The Official Romance Thread

[BruceVC]

Hiro I'm going to clear this up for you so there is doubt. I am going to be methodical in my post and try not to skip any details. You can thank me later for learning something new

 

I am a feminist, so the first thing to agree is "what is a feminist". A feminist is someone who believes in feminism. So what is feminism?

 

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism?q=feminism

 

Feminism is where a person believes that the sexes, male and female, are equal and should be treated equally in society. This includes considerations like

 

• If a male can vote, a female should be able to vote.
• if male gets a certain salary doing a job then a female should get the same salary doing the same job
• If a male can go to certain bar or establishment then a female can also go to that same bar

I can give more examples but I think you get my point

 

 

 

A feminist does not mean

 

• You cannot think a women is attractive in chainmail bikini armour
• That because I try to pickup a girl in a bar I am not a feminist
• Because I am attracted to  a certain look, like Isabela, then I am betraying the principles of feminism
• Because I like Romance in RPG as part of a more immersive RP experience I can't say I'm a feminist
• The sexualisation of characters  does not  mean that a feminist cannot like how these characters look and say they are attractive

 

In a RPG you could argue, but I wouldn't, that if all the female NPC's are represented a certain way then is not a fair  representation compared to how the males are represented. But this would be a strange criticism as many people think the male characters are also clichéd and stereotypical

 

Now if I supported and approved of  the objectification of women in RPG I would be betraying my feminist principles, but as I've explained many times that's not what I do or think

 

Isabella is a hottie, but that's not the only reason I Romanced her. I enjoyed her story and she played an invaluable part in combat.

 

I hope this explains my motives where I say " I am a feminist but I enjoy Romance and I can appreciate the beauty of a women"

[Zwiebelchen]

This is just silly. Hiro, I gave you perfectly valid examples of why dressing a character as sexy doesn't have to be objectification or sexism only because a male did it - simply because females also do it.

If you want to discuss semantics here and not the actual point, then fine. But I'm out.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Zwiebelchen

[Namutree]

So Zwiebelchen... Do you want poe2/poe3 to have romances?

 

 

 

If so, why? If not, why? 

Edited July 24, 2014 by Namutree

[Hiro Protagonist II]

This is just silly. Hiro, I gave you perfectly valid examples of why dressing a character as sexy doesn't have to be objectification or sexism only because a male did it - simply because females also do it.

If you want to discuss semantics here and not the actual point, then fine. But I'm out.

 

I'm not discussing semantics. How is: Whoever makes the claims, the onus is on them to prove that claim semantics?  It's not semantics at all. And you still haven't proved your claim.

 

Okay byeeee.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Zwiebelchen]

 

This is just silly. I gave you perfectly valid examples of why dressing a character as sexy doesn't have to be objectification or sexism only because a male did it - simply because females also do it.

If you want to discuss semantics here and not the actual point, then fine. But I'm out.

So... Do you want poe2/poe3 to have romances?

 

If so, why? If not, why? 

 

 

Uhh, errr... I haven't thought about that yet, really.

 

I'll take the easy approach here and say: if it's well written, then yes, if not, then no.

If you need romance for the sake of having one, then it should clearly be left out. If you want to create a romance plot because it matches and enriches the character, then I'm perfectly fine with it.

 

I enjoyed some of the romance options in Mass Effect. But I also disliked them at the same time. I felt that some romance options in ME were there only because "we have to include a same-gender romance option or people will be upset".

The more I think about it, the more I like the reasoning of Obsidian behind not including romances in PoE.

 

If you can't write a romance the way you would, simply because of fear of the media backlash, it's better not including it at all. Fans will make romance mods anyway, so sooner or later, the content is there.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Zwiebelchen

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Hiro I'm going to clear this up for you so there is doubt. I am going to be methodical in my post and try not to skip any details. You can thank me later for learning something new

 

I am a feminist, so the first thing to agree is "what is a feminist". A feminist is someone who believes in feminism. So what is feminism?

