The Official Romance Thread

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

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.

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.

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 attributed to mathematical fact. But don't friggin put words in my mouth

 

 

Okay I must apologize. I did think you were saying " Romance cannot be done properly in a RPG and evidence of this is Romance implementations in the past " Strange, I'm not sure why I was seeing that, my bad

 

You are actually saying " Romance cannot be done properly  in a RPG as it is not possible to implement them properly"

 

And of course I also disagree with this because of the subjective definition of "properly"

 

All I'll say, which you won't agree with", is that  of course Romance can be done properly if you think of past examples like BG2, DA or Planescape? Now take those implementations of Romance and just enhance them based on several suggestions in this thread...and what do you get? Romance options that resonate with most but the most unromantic and emotionally impassive fans of RPG. Its a win win

Edited July 22, 2014 by BruceVC

[PieSnatcher]

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'.

I would say this is pretty much true in any type of PC/NPC relationship regardless of whether or not there is a romance aspect to it- it just gets all the more grating for the other reasons that you describe. Remember the KOTOR II influence system?

 

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.

Yep. Unless it is one sided wih a unique premise (Ravel had feelings for TNO? Kinda a quasi-romance. Kinda)

 

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".

Totally agree. My least favorite part of romances. But I don't think sex scenes are necessary nor do I think we must be subjected to a Padme/Anakin-esque pronouncement of love. I think we can have a maturely written story about two characters that experience a romantic relationship. I think it's possible.

 

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.

I guess that covers all the bases. As a promancer though, I do not want another rehash of a typical Bioware romance. Not all promancers want more of the same.

 

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".

I think it's fallacious to say that every possible relationship dynamic needs to be represented. I certainly won't be offended if the only relationships possible in a game aren't of my personal variety.

 

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

Totally agree. If you can't imagine any possible implementation of a romance in the game that will make any positive impact in how you enjoy it, then the fact is its development will very likely take resources away from something that will.

[prodigydancer]

Romance shouldn't be a 'game'.

 

Are you sure? I thought it was always a game. It certainly has its rules and you don't always win.

[BruceVC]

 

Romance shouldn't be a 'game'.

 

Are you sure? I thought it was always a game. It certainly has its rules and you don't always win.

 

 

Very true, in fact isn't the great game of love the greatest game of all?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

Romance shouldn't be a 'game'.

Are you sure? I thought it was always a game. It certainly has its rules and you don't always win.

Very true, in fact isn't the great game of love the greatest game of all?

No.

[Valmy]

 

 

Romance shouldn't be a 'game'.

 

Are you sure? I thought it was always a game. It certainly has its rules and you don't always win.

 

 

Very true, in fact isn't the great game of love the greatest game of all?

 

 

Not really.  It is a game you only have to win once.  What kind of game is it where the person who bats 1000 is just as much of a winner as the person who bats 100?  Pretty lame.

[Lephys]

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?

Already answered you. But, I'll do it again:

 

No. That isn't what I'm saying. Nor have I ever said that, or even hinted at it. I've also already pointed out and clarified what I DID say about 3,000 times now, so I don't think doing it again is going to help you any.

 

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.

Because they feel like it. Or because their publisher won't let them make the game if they don't do it, because sex sells, etc. Take your pick. I don't really care much why they do it, to be honest, because they don't have to do it. Not to the degree that they do, at the least.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Already answered you. But, I'll do it again:

 

No. That isn't what I'm saying. Nor have I ever said that, or even hinted at it. I've also already pointed out and clarified what I DID say about 3,000 times now, so I don't think doing it again is going to help you any.

  

 

Well you did italicise and accent one of the words in my question when it wasn't and then went on to make an argument against it. It's a good idea not to do such things as it takes things out of context. Maybe that's one of the reasons why you have a hard time understanding people. You take it on yourself to italicise / accent words when they haven't been and then make arguments against it. Easier to just answer the question than trying to get hung up on ultra-technical specifics of words, and then make an argument from it. And no, you haven't clarified about 3,000 times now. Oh wait, that's one of your never ending exaggerations that adds nothing to the discussion.

 

 

Because they feel like it. Or because their publisher won't let them make the game if they don't do it, because sex sells, etc. Take your pick. I don't really care much why they do it, to be honest, because they don't have to do it. Not to the degree that they do, at the least.

 

 

It's a simple question you have trouble answering when other people on this forum can answer it. You're the odd one out who's having trouble and I have to wonder if you're doing this just to be evasive. And you have been evasive over the last page. 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. Bruce and Namutree have given answers. Seriously I have no idea why it's so hard for you to give a simple answer 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. 

[Namutree]

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.

[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. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'm pretty sure the BG2 romances were real time events and not game time. You couldn't rest spam to trigger the next set of options. You had to play the game or leave it on and walk away from the computer for an hour or two for it to click over to the next set of romance options, so it appeared to progress through the story. But there was no set time / place in the game that those options came up, which made the options that came up awkward if you were somewhere in the game which would make romance out of place.

[Namutree]

 

 

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.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Obsidian should be Obsidian; not Bioware jr.

