The Official Romance Thread

[PrimeJunta]

Do you think Viconia, Jaheria, and Aerie would really fight over Justin Bieber

The way they were written, hell yes they would.

[Valmy]

 

Of course friendship should always exist amongst the party. But you and I have had this debate before where we agreed on what would be acceptable Romance options based on the physiology of a potential Romance partner and I explained the Romance interest is normally based on humanoid creature. So no centaurs, broodmothers, beholders or similar creatures as they aren't humanoid so the intimacy part of Romance would be illogical.

 

But dwarfs, elves, orcs, drow, fairies these are acceptable Romance options

 

Also the main reason I don't like those aliens is that they are ugly, that's the reality. I have nothing against aliens as we know from the ME games where  there are loads of attractive aliens. So this is more a questions of aesthetics when it comes to humanoid aliens and can you Romance them

 

Oh so romance is all about looks eh?  Ugly aliens do not deserve love?  THIS JUST PROVES THE SHALLOWNESS OF THE PROMANCERS.

 

I may not be totally serious there.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Valmy

[BruceVC]

 

 

Of course friendship should always exist amongst the party. But you and I have had this debate before where we agreed on what would be acceptable Romance options based on the physiology of a potential Romance partner and I explained the Romance interest is normally based on humanoid creature. So no centaurs, broodmothers, beholders or similar creatures as they aren't humanoid so the intimacy part of Romance would be illogical.

 

But dwarfs, elves, orcs, drow, fairies these are acceptable Romance options

 

Also the main reason I don't like those aliens is that they are ugly, that's the reality. I have nothing against aliens as we know from the ME games where  there are loads of attractive aliens. So this is more a questions of aesthetics when it comes to humanoid aliens and can you Romance them

 

Oh so romance is all about looks eh?  Ugly aliens do not deserve love?  THIS JUST PROVES THE SHALLOWNESS OF THE PROMANCERS.

 

I may not be totally serious there.

 

 

[Lephys]

Oh, I don't disagree with the notion that maybe 100% of all video game romances over the past 25 years have been (intentionally) bad efforts to implement the concept itself, and that's why they all suck.

 

But I doubt the legions of promancers on BSN and elsewhere will agree with such a notion. And it doesn't change the point anyway. If the devs aren't even trying to do better, then how can we expect the next game's romances to be any different?

Honestly, I couldn't care less what any number of "promancers" agree or disagree with. All I care about is what is and what isn't. I think that, in general, there's no reason to abandon the very concept of the implementation of romance into a game that's largely about a vast array of character developments and interactions throughout a narrative. And I don't applaud the very design of the majority of attempts in the past couple of decades, much less the execution of each and every one. I look at it like any other "problem" (as in math problem sort of problem... not "there's something wrong simply because romance is gone, and we must REPAIR the problem by haphazardly injecting romance.")

 

Think of it like designing a building. I'm sure the first person to build a 50-foot tower found out pretty quickly that the foundation didn't hold up to heavy rain, or storm winds could break the frame, etc. Thus, people compensated, then found more circumstantial issues pertinent to the prolonged existence and functionality of the tower. Nowadays, we have a very good design for how to get a tower to do what we want it to do, and not do what we don't want it to do.

 

I honestly believe there are ways to design a romance implementation such that it plays nice with the rest of the story, and becomes no different from any other optional thing. Like the stronghold. If you hate settlement management, then you don't have to manage it. However, it's not just some minigame off in the woods. It has been stated that the stronghold will serve a purpose (as a setting/location) in the story, regardless. It will be a sort of "meeting place," etc. Crafting. You don't HAVE to craft, but ingredients don't just march around saying "CRAFT ME!" Maybe you just give them to other people, and pay to have goods crafted. Maybe you don't bother with collecting random crafting ingredients at all, even when it's convenient. "What, a chest with a dagger in it, AND 700 bundles of herbs? Eff that...". Cool. And yet, crafting is still a part of the world, and it could even affect quests/situations. Maybe sometimes the solution to a given problem could be to craft an item or resource you didn't already have, etc. It's possible it could affect something beyond just "you get to make items that you then wear/use."