 

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism?q=feminism

 

Feminism is where a person believes that the sexes, male and female, are equal and should be treated equally in society. This includes considerations like

 

• If a male can vote, a female should be able to vote.
• if male gets a certain salary doing a job then a female should get the same salary doing the same job
• If a male can go to certain bar or establishment then a female can also go to that same bar

I can give more examples but I think you get my point

 

 

 

A feminist does not mean

 

• You cannot think a women is attractive in chainmail bikini armour
• That because I try to pickup a girl in a bar I am not a feminist
• Because I am attracted to  a certain look, like Isabela, then I am betraying the principles of feminism
• Because I like Romance in RPG as part of a more immersive RP experience I can't say I'm a feminist
• The sexualisation of characters  does not  mean that a feminist cannot like how these characters look and say they are attractive

 

In a RPG you could argue, but I wouldn't, that if all the female NPC's are represented a certain way then is not a fair  representation compared to how the males are represented. But this would be a strange criticism as many people think the male characters are also clichéd and stereotypical

 

Now if I supported and approved of  the objectification of women in RPG I would be betraying my feminist principles, but as I've explained many times that's not what I do or think

 

Isabella is a hottie, but that's not the only reason I Romanced her. I enjoyed her story and she played an invaluable part in combat.

 

I hope this explains my motives where I say " I am a feminist but I enjoy Romance and I can appreciate the beauty of a women"

 

Bruce, instead of going on about what is and what isn't feminism. How about answering my post like you said you would. Here's the full post.

 

 

Bruce, you've described yourself as a feminist but I'm having a hard time reconciling how as a feminist you're okay with the sexualisation of NPCs in crps. Even more, you say this adds 'realism'. I'm guessing 'realism' in the sense of treating subject matter that presents a description of everyday life.

 

Some points and this post is going to be quite long. And since you're heterosexual and are looking at female NPCs, I'll just focus on female NPCs .

 

Games ask us to play with them. Now that may seem obvious, but bear with me. Game developers set up a series of rules and within those rules we are invited to test the mechanics to see what we can do, and what we can’t do. We are encouraged to experiment with how the system will react or respond to our inputs and discover which of our actions are permitted and which are not. The play comes from figuring out the boundaries and possibilities within the gamespace. So the developers have set up a series of possible scenarios involving sexualised female characters. Players are then invited to explore and exploit those situations during their play-through. The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that purpose.

 

Interactive media has the potential to be a perfect medium to genuinely explore sex and sexuality. But that’s not what’s happening here. These interactions set up a transactional relationship in which women (NPCs) are reduced to a base sexual function. It frames female sexuality as something that belongs to others, rather than as something NPCs enjoy for themselves. I’d argue that none of this is really about sex at all, certainly nothing resembling authentic consensual intimacy; publishers and developers are instead selling a particular fantasy about male power centered on the control of women - at least in this example of female NPCs.

 

This then leads into the dehumanisation caused by objectification, inevitably leads us to the concept of disposability, which is defined as “something designed for or capable of being thrown away after being used or used up”. Especially when you have multiple female sexualised NPCs that you can go from one to the other.

 

Which means that these female NPCs fulfil basically the same function as items the player can purchase from stores. This is a textbook example of another component of objectification referred to as interchangeability. The player treats the 'object' as interchangeable with other 'objects' of the same type (eg. Female romanceable NPCs), and/or with objects of other types.” Since these NPCs serve an identical or nearly identical “resource” function within the game space.

 

So what we have here is sexual objectification. The practice of treating or representing a female NPC as a thing or mere instrument to be used for another’s sexual purposes. Sexually objectified NPCs are valued primarily for their bodies, or body parts, which are presented as existing for the pleasure and gratification of others. You even admitted that you need to be physically attracted before a romance can start.

 

This doesn't sound like realism to me. And since you call yourself a feminist, you're okay with sexualised NPCs in video games.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Namutree]

 

Uhh, errr... I haven't thought about that yet, really.

 

I'll take the easy approach here and say: if it's well written, then yes, if not, then no.

If you need romance for the sake of having one, then it should clearly be left out. If you want to create a romance plot because it matches and enriches the character, then I'm perfectly fine with it.

 

I enjoyed some of the romance options in Mass Effect. But I also disliked them at the same time. I felt that some romance options in ME were there only because "we have to include a same-gender romance option or people will be upset".

