The Official Romance Thread

[Namutree]

 

I'm very disappointed to hear that romances won't be in Pillars (at least at launch), because they were done so well in Baldur's Gate 2

There's that game again...

 

 

 

 

typically romances are optional.

Are they though? This is an actual question...

 

I understand that romances these days tend to consist of romantic dialogue, something that no Non-Romancer should be interested in certainly, but how much content do they get in comparison?

 

Look at Jacob Taylor in Mass Effect 2. I haven't particularly taken the time to count the lines, but the amount of dialogue a Player receives for simply romancing him is un-freaking-believable. It is almost double the dialogue content than you get if you remain strictly friends with him. The same can be said of Subject Zero, Jack, from the same game.

 

Do you know how much dialogue you get with Alistair in Dragon Age Origins if you romance him? Almost double.

 

The only game Bioware haven't effectively shafted a Non-Romancing Player Character, to my personal knowledge, is in Hordes of the Underdark. And before anyone jumps on the Bioware Bile Band-Wagon. Obsidian also did this in Neverwinter Nights 2, the Original Campaign AND Mask of the Betrayer, though it was definitely to a far lesser degree than Bioware.

 

 

Yes, it's purely "romantic" dialogue and it's perfectly optional. But "optional" doesn't necessarily make it okay.

 

/Opinions.

 

Jade Empire didn't really shaft non-romancers. That however, is the exception not the rule.

[Mangonel]

I'm sure others have mentioned this, I usually try to read threads before commenting, but 33pp is practically a novella.

 

First let me say, I'm a character driven person. Doesn't matter if the story is epic, if I don't care about the characters. Similarly if the story is the biggest cliche trope-pile the world has ever seen, I'll deal with it if I really like the characters involved.

 

Thats why I like romances in RPG's because I find them to be ways to open up characters to more development that they wouldn't otherwise have. Just like IRL people tend to have sides of themselves they only show to their significant other, and when done right the 'reward' to me for a romance plot is getting to see that side of the character.

 

That said, a shallow ad-hoc romance for romance's sake is a waste of time. As long as Obsidian puts the effort into making the characters actually have interesting character I'm fine.

 

Frankly, I think the reason romances are included in a lot of RPG's is because its a quick and relatable way to justify one characters affection for another. You could call it lazy writing in these circumstances because it is. Its far simpler to convey that two characters love each other as the impetus for their actions than it is to try and make a believable situation where a platonic relationship would spur the same reactions in the given characters.

[Sylvanpyxie]

 

 

Jade Empire didn't really shaft non-romancers.

No, Jade Empire certainly doesn't make an effort to shaft Non-Romancers. However, having played the game as a Male and Female character, it certainly does feel the need to constantly remind you that romance is certainly an option if you want it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love Jade Empire and I love its characters. I'm not even particularly against the idea of romance in video games, but it can be so overbearing sometimes that I just begin to feel so.... Violated.

[Namutree]

 

Jade Empire didn't really shaft non-romancers.

No, Jade Empire certainly doesn't make an effort to shaft Non-Romancers. However, having played the game as a Male and Female character, it certainly does feel the need to constantly remind you that romance is certainly an option if you want it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love Jade Empire and I love its characters. I'm not even particularly against the idea of romance in video games, but it can be so overbearing sometimes that I just begin to feel so.... Violated.

 

I know what you mean; that was especially true in ME2/ME3. Still, I think Jade Empire handled it pretty well.

[Namutree]

I'm sure others have mentioned this, I usually try to read threads before commenting, but 33pp is practically a novella.

 

If you ignore the Hiro vs Lephys argument which was mostly a waste of text; it isn't that long. Skip the Hiro vs Bruce which was mostly a waste of text for non-feminists; it's a pretty reasonable read.

[Valmy]

Skip the Hiro vs Bruce which was mostly a waste of text for non-feminists;

 

 

 

 

Well according to ashtonw it was a pretty big waste of text for feminists as well.

[Namutree]

I like romances, but think Obsidian shouldn't add romances in poe.

 

I will try to add romances to poe via mods.

 

I do not want Obsidian to add romances in the sequels.

 

Does that make me anti-mancer or pro-mancer?

[Darji]

 

 

 

I would sacrifice mechanics and complexity in an western RPG to get a better story and great written romance. Again I play games because of the story not the mechanics. 

It's not just a loss of resources; it's a loss of resources that affect everyone! The loss of romance is tough for people like Darji. Worse/simpler mechanics is bad for people like Darji AND people like Stun. Also, as I have mentioned repeatedly; we can easily mod in romances, but not core functions or areas.

