hard to keep up with because there's a lot of text, and a lot of repetition.

[Namutree]

 

Hiro now wants Lephy's opinion on the matter, but feels that he is dodging the question by over-analyzing the way Hiro phrased it.

I'm fairly certain he couldn't care less about my opinion on the matter. What he wants is more kindling for his fire. I could (and I've done this) say "yes, you're right. I hadn't thought of it that way. My bad.", and he'd say "HAH, you're just being sarcastic!", because he thinks I'm out to get him for some reason.

 

I'll not deny that I type a lot, but it's not as if I'm responding to ghosts here.

 

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. I was just stating my guess at Hiro's point of view. Not saying he's right; not saying he's wrong.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Bioware's romance is straight out insulting. If you think this is a good standard to do than I do not know anymore. Bioware is not the Bioware they were when Baldurs Gate was made. A ton have changed in this company.  I would say even  JRPgs which are mostly aimed at teenagers  have better romance plots than Bioware and that by far. I would even go much farther and say that even low budget Hentai dating sim RPGs have better romance plots and options than Bioware had after Baldurs Gate. 

 

Also how do you know that obsidian is bad at romance or better writing romance? Again I am not saying they should do it as a side object because than it is just meaningless to begin with. But rather bring in into the story. Let it progress through the story and not through grinding your conversation options etc.  As for the fanbase does not want it. I think you are wrong. Again they do not want Bioware romance. They do not want to grind through conversations to get their little sex scene. That is not what romance should be in games in the first place. 

 

Obsidian tried romance in Alpha Protocol. It was unimpressive. When I said Bioware was better, I was referring to their better examples when they weren't pandering to a degenerate crowd of booty chasers. The reason not to tie the romance into the story is then you have Obsidian writing romance, and not improving the core experience.

 

Let the Modders handle romance. Think of Obsidian as ammonia and romance as bleach. 

 

 

Romances in Alpha Protocol had different goal than what romances in Bioware's games have, as they where meant to be sleazy romances from Bonds and other secret agent movies, in which they succeeded quite well, but of course that also means that they were quite shallow and meaningless for the plot and more titillation for player (which some will argue that is also big part of Bioware's romances).

 

Modders ability to produce good romance is much lower than game developer's as their ability to create needed plot interaction is much more restricted and it's rare occurrence that technically savvy modder team has good writer among them, although that has happened in past but usually only with popular games and even then you get one good mod per thousand poor mods. 

 

So I would not rise my hopes that there will ever be good romance mod for PoE.

[Lephys]

Keep in mind that pandering to demographics is a much higher priority for many publishers than it is for many developers. You can't really judge a major, published title purely for its creativity, since the publishers kinda go "make this sexy enough, or your funding gets cut."

 

I'm not saying developers can do no wrong. Just, that they can do no right if the publisher demands wrong.

 

"This game didn't have good writing" doesn't really prove the dev team is incapable of writing quality romance, since the factor of "you don't get to just do whatever you feel like, developer" is present.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

 

Bioware's romance is straight out insulting. If you think this is a good standard to do than I do not know anymore. Bioware is not the Bioware they were when Baldurs Gate was made. A ton have changed in this company.  I would say even  JRPgs which are mostly aimed at teenagers  have better romance plots than Bioware and that by far. I would even go much farther and say that even low budget Hentai dating sim RPGs have better romance plots and options than Bioware had after Baldurs Gate. 

 

Also how do you know that obsidian is bad at romance or better writing romance? Again I am not saying they should do it as a side object because than it is just meaningless to begin with. But rather bring in into the story. Let it progress through the story and not through grinding your conversation options etc.  As for the fanbase does not want it. I think you are wrong. Again they do not want Bioware romance. They do not want to grind through conversations to get their little sex scene. That is not what romance should be in games in the first place. 

 

Obsidian tried romance in Alpha Protocol. It was unimpressive. When I said Bioware was better, I was referring to their better examples when they weren't pandering to a degenerate crowd of booty chasers. The reason not to tie the romance into the story is then you have Obsidian writing romance, and not improving the core experience.

 

Let the Modders handle romance. Think of Obsidian as ammonia and romance as bleach. 

 

 

Romances in Alpha Protocol had different goal than what romances in Bioware's games have, as they where meant to be sleazy romances from Bonds and other secret agent movies, in which they succeeded quite well, but of course that also means that they were quite shallow and meaningless for the plot and more titillation for player (which some will argue that is also big part of Bioware's romances).