 

Yep. I brought something like this up in the DA:I thread. Should Obsidian follow in Bioware's footsteps with rpgs? A couple of people answered and didn't want Obsidian to be like Bioware.

[PieSnatcher]

The thing is I'd rather have them be meaningful and intended to be in the game or not at all. Despite falling on the promance side of the fence, I'm quite okay with their absence since that carries zero chance of them being a detriment to the game as a whole. I certainly don't plan on modding them into the game (I've never done an obsidian romance so I can't speak to their quality, but I still think they could write a better one than most mods. I dunno, maybe not)

[Hiro Protagonist II]

The thing is I'd rather have them be meaningful and intended to be in the game or not at all. Despite falling on the promance side of the fence, I'm quite okay with their absence since that carries zero chance of them being a detriment to the game as a whole. I certainly don't plan on modding them into the game (I've never done an obsidian romance so I can't speak to their quality, but I still think they could write a better one than most mods. I dunno, maybe not)

 

I don't understand this stance against romance mods by a lot of the promancers. You'll have promancers installing mods for anything else and yet when it comes to romance mods, the one thing (romances) they lobby developers for years for, they shy away from them. 

 

And you'll often hear arguments that Obsidian aren't great writers of romances. Well if Bioware's romances are the standard that Obsidian should aspire to  I'm sure there are good writers in the mod community who could be up to the level of Bioware.  

Edited July 23, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Namutree]

The thing is I'd rather have them be meaningful and intended to be in the game or not at all. Despite falling on the promance side of the fence, I'm quite okay with their absence since that carries zero chance of them being a detriment to the game as a whole. I certainly don't plan on modding them into the game (I've never done an obsidian romance so I can't speak to their quality, but I still think they could write a better one than most mods. I dunno, maybe not)

Good modders can tie the romance into the game. As for Obsidian doing a better job at writing the romance; that depends on quality of the mod. Some mod romances in BG2 were better than the Bioware romances; others were much worse. If adding dialog into poe isn't too hard; I might add one.

[Namutree]

 

The thing is I'd rather have them be meaningful and intended to be in the game or not at all. Despite falling on the promance side of the fence, I'm quite okay with their absence since that carries zero chance of them being a detriment to the game as a whole. I certainly don't plan on modding them into the game (I've never done an obsidian romance so I can't speak to their quality, but I still think they could write a better one than most mods. I dunno, maybe not)

 

I don't understand this stance against romance mods by a lot of the promancers. You'll have promancers installing mods for anything else and yet when it comes to romance mods, the one thing (romances) they lobby developers years for, they shy away from them. 

 

And you'll often hear arguments that Obsidian aren't great writers of romances. Well if Bioware's romances are the standard that Obsidian should aspire to  I'm sure there are good writers in the mod community who could be up to the level of Bioware.  

 

I think the anti-mod romances are due to the fact that many mod romances are incredibly juvenile and poorly suited to the game's writing style. The key to finding the good ones is to check the way the romance mod is advertised. Here is a tip for would be promancers:

 

If the author puts a big emphasis on humor; it is almost certain to be bad. If the modder is bringing attention to the humor; he likely isn't taking the lore or writing seriously enough.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Namutree

[Hiro Protagonist II]

As you said, some romance mods can be better than the one's in a game. Maybe something for the promancers to think about instead of dismissing all romance mods.

[Lephys]

Well you did italicise and accent one of the words in my question when it wasn't and then went on to make an argument against it. It's a good idea not to do such things as it takes things out of context.

You asked why developers have to sexualize. I said "They don't." You said "Yes, they do sexualize," as if I was saying they don't perform the act that you described. Thus, I clarified that I was saying they don't have to sexualize. I don't know how else to do that, other than to emphasize the two words whose existence you ignored to come up with your alternate meaning for my answer. Since this is all text and I can't emphasize those two words with my voice, I used italics. I didn't take anything out of context, or suggest that YOU were emphasizing those two words. What you were emphasizing wasn't the point. What you typed, as opposed to not-typing, was the point.

 

I'm 100% serious, here. In the future, how would you have me clarify that my response "They don't" didn't mean what you thought it meant? If you were me, what would you have said in that situation?

 

And no, you haven't clarified about 3,000 times now. Oh wait, that's one of your never ending exaggerations that adds nothing to the discussion.

I wasn't aware it was illegal to use blatant exaggerations. It adds nothing to the discussion? Isn't that an exaggeration, since it adds the fact that I've clarified plenty of times to the discussion. That's something. It's a good thing that isn't illegal, and I perfectly understand the idea you were trying to convey, despite the exaggeration. 

 

It's a simple question you have trouble answering when other people on this forum can answer it. You're the odd one out who's having trouble and I have to wonder if you're doing this just to be evasive.

I don't understand why my answers beget "Oh, you seem to be having difficulty there... can't give me an answer?" from you. Just like I don't comprehend how I'm supposed to be able to possess the knowledge of video game developers' brains. I answered the question as best I can. Unless someone's directly affiliated with those developers, I don't see how they can know why they did what they did. Or, a reason that I didn't list, at least.

 

Why did Peter Molyneux put hand-holding into Fable 3? Only Peter Molyneux knows.