The more I think about it, the more I like the reasoning of Obsidian behind not including romances in PoE.

 

If you can't write a romance the way you would, simply because of fear of the media backlash, it's better not including it at all. Fans will make romance mods anyway, so sooner or later, the content is there.

 

Which same gender romances do you feel were added to please SJWs? 

[Zwiebelchen]

 

Hiro I'm going to clear this up for you so there is doubt. I am going to be methodical in my post and try not to skip any details. You can thank me later for learning something new

 

I am a feminist, so the first thing to agree is "what is a feminist". A feminist is someone who believes in feminism. So what is feminism?

 

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism?q=feminism

 

Feminism is where a person believes that the sexes, male and female, are equal and should be treated equally in society. This includes considerations like

 

• If a male can vote, a female should be able to vote.
• if male gets a certain salary doing a job then a female should get the same salary doing the same job
• If a male can go to certain bar or establishment then a female can also go to that same bar

I can give more examples but I think you get my point

 

 

 

A feminist does not mean

 

• You cannot think a women is attractive in chainmail bikini armour
• That because I try to pickup a girl in a bar I am not a feminist
• Because I am attracted to  a certain look, like Isabela, then I am betraying the principles of feminism
• Because I like Romance in RPG as part of a more immersive RP experience I can't say I'm a feminist
• The sexualisation of characters  does not  mean that a feminist cannot like how these characters look and say they are attractive

 

In a RPG you could argue, but I wouldn't, that if all the female NPC's are represented a certain way then is not a fair  representation compared to how the males are represented. But this would be a strange criticism as many people think the male characters are also clichéd and stereotypical

 

Now if I supported and approved of  the objectification of women in RPG I would be betraying my feminist principles, but as I've explained many times that's not what I do or think

 

Isabella is a hottie, but that's not the only reason I Romanced her. I enjoyed her story and she played an invaluable part in combat.

 

I hope this explains my motives where I say " I am a feminist but I enjoy Romance and I can appreciate the beauty of a women"

 

Bruce, instead of going on about what is and what isn't feminism. How about  answering my post like you said you would. Here's the full post.

 

 

Bruce, you've described yourself as a feminist but I'm having a hard time reconciling how as a feminist you're okay with the sexualisation of NPCs in crps. Even more, you say this adds 'realism'. I'm guessing 'realism' in the sense of treating subject matter that presents a description of everyday life.

 

Some points and this post is going to be quite long. And since you're heterosexual and are looking at female NPCs, I'll just focus on female NPCs .

 

Games ask us to play with them. Now that may seem obvious, but bear with me. Game developers set up a series of rules and within those rules we are invited to test the mechanics to see what we can do, and what we can’t do. We are encouraged to experiment with how the system will react or respond to our inputs and discover which of our actions are permitted and which are not. The play comes from figuring out the boundaries and possibilities within the gamespace. So the developers have set up a series of possible scenarios involving sexualised female characters. Players are then invited to explore and exploit those situations during their play-through. The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that purpose.

 

Interactive media has the potential to be a perfect medium to genuinely explore sex and sexuality. But that’s not what’s happening here. These interactions set up a transactional relationship in which women (NPCs) are reduced to a base sexual function. It frames female sexuality as something that belongs to others, rather than as something NPCs enjoy for themselves. I’d argue that none of this is really about sex at all, certainly nothing resembling authentic consensual intimacy; publishers and developers are instead selling a particular fantasy about male power centered on the control of women - at least in this example of female NPCs.

 

This then leads into the dehumanisation caused by objectification, inevitably leads us to the concept of disposability, which is defined as “something designed for or capable of being thrown away after being used or used up”. Especially when you have multiple female sexualised NPCs that you can go from one to the other.

 

Which means that these female NPCs fulfil basically the same function as items the player can purchase from stores. This is a textbook example of another component of objectification referred to as interchangeability. The player treats the 'object' as interchangeable with other 'objects' of the same type (eg. Female romanceable NPCs), and/or with objects of other types.” Since these NPCs serve an identical or nearly identical “resource” function within the game space.