 

You say if the devs aren't trying to do better, what makes me think this game will be any different? What makes you think that humans will never ever vary? If other dev teams haven't tried to do better, that doesn't mean anyone who could ever wish to develop a video game won't try to do better. That's like saying "we keep having corrupt mayors. Let's just abolish the city administration." Orrr, you could find someone who'll actually do the job properly.

 

While going from games like Doom to Dark Forces and the ability to look up and down have been great improvements in game development, it doesn't mean that all aspects of game development have improved over those years.

Actually, all raw aspects have improved. Some more than others.

 

Don't confuse ineffective implementations of design facets with a lack of advancement. Just because someone makes a 1st-person, turn-based tactical shooter, and 1st-person view makes the game worse instead of better, doesn't mean that technical element is flawed or primitive. It simply means that someone didn't put the blocks together very well.

 

I will agree that advancements in what large, well-funded groups of people actually decide to put together in video games hasn't advanced a whole lot in some categories.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Huh, no matter the topic it seems the same people start arguing with each other. Perhaps you guys should just "romance" each other and move on?

[Lephys]

Actually, there are several topics in which we've been in agreement.

 

Argument isn't negative, anyway. It's merely a discussion between two people with opposing stances. If no one ever argued, no one would ever understand each other's perspectives and ever see things other than how they already do.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Actually, all raw aspects have improved. Some more than others.

 

Don't confuse ineffective implementations of design facets with a lack of advancement. Just because someone makes a 1st-person, turn-based tactical shooter, and 1st-person view makes the game worse instead of better, doesn't mean that technical element is flawed or primitive. It simply means that someone didn't put the blocks together very well.

 

I will agree that advancements in what large, well-funded groups of people actually decide to put together in video games hasn't advanced a whole lot in some categories.

 

And what are all raw aspects? Is story telling a raw aspect? And why wouldn't ineffective implementations be a lack of advancement? If companies are implementing bad and ineffective implementations year after year, how is that advancement?

[Lephys]

And what are all raw aspects? Is story telling a raw aspect? And why wouldn't ineffective implementations be a lack of advancement? If companies are implementing bad and ineffective implementations year after year, how is that advancement?

The capability of code and engines to provide more versatile and effective tools for story telling is a raw aspect. Game development is a process, and an aspect of that process has nothing to do with the degree to which someone takes advantage of that.

 

Ineffective implementations are a lack of advancement. Just not for the process, and not for potential. Going back to the always-reliable turkey-cooking example, I can burn 1,000 turkeys, and that doesn't affect your ability to cook a turkey properly, or the capabilities of existing turkey-cooking technology/resources. Duke Nukem Forever just failed on an individual level. It didn't like... set game engines and development teams back throughout the world, or prevent anyone from NOT-making a game like that.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Of course friendship should always exist amongst the party. But you and I have had this debate before where we agreed on what would be acceptable Romance options based on the physiology of a potential Romance partner and I explained the Romance interest is normally based on humanoid creature. So no centaurs, broodmothers, beholders or similar creatures as they aren't humanoid so the intimacy part of Romance would be illogical.

 

But dwarfs, elves, orcs, drow, fairies these are acceptable Romance options

 

Also the main reason I don't like those aliens is that they are ugly, that's the reality. I have nothing against aliens as we know from the ME games where  there are loads of attractive aliens. So this is more a questions of aesthetics when it comes to humanoid aliens and can you Romance them

 

 

I didn't agree on what are acceptable romance options. It was you who admitted that it comes down to looks and having attractive NPCs in your party, which would probably be as far removed from realism as you can get. You mention it's all about realism to you but the 'realism' would be very different to what you'd expect. As I said, game developers anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs as well as sexualising Human NPCs. This is far from reality and becomes something else, only to pander to the player. 

 

But it's good that you mention orcs because here's some examples of 'realistic' orcs. Not sure what types of orcs you would want to romance though.

 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Don't confuse ineffective implementations of design facets with a lack of advancement.  

  

 

 

Ineffective implementations are a lack of advancement.

 

Okay Lephys. No problem.

[Lephys]

But it's good that you mention orcs because here's some examples of 'realistic' orcs. Not sure what types of orcs you would want to romance though.

Just out of curiosity, how does one come by the criteria for a completely fictional creature's realism?

