The Official Romance Thread

[Lephys]

"Why do they do X?" and "Why do they have to do X?" are two different questions. I don't really know what else to say here. o_o

[Hiro Protagonist II]

"Why do they do X?" and "Why do they have to do X?" are two different questions. I don't really know what else to say here. o_o

 

LMAO. As I said, You get hung up on ultra-technical specifics of words too much, man.

 

And do you think the below are the same?

 

Why do they have to do X?

Why do they have to do X?

 

Explain to me why those are the same. According to you, they're the same question and have the same meaning! As I said, you accented one of those words when it wasn't accented to make an argument. 

 

And you're still avoiding the question I asked on this page of this thread, why developers do anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs for romance options? Wondering how many more posts Lephys will avoid the question.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Namutree]

"Why do they do X?" and "Why do they have to do X?" are two different questions. I don't really know what else to say here. o_o

If you had just said this from the beginning your argument with Hiro probably would have been shorter.

[ashtonw]

Anyone not involved in this argument and yet able to keep up with it has my sincere admiration... Anyway...

 

I've changed my mind and decided I want Obsidian to include romances because I want to see how people deal with dating a godlike. You know, an otherwise normal person with flowers growing out on them and big floppy ears, or giant black things where the top of their head should be... Oh well, there's always fanfiction!

[Namutree]

Hiro, I'll try to answer your question.

 

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.

 

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.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Namutree

[Namutree]

Anyone not involved in this argument and yet able to keep up with it has my sincere admiration... Anyway...

 

I've changed my mind and decided I want Obsidian to include romances because I want to see how people deal with dating a godlike. You know, an otherwise normal person with flowers growing out on them and big floppy ears, or giant black things where the top of their head should be... Oh well, there's always fanfiction!

Fan fiction, and Mods!

[Lephys]

 

"Why do they do X?" and "Why do they have to do X?" are two different questions. I don't really know what else to say here. o_o

If you had just said this from the beginning your argument with Hiro probably would have been shorter.

 

...

 

Why do they have to do X?

Why do they have to do X?

 

Explain to me why those are the same. According to you, they're the same question and have the same meaning! As I said, you accented one of those words when it wasn't accented to make an argument. 

I point out two words that he's pretending aren't even a part of his initial question, and this is what he responds with. I accented a word to make an argument? No, I italicized two words to make it easier for his eyeballs to see "Oh, hey, those two words WERE in the original question!"

 

How hard is it to just say "Oh, okay, well, I meant why do they do it, not why are they required to do it."

 

All I did was answer a question appropriately. "My" argument with him would probably be shorter if he didn't act like perfectly reasonable responses were preposterous.

 

What is wrong with you people?

[BruceVC]

Hiro, I'll try to answer your question.

 

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.

 

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.

 

This is a good and accurate post highlighting why Romance enhances the RPG experience. Romance adds to the believability of the interaction with party members and makes them appear more human

 

I am surprised no one commented how insightful your comment was, good one

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I point out two words that he's pretending aren't even a part of his initial question, and this is what he responds with. I accented a word to make an argument? No, I italicized two words to make it easier for his eyeballs to see "Oh, hey, those two words WERE in the original question!"

 

How hard is it to just say "Oh, okay, well, I meant why do they do it, not why are they required to do it."

 

All I did was answer a question appropriately. "My" argument with him would probably be shorter if he didn't act like perfectly reasonable responses were preposterous.

 

What is wrong with you people?

 

 

You still can't even answer my questions and still arguing over words. And you didn't just italicized the word 'have' but also accented it to make an argument against it. You quote my post with the two examples I gave with 'why' and 'have' and still ignore it.

 

So you're saying both of the following are the same and have the same meaning? Even though different words have been italicized?  

 

Why do they have to do X?

Why do they have to do X?

 

Still waiting on that response you haven't given. Also waiting on that question I asked about why developers do anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs for romance options. 

[BruceVC]

 

I . Also waiting on that question I asked about why developers do anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs for romance options. 