 

So what we have here is sexual objectification. The practice of treating or representing a female NPC as a thing or mere instrument to be used for another’s sexual purposes. Sexually objectified NPCs are valued primarily for their bodies, or body parts, which are presented as existing for the pleasure and gratification of others. You even admitted that you need to be physically attracted before a romance can start.

 

This doesn't sound like realism to me. And since you call yourself a feminist, you're okay with sexualised NPCs in video games.

 

 

This is just total bull****. NPCs are and always are just a projection of the actual idea behind them. This is true with all media, even in literature. You could call basicly every writer, male or female, discribing a female side character as a sexist that objectifies said character, simply because that character can never have a full-fledged background for reasons of consistent writing.

A game as a highly interactive medium just can not create perfectly human side characters simply because even books can't do it. After all, NPC behaviour is just a collection of algorithms and scripts with written dialogues from a story-writer. There can and never will be a real interaction between the player and the NPC. But that isn't the point of an NPC.

NPCs are meant to be a projection of the general idea behind it. Writing always creates a void that the players imagination fills out. This is why games are fun. The experience will always be different depending on how your mind fills out this void.

 

This is why NPCs can not be objectified, because they are, by definition, just objects. However, this does not mean they are perceived as objects. A well-written romance story from a skilled writer allows players to fill the gap between an object and a real person with his imagination.

 

An NPC will only be as objectified as your imagination allows it to be. If you see a female character as objectified because she wears a skimpy outfit, than it's your imagination that objectifies her because of that. Another player might see her as a women that likes to dress that way and feels it's fitting her character. There is no universal truth about if a female character is objectified or not just by the amount of clothing she is wearing. It's how you perceive that character that matters.

 

Basicly, what that means is that you probably objectify these characters a lot more than someone who hasn't got the same perspective as you.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

This is just total bull****. NPCs are and always are just a projection of the actual idea behind them. This is true with all media, even in literature. You could call basicly every writer, male or female, discribing a female side character as a sexist that objectifies said character, simply because that character can never have a full-fledged background for reasons of consistent writing.

A game as a highly interactive medium just can not create perfectly human side characters simply because even books can't do it. After all, NPC behaviour is just a collection of algorithms and scripts with written dialogues from a story-writer. There can and never will be a real interaction between the player and the NPC. But that isn't the point of an NPC.

NPCs are meant to be a projection of the general idea behind it. Writing always creates a void that the players imagination fills out. This is why games are fun. The experience will always be different depending on how your mind fills out this void.

 

This is why NPCs can not be objectified, because they are, by definition, just objects. However, this does not mean they are perceived as objects. A well-written romance story from a skilled writer allows players to fill the gap between an object and a real person with his imagination.

 

An NPC will only be as objectified as your imagination allows it to be. If you see a female character as objectified because she wears a skimpy outfit, than it's your imagination that objectifies her because of that. Another player might see her as a women that likes to dress that way and feels it's fitting her character. There is no universal truth about if a female character is objectified or not just by the amount of clothing she is wearing. It's how you perceive that character that matters.

 

Basicly, what that means is that you probably objectify these characters a lot more than someone who hasn't got the same perspective as you.

 

Zwiebelchen, I thought you were out of here. Welcome back.

 

Even books can't do it? I didn't realise you could choose what you did in a book? Or are you talking about choose your own adventure books? Never seen romances in those types of books. Faulty analogy. That's why I said discussing other mediums is just plain bad.

 

But you keep believing I have feminist views.

[Namutree]

 

Zwiebelchen, I thought you were out of here. Welcome back.

 

Hah!

[Zwiebelchen]

 

This is just total bull****. NPCs are and always are just a projection of the actual idea behind them. This is true with all media, even in literature. You could call basicly every writer, male or female, discribing a female side character as a sexist that objectifies said character, simply because that character can never have a full-fledged background for reasons of consistent writing.

A game as a highly interactive medium just can not create perfectly human side characters simply because even books can't do it. After all, NPC behaviour is just a collection of algorithms and scripts with written dialogues from a story-writer. There can and never will be a real interaction between the player and the NPC. But that isn't the point of an NPC.

NPCs are meant to be a projection of the general idea behind it. Writing always creates a void that the players imagination fills out. This is why games are fun. The experience will always be different depending on how your mind fills out this void.