 

I mean, I get what you're saying regarding the characters basically always conforming to real-life societal notions of human beauty, and that "realistically" a character wouldn't necessarily be restricted to such a thing (if they were, say, an orc). However, at the same time, I can't say that anything really dictates that an orc must, "realistically," look like any of those three images.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Just out of curiosity, how does one come by the criteria for a completely fictional creature's realism?

 

I mean, I get what you're saying regarding the characters basically always conforming to real-life societal notions of human beauty, and that "realistically" a character wouldn't necessarily be restricted to such a thing (if they were, say, an orc). However, at the same time, I can't say that anything really dictates that an orc must, "realistically," look like any of those three images.

 

 

Why do developers have to anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs? Does this sound like realism to you?

[Lephys]

Okay Lephys. No problem.

Ahh, so you agree with everything I said? Because, surely, you wouldn't be the kind of person to just rip something out of context so as to spin a given statement. That would be pretty juvenile, and far beneath you, a productive member of the forum community who reads things in full and responds accordingly.

[Lephys]

Why do developers have to anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs? Does this sound like realism to you?

Umm... they don't? I don't know how else to say "I get what you're saying regarding" that, or how to make it not apparently look like "The opposite of whatever you said!" in your eyes. o_o

 

The existence of humanoid characters, however, does not shatter realism.

 

In other words, it's silly to paint everything red (overboard). However, it would be wrong to then correct that by arbitrarily making sure nothing was ever painted red (underboard?).

Edited July 19, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Ahh, so you agree with everything I said? Because, surely, you wouldn't be the kind of person to just rip something out of context so as to spin a given statement. That would be pretty juvenile, and far beneath you, a productive member of the forum community who reads things in full and responds accordingly.

 

No I don't agree with you. I only see that you're arguing for arguing sake and making up stuff as you go along.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Umm... they don't? I don't know how else to say "I get what you're saying regarding" that, or how to make it not apparently look like "The opposite of whatever you said!" in your eyes. o_o

 

The existence of humanoid characters, however, does not shatter realism.

 

In other words, it's silly to paint everything red (overboard). However, it would be wrong to then correct that by arbitrarily making sure nothing was ever painted red (underboard?).

 

Yes they do. Developers do anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs for romance options. Otherwise players and promancers like Bruce wouldn't romance them if they were ugly. They have to be attractive for players to romance them, hence anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human npcs.

 

You're right in that The existence of humanoid characters, does not shatter realism if developers don't anthropomorphise and sexualise those NPCs. What shatters realism is always having those attractive non-human npcs because the developers are pandering to the players.

 

And I'm not painting everything red. If you bothered to read my posts, I said have a cross section of those races from butt ugly to attractive. It's the same with humans. You should also have attractive and non-attractive humans. Same with non-humans. Having entire non-human race in games anthropomorphised and sexualised seems far from reality as you can get.

[Stun]

Honestly, I couldn't care less what any number of "promancers" agree or disagree with. All I care about is what is and what isn't. I think that, in general, there's no reason to abandon the very concept of the implementation of romance into a game that's largely about a vast array of character developments and interactions throughout a narrative. And I don't applaud the very design of the majority of attempts in the past couple of decades, much less the execution of each and every one. I look at it like any other "problem" (as in math problem sort of problem... not "there's something wrong simply because romance is gone, and we must REPAIR the problem by haphazardly injecting romance.")

 

Think of it like designing a building. I'm sure the first person to build a 50-foot tower found out pretty quickly that the foundation didn't hold up to heavy rain, or storm winds could break the frame, etc. Thus, people compensated, then found more circumstantial issues pertinent to the prolonged existence and functionality of the tower. Nowadays, we have a very good design for how to get a tower to do what we want it to do, and not do what we don't want it to do.

 

I honestly believe there are ways to design a romance implementation such that it plays nice with the rest of the story, and becomes no different from any other optional thing. Like the stronghold. If you hate settlement management, then you don't have to manage it. However, it's not just some minigame off in the woods. It has been stated that the stronghold will serve a purpose (as a setting/location) in the story, regardless. It will be a sort of "meeting place," etc. Crafting. You don't HAVE to craft, but ingredients don't just march around saying "CRAFT ME!" Maybe you just give them to other people, and pay to have goods crafted. Maybe you don't bother with collecting random crafting ingredients at all, even when it's convenient. "What, a chest with a dagger in it, AND 700 bundles of herbs? Eff that...". Cool. And yet, crafting is still a part of the world, and it could even affect quests/situations. Maybe sometimes the solution to a given problem could be to craft an item or resource you didn't already have, etc. It's possible it could affect something beyond just "you get to make items that you then wear/use."