 

And if people know something from other people's minds that I don't know, I'm not about to feel ashamed or inferior about that, despite your petty attempts at causing exactly that. "Other people can answer it." Awesome. I'm happy for those people. This is a discussion. We all share perspectives and information and reasoning, and thus we all gain access to the collective info there-in. This isn't a competition, Hiro. I'm beginning to really worry about you...

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

You asked why developers have to sexualize. I said "They don't." You said "Yes, they do sexualize," as if I was saying they don't perform the act that you described. Thus, I clarified that I was saying they don't have to sexualize. I don't know how else to do that, other than to emphasize the two words whose existence you ignored to come up with your alternate meaning for my answer. Since this is all text and I can't emphasize those two words with my voice, I used italics. I didn't take anything out of context, or suggest that YOU were emphasizing those two words. What you were emphasizing wasn't the point. What you typed, as opposed to not-typing, was the point.

 

I'm 100% serious, here. In the future, how would you have me clarify that my response "They don't" didn't mean what you thought it meant? If you were me, what would you have said in that situation?

 

I think the problem with my question is you didn't read it properly or you're getting caught up on the 'ultra-technical specifics of words too much' and then forming an argument against my question instead of just answering the question. I never asked "Do they they sexualise' or 'If they sexualise', I asked 'WHY they sexualise'. You're ignoring the why, the reasons 'why' they do it. And then you later confirmed you italicised / accented the 'have' and ignoring the 'why' which is how you based your argument. As I said, the question wasn't difficult to answer as it was a rhetorical question. No need to go into 'ultra-technical specifics of words too much' and then argue against it.

 

 

I wasn't aware it was illegal to use blatant exaggerations. It adds nothing to the discussion? Isn't that an exaggeration, since it adds the fact that I've clarified plenty of times to the discussion. That's something. It's a good thing that isn't illegal, and I perfectly understand the idea you were trying to convey, despite the exaggeration. 

 

I never said it was illegal. No idea why you're brining up legalities into this. And no, it adds nothing to the discussion. How does saying you've nearly explained 3000 times add anything? It doesn't. It'd be better to leave the exaggerations and discuss the points without them.

 

 

I don't understand why my answers beget "Oh, you seem to be having difficulty there... can't give me an answer?" from you. Just like I don't comprehend how I'm supposed to be able to possess the knowledge of video game developers' brains. I answered the question as best I can. Unless someone's directly affiliated with those developers, I don't see how they can know why they did what they did. Or, a reason that I didn't list, at least.

 

Why did Peter Molyneux put hand-holding into Fable 3? Only Peter Molyneux knows.

 

And if people know something from other people's minds that I don't know, I'm not about to feel ashamed or inferior about that, despite your petty attempts at causing exactly that. "Other people can answer it." Awesome. I'm happy for those people. This is a discussion. We all share perspectives and information and reasoning, and thus we all gain access to the collective info there-in. This isn't a competition, Hiro. I'm beginning to really worry about you...

 

As I said. Other people don't have a problem and have answered the question without having to spend pages and pages on it, it's only you. And we're not discussing Peter Molyneux or Fable, we're discussing the sexualisation of NPCs. Even 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.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

As you said, some romance mods can be better than the one's in a game. Maybe something for the promancers to think about instead of dismissing all romance mods.

That Solaufein mod for BG2 seems to have quite a following. How much of it is because of romance and how much is due to having a NPC fighter/mage is unknown, but it seems to get a lot of attention.

[Namutree]

 

As you said, some romance mods can be better than the one's in a game. Maybe something for the promancers to think about instead of dismissing all romance mods.

That Solaufein mod for BG2 seems to have quite a following. How much of it is because of romance and how much is due to having a NPC fighter/mage is unknown, but it seems to get a lot of attention.

 

It's the romance mainly. A fighter/mage npc isn't a big deal. Another reason it is so popular is that many people really loved the drow city, and adding Solaufein is a way of expanding that part of the game's influence.

[PieSnatcher]

As you said, some romance mods can be better than the one's in a game. Maybe something for the promancers to think about instead of dismissing all romance mods.

Fair enough. I never thought of myself as overly dismissive, but I guess you're right. Still, as much as I've posted on the issue recently, I doubt I'll care enough about romance options to seek out a mod for it in PoE. Time will tell!

[Lephys]

I think the problem with my question is you didn't read it properly or you're getting caught up on the 'ultra-technical specifics of words too much' and then forming an argument against my question instead of just answering the question. I never asked "Do they they sexualise' or 'If they sexualise', I asked 'WHY they sexualise'. You're ignoring the why, the reasons 'why' they do it. And then you later confirmed you italicised / accented the 'have' and ignoring the 'why' which is how you based your argument.

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.

 

I never said it was illegal. No idea why you're brining up legalities into this. And no, it adds nothing to the discussion. How does saying you've nearly explained 3000 times add anything? It doesn't. It'd be better to leave the exaggerations and discuss the points without them.

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.

 

As I said. Other people don't have a problem and have answered the question without having to spend pages and pages on it, it's only you.

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.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Lephys