 

Modders ability to produce good romance is much lower than game developer's as their ability to create needed plot interaction is much more restricted and it's rare occurrence that technically savvy modder team has good writer among them, although that has happened in past but usually only with popular games and even then you get one good mod per thousand poor mods. 

 

So I would not rise my hopes that there will ever be good romance mod for PoE.

 

I think poe will be popular, so I think it'll get the romances. As for the quality; there is usually a dump of bad romance mods, but I know how to find the needles in the haystacks. If the pro-mancer doesn't care enough to figure out how to tell the quality mods from the junk mods; they probably didn't care much about romances anyway.

 

Also, some people like silly, degenerate, and badly written trash! Don't believe me? ME2/ME3 romances has plenty of fans, so not everyone has high standards.

[Namutree]

Keep in mind that pandering to demographics is a much higher priority for many publishers than it is for many developers. You can't really judge a major, published title purely for its creativity, since the publishers kinda go "make this sexy enough, or your funding gets cut."

 

I'm not saying developers can do no wrong. Just, that they can do no right if the publisher demands wrong.

 

"This game didn't have good writing" doesn't really prove the dev team is incapable of writing quality romance, since the factor of "you don't get to just do whatever you feel like, developer" is present.

While your general point is perfectly valid; it doesn't apply to the case of Alpha Protocol. Sega was not pushing Obsidian to make it's romances the way they were. I'm pretty sure Obsidian had enough creative freedom to decide much of how the romances turned out.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Negative. You've "explained" that your question "why do they have to sexualize...?" was, in actuality, "why do they sexualize...?", and that I'm somehow being ridiculous by acting as though there's a difference in the first place. Once you actually brought it to my attention that your only interest was in the answer to "why do they" instead of "why do they have to," I then answered your question. You don't like my answer. Too bad. Doesn't mean I didn't properly answer it. You asked me why other people do something. I told you as much as I know.

 

Different developers do it for different reasons, I'm sure. People are complex, and we aren't a hivemindd, so no, I couldn't tell you with certainty why all developers who've ever sexualized NPCs do so.

 

Furthermore, I'll say that it seems rather weird that the second an NPC isn't hideous, that NPC becomes "sexualized," as if they're somehow forcibly molded into an attractive being, unnaturally. I guess people in the world can just happen to be quite physically attractive, but people in a fictional world that we've created aren't allowed to be?

 

Again, I get that stuff like Isabela from DA2 is a bit overboard, perhaps. However, that's more because she just wasn't done very well, and not at all because she was sexy. Real people have a right to "sexualize" themselves, and so do fictional people who are modeled after realistic people.

 

It doesn't really matter that they're not humans. If they have very human-like physiologies, and they are susceptible to things like physical attraction in a way similar to humans, and they're capable of sexual reproduction, etc, then having characters who are sexually expressive and/or quite attractive is not at all out of bounds.

 

It's all about extents. If literally every person in the world is just the epitome of human stripper, and they're all just dancing around performing stripper dances, then the game's blatantly pandering to the real-life human who's playing it. That doesn't mean that having people scattered throughout the world who happen to also be appealing to the real-life human is somehow wrong or unnatural. 

 

Well you are being ridiculous for these last few pages by doing everything to avoid answering the question. 'Well I don't know, it could be this reason, or that reason, or something else.' And then you go on with exaggerations in your post to go on about 'hiveminds' and 'literally every person',  etc. Yep, just plain ridiculous with this evading that you're doing.

 

 

I didn't tell you what you didn't say. I only told you what I never claimed you said.  

 

LMAO. Again why would you tell me what you never claimed I said? If I never claimed I said something, then why go to the trouble of doing all this double speak to claim I never said what I never claimed I said? Oh god. Hilarious. Round and round we go, where Lephys stops, nobody knows.

 

 

 

In what way have I selectively quoted? You said I spent pages on an answer to your question, and I pointed out that I've only really spent a handful of sentences on the answer. Then, in reference to your claim that I was having problems answering, I simply pointed out that providing an answer you aren't happy with is not the same thing as struggling to answer. I answered just fine. You simply aren't satisfied with the answer I provided. Which is your prerogative, so I don't mind.

 

If a child asks his father "Are we going to Disneyworld today?", and the father says "Nope," does that mean he had trouble answering, or that he hasn't properly answered the question?

 

Furthermore, if you already knew the answer to the question you were asking me, then why didn't you simply state why they do it? Anyone would still be perfectly free to contest that explanation, or contribute to it, etc. That's kind of how a discussion works.

 

Or, we could all ask questions that aren't what we actually want to know, then mock people for supposedly being ignorant for not answering the question to our satisfaction. *shrug*. Maybe that's the best and most productive solution. 