 

 

Well that question has been answered, see the comment above from Namutree

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Well that question has been answered, see the comment above from Namutree

 

 

I'm waiting for Lephys to answer. Two Pages later and he's still dodging and weaving.

[Stun]

*sigh*... Once again, this "flaw" is common to anything in the entire game.

No. There are only a few features that simply cannot be done flawlessly in a fantasy RPG. Romance is one of them. Edited July 22, 2014 by Stun

[BruceVC]

 

*sigh*... Once again, this "flaw" is common to anything in the entire game.

No. There are only a few features that simply cannot be done well in a fantasy RPG. Romance is one of them.

 

 

Unfortunately its this type of intransigence that is unhelpful to this discussion. You cannot say Romance cannot ever be done well in a RPG because of your own view of past implementations of Romance. Its biased and subjective

 

Rather say something like " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past"

 

You can see the difference?

[Namutree]

 

 

*sigh*... Once again, this "flaw" is common to anything in the entire game.

No. There are only a few features that simply cannot be done well in a fantasy RPG. Romance is one of them.

 

 

Unfortunately its this type of intransigence that is unhelpful to this discussion. You cannot say Romance cannot ever be done well in a RPG because of your own view of past implementations of Romance. Its biased and subjective

 

Rather say something like " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past"

 

You can see the difference?

 

I just want to say that this comment seems like something Lephys would write. I don't mean that to be a compliment or an insult. I'm just saying.

 

I am also pretty confident of Stun's response to this. It'll probably go like this:

 

"Name me one example of a romance in a fantasy rpg that wasn't seriously flawed; you can't. If it could be done well; it would already have been. Even if it could be done well; Obsidian wouldn't be the group to figure it out." Am I right Stun? Is that close to your opinion?

Edited July 22, 2014 by Namutree

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

*sigh*... Once again, this "flaw" is common to anything in the entire game.

No. There are only a few features that simply cannot be done well in a fantasy RPG. Romance is one of them.

 

 

Unfortunately its this type of intransigence that is unhelpful to this discussion. You cannot say Romance cannot ever be done well in a RPG because of your own view of past implementations of Romance. Its biased and subjective

 

Rather say something like " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past"

 

You can see the difference?

 

I just want to say that this comment seems like something Lephys would write. I don't mean that to be a compliment or an insult. I'm just saying.

 

I am also pretty confident of Stun's response to this. It'll probably go like this:

 

"Name me one example of a romance in a fantasy rpg that wasn't seriously flawed; you can't. If it could be done well; it would already have been. Even if it could be done well; Obsidian wouldn't be the group to figure it out." Am I right Stun? Is that close to your opinion?

 

 

 

Yeah you probably right, lets see his response 

[Namutree]

 

 

 

 

*sigh*... Once again, this "flaw" is common to anything in the entire game.

No. There are only a few features that simply cannot be done well in a fantasy RPG. Romance is one of them.

 

 

Unfortunately its this type of intransigence that is unhelpful to this discussion. You cannot say Romance cannot ever be done well in a RPG because of your own view of past implementations of Romance. Its biased and subjective

 

Rather say something like " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past"

 

You can see the difference?

 

I just want to say that this comment seems like something Lephys would write. I don't mean that to be a compliment or an insult. I'm just saying.

 

I am also pretty confident of Stun's response to this. It'll probably go like this:

 

"Name me one example of a romance in a fantasy rpg that wasn't seriously flawed; you can't. If it could be done well; it would already have been. Even if it could be done well; Obsidian wouldn't be the group to figure it out." Am I right Stun? Is that close to your opinion?

 

 

 

Yeah you probably right, lets see his response 

 

Stun seems to follow a very consistent logic that I don't always agree with, but at least he knows what he doesn't want and why he doesn't want it. I respect that; too many gamers don't know what they want.