 

You say if the devs aren't trying to do better, what makes me think this game will be any different? What makes you think that humans will never ever vary? If other dev teams haven't tried to do better, that doesn't mean anyone who could ever wish to develop a video game won't try to do better. That's like saying "we keep having corrupt mayors. Let's just abolish the city administration." Orrr, you could find someone who'll actually do the job properly.

Oh Lephys I love you please come to my tent. Edited July 19, 2014 by Stun

[BruceVC]

 

Umm... they don't? I don't know how else to say "I get what you're saying regarding" that, or how to make it not apparently look like "The opposite of whatever you said!" in your eyes. o_o

 

The existence of humanoid characters, however, does not shatter realism.

 

In other words, it's silly to paint everything red (overboard). However, it would be wrong to then correct that by arbitrarily making sure nothing was ever painted red (underboard?).

 

Yes they do. Developers do anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs for romance options. Otherwise players and promancers like Bruce wouldn't romance them if they were ugly. They have to be attractive for players to romance them, hence anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human npcs.

 

You're right in that The existence of humanoid characters, does not shatter realism if developers don't anthropomorphise and sexualise those NPCs. What shatters realism is always having those attractive non-human npcs because the developers are pandering to the players.

 

And I'm not painting everything red. If you bothered to read my posts, I said have a cross section of those races from butt ugly to attractive. It's the same with humans. You should also have attractive and non-attractive humans. Same with non-humans. Having entire non-human race in games anthropomorphised and sexualised seems far from reality as you can get.

 

 

They say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

 

But we also need to be realistic, a Romance experience is also about the fact that for most promancers you have to identify with the person you are Romancing. Part of identifying is being "attracted" to your potential Romance partner. So those photos you posted of the orc's are the same as the photo's of the aliens, they are just not attractive. And I would be surprised that any promancer would consider them a prospective Romance partner?

 

That's what you seem to be missing, you keep being surprised or disappointed that the Dev's are pandering to players around NPC aesthetics. My point is its not pandering as part of the foundation of Romance is attraction, so in fact the Devs are doing the prudent thing around game design in this respect. We shouldn't be criticising them but acknowledging this as it makes perfect sense?

[ashtonw]

 

But it's good that you mention orcs because here's some examples of 'realistic' orcs. Not sure what types of orcs you would want to romance though.

 

If he has a good sense of humor I would date the one on the left.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

They say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

 

But we also need to be realistic, a Romance experience is also about the fact that for most promancers you have to identify with the person you are Romancing. Part of identifying is being "attracted" to your potential Romance partner. So those photos you posted of the orc's are the same as the photo's of the aliens, they are just not attractive. And I would be surprised that any promancer would consider them a prospective Romance partner?

 

That's what you seem to be missing, you keep being surprised or disappointed that the Dev's are pandering to players around NPC aesthetics. My point is its not pandering as part of the foundation of Romance is attraction, so in fact the Devs are doing the prudent thing around game design in this respect. We shouldn't be criticising them but acknowledging this as it makes perfect sense?

 

 

Attraction can be something else other than sexy physical characteristics. The NPC may not be physically attractive to you at first, but over time you develop an attraction for them. This often happens in real life. Who would have though?

 

And No, I'm neither surprised nor disappointed that developers are pandering to players fantasies. But nice to try make out that I was when I wasn't. I'm merely stating the obvious that developers do create unrealistic NPCs with anthropomorphising and sexualising those non-human NPCs to appeal to gamers to romance them. That's the unrealistic part that you think is realistic and based on realism.

[BruceVC]

 

 

They say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

 

But we also need to be realistic, a Romance experience is also about the fact that for most promancers you have to identify with the person you are Romancing. Part of identifying is being "attracted" to your potential Romance partner. So those photos you posted of the orc's are the same as the photo's of the aliens, they are just not attractive. And I would be surprised that any promancer would consider them a prospective Romance partner?

 

That's what you seem to be missing, you keep being surprised or disappointed that the Dev's are pandering to players around NPC aesthetics. My point is its not pandering as part of the foundation of Romance is attraction, so in fact the Devs are doing the prudent thing around game design in this respect. We shouldn't be criticising them but acknowledging this as it makes perfect sense?