 

This is why NPCs can not be objectified, because they are, by definition, just objects. However, this does not mean they are perceived as objects. A well-written romance story from a skilled writer allows players to fill the gap between an object and a real person with his imagination.

 

An NPC will only be as objectified as your imagination allows it to be. If you see a female character as objectified because she wears a skimpy outfit, than it's your imagination that objectifies her because of that. Another player might see her as a women that likes to dress that way and feels it's fitting her character. There is no universal truth about if a female character is objectified or not just by the amount of clothing she is wearing. It's how you perceive that character that matters.

 

Basicly, what that means is that you probably objectify these characters a lot more than someone who hasn't got the same perspective as you.

 

Zwiebelchen, I thought you were out of here. Welcome back.

 

Even books can't do it? I didn't realise you could choose what you did in a book? Or are you talking about choose your own adventure books? Never seen romances in those types of books. Faulty analogy. That's why I said discussing other mediums is just plain bad.

 

But you keep believing I have feminist views.

 

 

As always, you pick out the one statement that you like and totally ignore everything else.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Zwiebelchen

[Hiro Protagonist II]

As always, you pick out the one statement that you like and totally ignore everything else.

 

Well I did say bringing up other media like movies, tv shows, comic books ,etc won't help people's arguments. If anything, it destroys their argument. This is about video games. Leave the rest for the off topic forum. We don't want to talk about movies or books. It's off topic.

[Nonek]

If the current promancer argument is that you want Obsidian to introduce incompetent, unmotivated, idiot slave caricatures (like Bioware's Isabella) who are poorly designed and written, then I have to say that I am totally opposed to the inclusion of romance on those terms. Obsidian writes fantastic multifaceted, interesting and strong female characters, whom have logical reasons for pursuing their goals and joining the protagonist in his endeavours, I wouldn't want to strip all that so the lowest common denominator can thrill over the pixelated breasts of a half dressed simpleton.

 

Personally I would choose better examples and content, and rather than Bioware i'd use the obviously more nuanced and pertinent examples of Obsidian itself.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Nonek

[Namutree]

If the current promancer argument is that you want Obsidian to introduce incompetent, unmotivated, idiot slave caricatures (like Bioware's Isabella) who are poorly designed and written, then I have to say that I am totally opposed to the inclusion of romance on those terms. Obsidian writes fantastic multifaceted, interesting and strong female characters, whom have logical reasons for pursuing their goals and joining the protagonist in his endeavours, I wouldn't want to strip all that so the lowest common denominator can thrill over the pixelated breasts of a half dressed simpleton.

 

Personally I would choose better examples and content, and rather than Bioware i'd use the obviously more nuanced and pertinent examples of Obsidian itself.

Well Bioware isn't always bad. The Sky romance of Jade Empire is good IMO.

[gamerdude130]

Ohh **** are we really having a feminist discussion on a pillars of Eternity thread?

Edited July 24, 2014 by gamerdude130

[BruceVC]

Ohh **** are we really having a feminist discussion on a pillars of Eternity thread?

 

Yes actually we are and we are enjoying it because its relevant to the discussion of what type of Romance implementations we want and why we want them

[Nonek]

 

If the current promancer argument is that you want Obsidian to introduce incompetent, unmotivated, idiot slave caricatures (like Bioware's Isabella) who are poorly designed and written, then I have to say that I am totally opposed to the inclusion of romance on those terms. Obsidian writes fantastic multifaceted, interesting and strong female characters, whom have logical reasons for pursuing their goals and joining the protagonist in his endeavours, I wouldn't want to strip all that so the lowest common denominator can thrill over the pixelated breasts of a half dressed simpleton.

 

Personally I would choose better examples and content, and rather than Bioware i'd use the obviously more nuanced and pertinent examples of Obsidian itself.

 

Well Bioware isn't always bad. The Sky romance of Jade Empire is good IMO.

 

 

Not bad, but neither is it as inspired as Obsidian, let's take Jaheira whose romance is probably the best implemented in Bioware history: When one compares her to Kreia, Ravel, Deionarra and many others, the obvious difference in quality really becomes apparent. Jaheira is not bad, Sky and the other woman whose name I cannot remember are alright, but they are pale, indistinct shadows next to the potent, thematically integrated and most of all interesting women of Obsidian's games.