 

See, you're just proving my point. I keep asking this simple question and you're still being evasive and after all this nonsense you've wrote you still haven't answered the question. Bringing up Disneyworld and anything else that isn't relevant just to avoid answering the question. Evasive and argumentative.

 

I'll ask again. Why do developers sexualise NPCs in Video games? Anita Sarkeesian's videos will help you with this answer. It's not a hard question to answer.

[Lephys]

I'm sure plenty of modders will give it a go. Thing is, character-writing is character-writing. I'd much rather the people who actually invented the characters and the world simply work in those characters' potential relationships than just have it thrown in as an afterthought. That's like appending fan-fiction into a book.

 

Modding is best left to standalone things. You know, "We put weather effects in, because they weren't in the initial game." Or mounts. Or altering shop prices. Or adding in side-quests that don't have much to do with the main story.

 

A good example would be, I'd much rather have the companions in-game, and have someone else mod in the Adventurer's Hall, than have the Adventurer's Hall in and have someone mod in story companions.

 

Also, ideally, romance wouldn't be a completely standalone thing from the story and the rest of the game, so I'd rather not rely on modders to produce something so passively a part of the world.

[Lephys]

While your general point is perfectly valid; it doesn't apply to the case of Alpha Protocol. Sega was not pushing Obsidian to make it's romances the way they were. I'm pretty sure Obsidian had enough creative freedom to decide much of how the romances turned out.

I have no idea exactly how much creative license Obsidian had with Alpha Protocol, hence the for-what-it's-worth observation of something that tends to occur with publishers. To publishers, the game is much more a product than it is an artwork. It's rare to find ones that don't have a pretty particular mold for a given game before they take on a dev team to make it.

 

I'll ask again. Why do developers sexualise NPCs in Video games? Anita Sarkeesian's videos will help you with this answer. It's not a hard question to answer.

You're going to have to be more specific. There are many reasons they do it. Depends on the NPC in question, and the developer in question, etc. You're right it's not a hard question to answer. It's a hard question to answer correctly, though. I suppose it's easy if you just stereotype developers, and mish-mash all sexy NPCs ever to exist in any video game.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Hiro now wants Lephy's opinion on the matter, but feels that he is dodging the question by over-analyzing the way Hiro phrased it.

I'm fairly certain he couldn't care less about my opinion on the matter. What he wants is more kindling for his fire. I could (and I've done this) say "yes, you're right. I hadn't thought of it that way. My bad.", and he'd say "HAH, you're just being sarcastic!", because he thinks I'm out to get him for some reason.

 

I'll not deny that I type a lot, but it's not as if I'm responding to ghosts here.

 

 

And there we have it folks. As I said in a previous post which has proven to be correct. "It's like you don't want to give me an answer as if that's going to prove me right in some way which couldn't be further from the truth". I was right all along. Lephys is simply refusing to answer the question because he see's it as something I can add more 'kindling to my fire' whatever the hell that means.

 

No, Lephys. As I said, it couldn't be further from the truth. But you keep believing those conspiracy theories. All this does is make discussions like this with you worthless if you refuse to answer simple questions because you see it as losing ground by admitting something so blatantly obvious.

 

Seriously, why not just admit why developers sexualise NPCs? Anita Sarkeesian has a whole heap of videos explaining why. You can even get tips from Anita and say this is why and give an answer. It isn't hard. You even said in a previous thread you don't discriminate on either side of the debate, so why would you be worried by giving some weird perceived ammunition or kindling to the other side of the debate now? 

Edited July 23, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

 

Bioware's romance is straight out insulting. If you think this is a good standard to do than I do not know anymore. Bioware is not the Bioware they were when Baldurs Gate was made. A ton have changed in this company.  I would say even  JRPgs which are mostly aimed at teenagers  have better romance plots than Bioware and that by far. I would even go much farther and say that even low budget Hentai dating sim RPGs have better romance plots and options than Bioware had after Baldurs Gate. 

 

Also how do you know that obsidian is bad at romance or better writing romance? Again I am not saying they should do it as a side object because than it is just meaningless to begin with. But rather bring in into the story. Let it progress through the story and not through grinding your conversation options etc.  As for the fanbase does not want it. I think you are wrong. Again they do not want Bioware romance. They do not want to grind through conversations to get their little sex scene. That is not what romance should be in games in the first place. 

 

Obsidian tried romance in Alpha Protocol. It was unimpressive. When I said Bioware was better, I was referring to their better examples when they weren't pandering to a degenerate crowd of booty chasers. The reason not to tie the romance into the story is then you have Obsidian writing romance, and not improving the core experience.