 

 

Attraction can be something else other than sexy physical characteristics. The NPC may not be physically attractive to you at first, but over time you develop an attraction for them. This often happens in real life. Who would have though?

 

And No, I'm neither surprised nor disappointed that developers are pandering to players fantasies. But nice to try make out that I was when I wasn't. I'm merely stating the obvious that developers do create unrealistic NPCs with anthropomorphising and sexualising those non-human NPCs to appeal to gamers to romance them. That's the unrealistic part that you think is realistic and based on realism.

 

You are absolutely correct that attraction can grow in time but that applies to attraction amongst humans. But when  we are having a hypothetical discussion around whether the main character would develop Romance with a multi-tentacle alien I find it hard to believe under any circumstances

 

The concept of Beauty and the Beast is a sweet story but its idealistic and not relevant to modern Romance implementations. So once again I am dwelling in the world of realism with my Romance expectations and I find your ideas fanciful at best?

 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

You are absolutely correct that attraction can grow in time but that applies to attraction amongst humans. But when  we are having a hypothetical discussion around whether the main character would develop Romance with a multi-tentacle alien I find it hard to believe under any circumstances

 

The concept of Beauty and the Beast is a sweet story but its idealistic and not relevant to modern Romance implementations. So once again I am dwelling in the world of realism with my Romance expectations and I find your ideas fanciful at best?

 

I've never brought up multi-tentacled aliens Bruce. The non-humans including aliens I have brought up have been humanoid. You know arms, legs, torso, head, etc. No tentacles.

 

So your realism of romantic expectations are to have beautiful sexy females that you're attracted to. Anything you deem unattractive you'll avoid, because you know, 'realism'. LOL. Oh god. that's hilarious. I'm just wondering what you do consider 'unattractive'. Is it more than just what she looks like? eg. Do you see a female that's stunning but in a wheel chair 'unattractive' and therefore avoid the notion of going out with her?

[BruceVC]

 

You are absolutely correct that attraction can grow in time but that applies to attraction amongst humans. But when  we are having a hypothetical discussion around whether the main character would develop Romance with a multi-tentacle alien I find it hard to believe under any circumstances

 

The concept of Beauty and the Beast is a sweet story but its idealistic and not relevant to modern Romance implementations. So once again I am dwelling in the world of realism with my Romance expectations and I find your ideas fanciful at best?

 

I've never brought up multi-tentacled aliens Bruce. The non-humans including aliens I have brought up have been humanoid. You know arms, legs, torso, head, etc. No tentacles.

 

So your realism of romantic expectations are to have beautiful sexy females that you're attracted to. Anything you deem unattractive you'll avoid, because you know, 'realism'. LOL. Oh god. that's hilarious. I'm just wondering what you do consider 'unattractive'. Is it more than just what she looks like? eg. Do you see a female that's stunning but in a wheel chair 'unattractive' and therefore avoid the notion of going out with her?

 

 

Lets not confuse RL with Romance in a game, we are talking about a fantasy RPG here. So your question around someone in a wheelchair is inappropriate and irrelevant to the discussion

I am not saying you need beautiful females or good looking males, I am saying you have to identify with a person to Romance them. And part of the identification is an appeal on the aesthetic level. And your photos of aliens and orcs and then asking if these are suitable Romance candidates is not going to be acceptable because most people don't identify with them?

 

Its not complicated

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm just wondering what you do consider 'unattractive'.

Non-Caucasian women that don't **** on the first date, I'd assume. Who knows what goes on in Bruce's head.

Edited July 19, 2014 by KaineParker

[Stun]

I honestly believe there are ways to design a romance implementation such that it plays nice with the rest of the story, and becomes no different from any other optional thing.

Can it be done for free? As in, without any production costs or development time? Because that is one of the frequently cited inherent flaws with Romances in RPGs. They're expensive and time consuming to do well and a large segment of the gamer population simply does not like them, no matter how 'good' they are.

 

And the usual counter-argument of "they're OPTIONAL! Feel free to IGNORE THEM!" does not sit well with these people when they know that giant chunks of the resources for features they DO like must be diverted... to pay for the implementation of optional gimmicks... like Romances.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Stun