 

 

I know you would. That's why you should play a visual novel instead of an rpg.

 

One more thing. Even if you don't play for mechanics; you still have to deal with them. So they still matter; even to you.

 

They need to be serviceable.  And I am sure they are. For my personal taste they are already not optional since I hate real time based combat with pause function for CRPGS in the first place.  Also comparing visual novels with RPGs is pretty strange since most of them do not even have RPG mechanics to begin with. 

[Darji]

I like romances, but think Obsidian shouldn't add romances in poe.

 

I will try to add romances to poe via mods.

 

I do not want Obsidian to add romances in the sequels.

 

Does that make me anti-mancer or pro-mancer?

The problem is that Obsidian is good at writing and fan modders mostly not.  Also building these from the beginning makes the game much more atmospheric than just add romance much later. A game like this should be build with romance in mind to be actual feature great romance. 

[Doppelschwert]

I like romances, but think Obsidian shouldn't add romances in poe.

 

I will try to add romances to poe via mods.

 

I do not want Obsidian to add romances in the sequels.

 

Does that make me anti-mancer or pro-mancer?

 

Seems to be somehow in the middle. I think that your mindset would be good for someone who actually wants to make romance mods. Instead of the multiple choice kind of dating game, you just choose one character for the romance, and mod it so that this character will be romanced, the player agency only affecting the way how you go about it. The writing can then be more appropriatly integrated into the overall story, given that its clear which character will be romanced and that it can't be aborted.

 

If someone decides to romance a specific character, he chooses so beforehand, activates the corresponding mod, and thats it. Maximum amount of ressources go into the game, and you can choose your romance based on your interpretation of a character. And its not mandatory.

There's still the issue with quality, but apart from that, everyone should be happy. ^^

Edited July 24, 2014 by Doppelschwert

[Namutree]

 

 

I know you would. That's why you should play a visual novel instead of an rpg.

 

 

 

One more thing. Even if you don't play for mechanics; you still have to deal with them. So they still matter; even to you.

 

They need to be serviceable.  And I am sure they are. For my personal taste they are already not optional since I hate real time based combat with pause function for CRPGS in the first place.  Also comparing visual novels with RPGs is pretty strange since most of them do not even have RPG mechanics to begin with. 

 

Obviously the mechanics are not optional. Why would you even state something so redundant? Did you mean to put in optimal instead?

 

You exactly prove my earlier point that since you don't like the game-play Obsidian can't possibly make a game you'd truly enjoy. You would dislike at least 90% of the game. So, why should Obsidian even care what you want when you by default won't like their game?

 

As for the visual novel recommendation. It should be easy to understand. You don't care for game-play, but care about story exclusively; a visual novel will give you exactly what you want. No game-play; all story.

[Darji]

 

 

 

I know you would. That's why you should play a visual novel instead of an rpg.

 

 

 

One more thing. Even if you don't play for mechanics; you still have to deal with them. So they still matter; even to you.

 

They need to be serviceable.  And I am sure they are. For my personal taste they are already not optional since I hate real time based combat with pause function for CRPGS in the first place.  Also comparing visual novels with RPGs is pretty strange since most of them do not even have RPG mechanics to begin with. 

 

Obviously the mechanics are not optional. Why would you even state something so redundant? Did you mean to put in optimal instead?

 

You exactly prove my earlier point that since you don't like the game-play Obsidian can't possibly make a game you'd truly enjoy. You would dislike at least 90% of the game. So, why should Obsidian even care what you want when you by default won't like their game?

 

As for the visual novel recommendation. It should be easy to understand. You don't care for game-play, but care about story exclusively; a visual novel will give you exactly what you want. No game-play; all story.

 

I loved Alpha Protocol and that was not because of the gameplay.   loved it because I loved how they told the story and because of the great writing.  And even though I do not like that this is not turn based I am pretty sure I will like this game as well even through I will most likely not dig the combat as much or because of the missing romance which would have been really great for me.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Darji

[Death Machine Miyagi]

 

I like romances, but think Obsidian shouldn't add romances in poe.

 

I will try to add romances to poe via mods.

 

I do not want Obsidian to add romances in the sequels.

 

Does that make me anti-mancer or pro-mancer?

The problem is that Obsidian is good at writing and fan modders mostly not.  Also building these from the beginning makes the game much more atmospheric than just add romance much later. A game like this should be build with romance in mind to be actual feature great romance. 

 

 

Most Obsidian romances have been mediocre or downright bad. I'm sure fan modders could do worse...and have...but it would actually be fairly easy to do better. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I like romances, but think Obsidian shouldn't add romances in poe.