 

Edit: Swapping these great characters for moronic caricatures is simply a clear degeneration, one I personally would not want.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Nonek

[Darji]

In the IGN Video which was released today the host actually asked about romances and Josh answered that there is no romance in the game because romance take a lot of effort and are very time consuming and that with the whole number of 8 companions they felt that it was not possible to implement it while getting it to their quality standards.  He even admitted that the forums and backers are very invested in romance options on the forums XD

 

Too bad because I really liked Calisca. Also I really imagine that romance option are a very good way to actually make women interested in these games. Since this was also a question which came from a woman^^

Edited July 24, 2014 by Darji

[Valmy]

Not bad, but neither is it as inspired as Obsidian, let's take Jaheira whose romance is probably the best implemented in Bioware history: When one compares her to Kreia, Ravel, Deionarra and many others, the obvious difference in quality really becomes apparent. Jaheira is not bad, Sky and the other woman whose name I cannot remember are alright, but they are pale, indistinct shadows next to the potent, thematically integrated and most of all interesting women of Obsidian's games.

 

 

Right?  Those characters were all amazing in games that had no romances.  But it seems now everybody thinks that unless you have romances all character interactions are going to be subpar.  Pity that.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

EDIT: totally misread that. Need some tea.

 

I don't care about romances, but the fanatical obsession of some of the promancers is kinda disturbing. The idea that giving the PC the ability to romance some NPC automatically creates more depth has to come from someone who has never played an Obsidian game(well, a good one at any rate).

 

Anyways, the main reason PoE should not have PC+NPC romance is because Obsidian does not feel they could do them well with the resources available. Wanting a dev to put in a feature they are convinced they could not do well is pretty damn stupid.

Edited July 24, 2014 by KaineParker

[ashtonw]

Ohh **** are we really having a feminist discussion on a pillars of Eternity thread?

 

in no freaking way would you call this a feminist discussion.

 

 

 

Not bad, but neither is it as inspired as Obsidian, let's take Jaheira whose romance is probably the best implemented in Bioware history: When one compares her to Kreia, Ravel, Deionarra and many others, the obvious difference in quality really becomes apparent.

 

Why do people keep bringing up Kreia as a well-written character? Shouldn't a well-written character have a coherent character arc?

[Nonek]

She does have a coherent character arc for me, to open the Exile's eyes to what a crutch the force has become for its users, that its most potent weilders such as Mr Nihilus are in fact pathetic addicts whom have lost any sense of self, and that the Exile is a better man for having suffered his tribulations. The only thing that is not coherent to me is that we cannot join her in wounding the force unto death, but obviously Lucasarts would not allow such a conclusion to any of their games.

[BruceVC]

EDIT: totally misread that. Need some tea.

 

I don't care about romances, but the fanatical obsession of some of the promancers is kinda disturbing. The idea that giving the PC the ability to romance some NPC automatically creates more depth has to come from someone who has never played an Obsidian game(well, a good one at any rate).

 

Anyways, the main reason PoE should not have PC+NPC romance is because Obsidian does not feel they could do them well with the resources available. Wanting a dev to put in a feature they are convinced they could not do well is pretty damn stupid.

 

Nah, what should disturb you much more is people  that say that don't care about  Romance but feel the need to tell everyone on the thread about Romance that they don't care about Romance. I find that much more disturbing

[Stun]

Prepare to be disturbed, then, Bruce.

 

Not only will there be no Romances in PoE, But from the Demo footage released today, it appears as though the Devs are taking great pleasure in letting the Promancers down.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66501-giantbomb-quicklook-on-the-24th/?p=1469905

 

lol

[Darji]

Prepare to be disturbed, then, Bruce.

 

Not only will there be no Romances in PoE, But from the Demo footage released today, it appears as though the Devs are taking great pleasure in letting the Promancers down.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66501-giantbomb-quicklook-on-the-24th/?p=1469905

 

lol

Yeah let us make fun of people who want different things than I want. That will show them and totally back up my argument.....