 

Stun seems to have thought out his, "development philosophy" if you will. Although, I may be wrong about all of this. If I am; he may make me look like a complete fool very soon with his response. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Rather say something like " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past"

 

You're using hyperbole again? The last time I called you out on a quote you did a 180 and turned around and said it was hyperbole. I take it this is just hyperbole as well or are you being serious?

[Stun]

Rather say something like " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past"

 

You can see the difference?

If I wanted to say that, Bruce, I would have. I didn't though, because it doesn't represent my stance.

 

My stance is that there are *reasons* why no one has ever succeeded in properly implementing romances in video games. And those reasons are fundamental, given the medium. They cannot be fixed. And many of those reasons have already been discussed on this thread. But, I will quickly repeat them now for clarification.

 

1) Because it is impossible to give the player any agency in a video game romance without turning the process into a standardized, predictable mini-game. (hey look! If choose this dialogue option, I will gain approval points with this person and I'm on my to Romance victory! etc.) Romance shouldn't be a 'game'.

2) Because if you don't give the player Agency, then what you have is a forced situation. And forcing the player into a romance is, by definition, an RPG flaw.

3) Because RPG Romances require either sex, or kissing, or hugging, or pronouncements of love. Problem: In a video game, these things make people cringe. I believe the psychological term is "Uncanny Valley".

4) Because if you don't include sex, or kissing, or hugging, or pronouncements of love, then you don't have a Romance. You have a Friendship. And that's not what Promancers are seeking.

5) Because some gamers are straight. Some are gay. Some are lesbian. Some are bisexual. Some are transsexual. Some are male. Some are female. You must represent them all. If you fail to represent them all, the ones who aren't represented will assume you have taken a social stance against their sexual orientation -Or- that you half-assed the implementation of Romances in the game. Which is another way of saying "your romance implementation is flawed".

6) Because successfully doing #5 necessitates significant developer resources be spent. Invariably, this means budgeting must be significantly lessened elsewhere, like on Character leveling dynamics, or combat system depth, or area design, or actual gameplay content outside of these romances. Ie. Stuff that's far more important in an RPG than friggin romances

Edited July 22, 2014 by Stun

[Namutree]

 

3) Because RPG Romances require either sex, or kissing, or hugging, or pronouncements of love. Problem: In a video game, these things make people cringe. I believe the psychological term is "Uncanny Valley".

 

This is a pretty dang good reason for romances to remain mod territory.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Rather say something like " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past"

 

You're using hyperbole again? The last time I called you out on a quote you did a 180 and turned around and said it was hyperbole. I take it this is just hyperbole as well or are you being serious?

 

 

Not at all young grasshopper, you are misunderstanding the definition of hyperbole.

 

Hyperbole is exaggeration, so if anything Stun is guilty of hyperbole when he said "There are only a few features that simply cannot be done flawlessly in a fantasy RPG. Romance is one of them"

 

You cannot say that Romance cannot ever  be done properly because in your personal view it hasn't been done properly in the past. Once again this is not based any science or facts and is entirely subjective

 

My point was Stun should rather say  " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past" as this is a more reasonable and logical view based on his own personal experience. But my comments have nothing to do with hyperbole

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Not at all young grasshopper, you are misunderstanding the definition of hyperbole.

 

Hyperbole is exaggeration, so if anything Stun is guilty of hyperbole when he said "There are only a few features that simply cannot be done flawlessly in a fantasy RPG. Romance is one of them"

 

You cannot say that Romance cannot ever  be done properly because in your personal view it hasn't been done properly in the past. Once again this is not based any science or facts and is entirely subjective

 

My point was Stun should rather say  " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past" as this is a more reasonable and logical view based on his own personal experience. But my comments have nothing to do with hyperbole

 

 

So you are being serious? Just want to make sure before your post gets blown out of the water. 

Edited July 22, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[BruceVC]

 

Not at all young grasshopper, you are misunderstanding the definition of hyperbole.