 

I will try to add romances to poe via mods.

 

I do not want Obsidian to add romances in the sequels.

 

Does that make me anti-mancer or pro-mancer?

An I'm-not-sure-mancer.

[Lephys]

Oh, don't be like that. It's all in good fun. Besides, isn't this realistic? In the real world, there are no guarantees that you'll find romance simply because you decide to look for it.

 

Consider what Obsidian is doing here as exploring the other side of the subject: FAILURE.

So the theme of romance is subject to realistic criteria, but the rest of the game isn't? I think they should make a game with no guarantee your character is even capable of completing the game. You're Frodo, and you don't just happen to have a bunch of friends bail you out of situations, and the Ring never makes it to its magma-y grave, just because you don't have the means of getting it there.

 

It'd be kind of randomly generated, though, because sometimes you'd have the capability to succeed in your quest.

 

BRILLIANT!

[Lephys]

Are they though? This is an actual question...

 

I understand that romances these days tend to consist of romantic dialogue, something that no Non-Romancer should be interested in certainly, but how much content do they get in comparison?

 

Look at Jacob Taylor in Mass Effect 2. I haven't particularly taken the time to count the lines, but the amount of dialogue a Player receives for simply romancing him is un-freaking-believable. It is almost double the dialogue content than you get if you remain strictly friends with him. The same can be said of Subject Zero, Jack, from the same game.

 

Do you know how much dialogue you get with Alistair in Dragon Age Origins if you romance him? Almost double.

 

Yes, it's purely "romantic" dialogue and it's perfectly optional. But "optional" doesn't necessarily make it okay.

 

/Opinions.

Firstly, all this reinforces is "Bioware doesn't have a good model to copy."

 

Secondly, look at how much extra stuff the stronghold brings, and it's optional. It's got a whole environment, PLUS different instances of that environment for all the various states of repair of the various facilities. PLUS NPCs and management mechanics to boot. AND it's integrated into the actual narrative as an important location, so that it serves a purpose even if opted out of.

 

I don't understand this "I'm going to point out that an instance of something is bad, then act like that somehow proves the thing itself is inherently flawed" mentality that just keeps rearing its head in here.

 

The analysis of your examples is fine. Yes, double the dialogue is noteworthy when it comes to resources, especially in the games you mentioned (because full voice-acting). But there's no need for an arbitrary "see? Romance = double the dialogue" conclusion. No it doesn't.

 

The Legend of Zelda games are pretty much centered around Link trying to rescue his beloved Zelda, every single time, and yet hardly any of them even have any romance dialogue. Your move.

[Namutree]

 

Firstly, all this reinforces is "Bioware doesn't have a good model to copy."

 

Secondly, look at how much extra stuff the stronghold brings, and it's optional. It's got a whole environment, PLUS different instances of that environment for all the various states of repair of the various facilities. PLUS NPCs and management mechanics to boot. AND it's integrated into the actual narrative as an important location, so that it serves a purpose even if opted out of.

 

I don't understand this "I'm going to point out that an instance of something is bad, then act like that somehow proves the thing itself is inherently flawed" mentality that just keeps rearing its head in here.

 

The analysis of your examples is fine. Yes, double the dialogue is noteworthy when it comes to resources, especially in the games you mentioned (because full voice-acting). But there's no need for an arbitrary "see? Romance = double the dialogue" conclusion. No it doesn't.

 

The Legend of Zelda games are pretty much centered around Link trying to rescue his beloved Zelda, every single time, and yet hardly any of them even have any romance dialogue. Your move.

 

The legend of Zelda has no romance between Link or Zelda. It is a purely platonic relationship.

[Namutree]

If Obsidian adopts Bioware pro-mancing it'll just become a Bioware/Obsidian hybrid. That is the Reverse Saren:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7k4vT_sZRo

[dorkboy]

Is the plot in Legend of Zelda really optional?

[Namutree]

Is the plot in Legend of Zelda really optional?

No. Except in the first one.

[Lephys]

The legend of Zelda has no romance between Link or Zelda. It is a purely platonic relationship.

Ahhh, just like Mario and Peach. I see.

 

I guess Link just gapes at her all the time for absolutely no reason.

[Namutree]

 

The legend of Zelda has no romance between Link or Zelda. It is a purely platonic relationship.

Ahhh, just like Mario and Peach. I see.

 

I guess Link just gapes at her all the time for absolutely no reason.

 

Not exactly. Peach at least kisses Mario once in a while, and makes him food. Zelda kinda just tells Link to go away after a Zelda game.