 

Let the Modders handle romance. Think of Obsidian as ammonia and romance as bleach. 

 

 

Romances in Alpha Protocol had different goal than what romances in Bioware's games have, as they where meant to be sleazy romances from Bonds and other secret agent movies, in which they succeeded quite well, but of course that also means that they were quite shallow and meaningless for the plot and more titillation for player (which some will argue that is also big part of Bioware's romances).

 

Modders ability to produce good romance is much lower than game developer's as their ability to create needed plot interaction is much more restricted and it's rare occurrence that technically savvy modder team has good writer among them, although that has happened in past but usually only with popular games and even then you get one good mod per thousand poor mods. 

 

So I would not rise my hopes that there will ever be good romance mod for PoE.

 

I think poe will be popular, so I think it'll get the romances. As for the quality; there is usually a dump of bad romance mods, but I know how to find the needles in the haystacks. If the pro-mancer doesn't care enough to figure out how to tell the quality mods from the junk mods; they probably didn't care much about romances anyway.

 

Also, some people like silly, degenerate, and badly written trash! Don't believe me? ME2/ME3 romances has plenty of fans, so not everyone has high standards.

 

 

Liking badly written trash don't make that trash any better written.

 

Going through dozens of poor quality mods to find one decent one, if there is even one, is very time consuming and some people don't have time to do that, but instead of that they buy game where vanilla version already offers decent quality romances, to fulfill their romance needs. 

[Namutree]

I'm sure plenty of modders will give it a go. Thing is, character-writing is character-writing. I'd much rather the people who actually invented the characters and the world simply work in those characters' potential relationships than just have it thrown in as an afterthought. That's like appending fan-fiction into a book.

 

Modding is best left to standalone things. You know, "We put weather effects in, because they weren't in the initial game." Or mounts. Or altering shop prices. Or adding in side-quests that don't have much to do with the main story.

 

A good example would be, I'd much rather have the companions in-game, and have someone else mod in the Adventurer's Hall, than have the Adventurer's Hall in and have someone mod in story companions.

 

Also, ideally, romance wouldn't be a completely standalone thing from the story and the rest of the game, so I'd rather not rely on modders to produce something so passively a part of the world.

I think the best mods are graphics and minor content additions like the gibberlings3 tweak pack. Though I don't use the mechanic changing mods unless they're making the game harder or making something absurdly under-powered viable.

 

I feel the best romance mods usually involve a new npc.

[Lephys]

Seriously, why not just admit why developers sexualise NPCs? Anita Sarkeesian has a whole heap of videos explaining why.

I can't admit something that I don't know for sure.

 

Also, Anita Sarkeesian has videos explaining why anyone who has ever, or will ever, wear the hat of a game developer, sexualizes NPCs? No developer could ever have, or ever in the future, do so for any reason other than what she suggests? I'll have to check that out when I get a chance.

 

I feel the best romance mods usually involve a new npc.

See, and that's why I'm not a fan of the idea, personally. As I said, trying to shove a whole 'nother aspect into existing characters is quite tricky to do, when they're written by someone else. Thus, you have to make a new character and shove it into a world written by someone else, which isn't as tricky, I suppose. But, if main purpose of that characters' existence as an addition to the game is to have a good romance, then I'd honestly say the quality of that romance is probably going to suffer from the lack of all that character's other aspects. They might have the best-written romance ever, but that doesn't help us if it's still as separated from the rest of the game as all the bad examples we've tossed about in this and other threads.

 

I mean, I get that some people just enjoy it (romance) more for being there than for being integrated to any degree of quality. And that's fine. They're not wrong to enjoy what they enjoy. But, everything else in the game has to be designed with some objectivity in mind, and I don't think romance is any different. I think having it "fit" is more important than just meeting a bunch of people's preferences. Not that having it fit is going to 100% miss their preferences. I think there's plenty of leeway there.

 

I dunno... I mean, people aren't always super aware of how their desires line up with reality. People will buy the cheapest version of a particular product, only to have it break and need replacement 10 times in one year, when they could've spent twice as much as the initial cost for something that lasts them the whole year. They don't want to spend that initial amount, at that moment in time, but then, they don't want to have to go through the trouble of replacing the thing 10 times, and ultimately spending all that money, either.

 

I think people exaggerate the rigidity of their preferences, oftentimes. Plenty of people who just like "trash" romance would still enjoy a quality one, methinks. They'd just rather have what they already know than what's uncertain.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Lephys