 

Hyperbole is exaggeration, so if anything Stun is guilty of hyperbole when he said "There are only a few features that simply cannot be done flawlessly in a fantasy RPG. Romance is one of them"

 

You cannot say that Romance cannot ever  be done properly because in your personal view it hasn't been done properly in the past. Once again this is not based any science or facts and is entirely subjective

 

My point was Stun should rather say  " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past" as this is a more reasonable and logical view based on his own personal experience. But my comments have nothing to do with hyperbole

 

 

So you are being serious? Just want to make sure before your post gets blown out of the water. 

 

 

Please blow away, I am being serious

[BruceVC]

 

Rather say something like " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past"

 

You can see the difference?

If I wanted to say that, Bruce, I would have. I didn't though, because it doesn't represent my stance.

 

My stance is that there are *reasons* why no one has ever succeeded in properly implementing romances in video games. And those reasons are fundamental, given the medium. They cannot be fixed. And many of those reasons have already been discussed on this thread. But, I will quickly repeat them now for clarification.

 

1) Because it is impossible to give the player any agency in a video game romance without turning the process into a standardized, predictable mini-game. (hey look! If choose this dialogue option, I will gain approval points with this person and I'm on my to Romance victory! etc.) Romance shouldn't be a 'game'.

2) Because if you don't give the player Agency, then what you have is a forced situation. And forcing the player into a romance is, by definition, an RPG flaw.

3) Because RPG Romances require either sex, or kissing, or hugging, or pronouncements of love. Problem: In a video game, these things make people cringe. I believe the psychological term is "Uncanny Valley".

4) Because if you don't include sex, or kissing, or hugging, or pronouncements of love, then you don't have a Romance. You have a Friendship. And that's not what Promancers are seeking.

5) Because some gamers are straight. Some are gay. Some are lesbian. Some are bisexual. Some are transsexual. Some are male. Some are female. You must represent them all. If you fail to represent them all, the ones who aren't represented will assume you have taken a social stance against their sexual orientation -Or- that you half-assed the implementation of Romances in the game. Which is another way of saying "your romance implementation is flawed".

6) Because successfully doing #5 necessitates significant developer resources be spent. Invariably, this means budgeting must be significantly lessened elsewhere, like on Character leveling dynamics, or combat system depth, or area design, or actual gameplay content outside of these romances. Ie. Stuff that's far more important in an RPG than friggin romances

 

 

Its funny because when you read this list a person may think " yeah, its obvious that Romance can never be done in a RPG" ....except for the fact that Bioware does Romance in a way that is more than acceptable for its legions of promancer fans

 

So once again your point is just based on your own view and is not the reality of people who enjoy Romance

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Please blow away, I am being serious

 

It already did and as such your post is exaggeration.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Stun]

Its funny because when you read this list a person may think " yeah, its obvious that Romance can never be done in a RPG" ....except for the fact that Bioware does Romance in a way that is more than acceptable for its legions of promancer fans

And Purina makes dog food that some dogs absolutely love to eat. What's your point? Bioware Promancers don't really count. They'll eagerly gobble up anything from Bioware that even *hints* at NPC e-affection. They *like* the unnatural mechanics behind the mini-game. Call me naïve, but I am operating under the assumption, since we're on the Obsidian forums, that the thread goers here have more refined tastes in RPGs than that.

 

You cannot say that Romance cannot ever  be done properly because in your personal view it hasn't been done properly in the past.

 

My point was Stun should rather say " I am not happy with any implementation of Romance in the past" as this is a more reasonable and logical view based on his own personal experience. But my comments have nothing to do with hyperbole

<sigh> Do I need to write this in crayon?

 

I. am. not. saying. that RPG Romances can't be done properly because they haven't been done properly in the past.

 

My argument is that RPG Romances cannot be done properly because it is fundamentally impossible to properly implement RPG romances in video games. There are too many inherent limitations in the medium to allow for it. There are too many budget sacrifices that must be made. The fan base is too diverse. etc.

 

Disagree with this if you want. I am fully aware of my own bias and that not everything I'm saying can be broken down to mathematical fact. But don't friggin put words in my mouth.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Stun