[Lephys]

They're very professional about their relationship, and realize that they don't have time to kiss (during the segments of time that the game cares about). They probably perform all manner of PDA in their free time, between Ganon epidemics, .

 

Seriously, though, I always got the impression they were quite fond of one another. I mean, they always start out kind of platonic, because it's just a different-styled re-telling of the same "legend" (See what they did there?), over and over and over in every subsequent game. Their fates are obviously intertwined, what with the Triforce and whatnot, and it seems like they kind of come to know one another throughout each game.

 

Clearly, the game is focused more on what's going on in the world/what needs to be done than what they'd like to do on a date. Which is how it should be. It's romance, but it's not "a romance" as some chunk of optional, completely-separate-from everything-else content. It's just there, in the midst of the story.

 

It doesn't need kissing or dialogue. It's just pure bond.

[Stun]

 

typically romances are optional.

Are they though? This is an actual question...

 

I understand that romances these days tend to consist of romantic dialogue, something that no Non-Romancer should be interested in certainly, but how much content do they get in comparison?

 

Look at Jacob Taylor in Mass Effect 2. I haven't particularly taken the time to count the lines, but the amount of dialogue a Player receives for simply romancing him is un-freaking-believable. It is almost double the dialogue content than you get if you remain strictly friends with him. The same can be said of Subject Zero, Jack, from the same game.

 

Do you know how much dialogue you get with Alistair in Dragon Age Origins if you romance him? Almost double.

 

The only game Bioware haven't effectively shafted a Non-Romancing Player Character, to my personal knowledge, is in Hordes of the Underdark. And before anyone jumps on the Bioware Bile Band-Wagon. Obsidian also did this in Neverwinter Nights 2, the Original Campaign AND Mask of the Betrayer, though it was definitely to a far lesser degree than Bioware.

 

 

Yes, it's purely "romantic" dialogue and it's perfectly optional. But "optional" doesn't necessarily make it okay.

 

/Opinions.

 

I agree. And this practice of funneling nearly 100% of the NPC's personality/dialogue lines into the Romance arc has the added effect of making people think that Romances are the best/only way to create deep characters.

 

But anyway, there are other ways that the argument of "They're optional, so what's the problem?" doesn't sit well with me. Often times, the choice to not engage in the romance is designed to be excessively harsh on the player. In BG2 for example, the romances are imposed upon you and the only way to opt out of them is to be a total Prick to the NPC. And in other games you won't even realize you're in a romance until that dreadful moment when the NPC corners you and says: "I love you....do you love me too?!" (HoTU, NWN2, MotB) I particularly dislike this kind of situation in video games. It's ham-fisted, It puts the PC on the spot, and it's just plain uncreative.

 

And then there's the Budget argument. Which is probably the best argument, but also the one with the most counters, since if you tell a promancer that you'd rather spend funding dollars on improving core mechanics like Combat, character development, and level design, they'll usually fire right back with: "I value Romances more than those things!"

Edited July 25, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

And in other games you won't even realize you're in a romance until that dreadful moment when the NPC corners you and says: "I love you....do you love me too?!" (HoTU, NWN2, MotB)

See, an excellent point. They shouldn't really ask you that. If it just so happens that that character is GOING to fall in love with yours, because of your choices and actions/race/what-have-you, then they should just DO it. MAYbe they'd express it somehow, to you. Just the fact that they'll take a throwing axe for you or something. Devotion, I suppose. But, it's pretty weird when it's all "this character is totally prompting you for romance: Abort, retry, fail?"

 

I would expect some characters to want to know that from you, over others who'd simply express it and be done with it. But, that should happen AFTER you've actually given them the impression that there's some kind of devotion from you. And it shouldn't be at the "I love you" stage. It's not very likely to be. It would be more "Hey... when you dove on me to shield me from that rockslide... was that just instinct, or is there something you want to tell me?". Not just "I walk around dreaming of you... DO YOU DREAM OF ME?! *creepy wide-eyed stare*"

 

Granted some characters might flirt with you, but that's different. That's kinda like someone being witty, instead of stoic. Something happens, like you get trapped in a small hiding spot or something, then you suddenly find out you've got to leave, and someone says "Pity we didn't stay in there a bit longer, *smirk*" or something. Some people are just like that. "You're handsome, so I'm gonna crack jokes about it frequently," sort of.

 

*shrug*

 

The problem with romance in most existing games is that it isn't very natural. It's very isolated, and very forced. Not that anyone who could ever possible express fondness is required to do it in a stupid way, thus we can't put that into games.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Lephys