Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

Seriously? An image of child abuse as something funny? My bet is you don't have any kids of your own.

 

 

Somewhere there was the context......

 

Anyway, people have different tolerances for dark humor and that sort of symbolism, and that's ok, but the picture isn't laughing at child abuse.

 

 

It was still fairly tasteless, methinks, but YMMV, obviously.

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

There are many NPC interactions you can have that are deep and meaningful and can be explored without having to resort to romance.

 

Nah, I don't agree with that. A friendship bond is important but a bond where you  actually have a Romance  relationship with someone is always going to be deeper and generally more meaningful. Its obvious really?

 

So...wouldn't that mean you're being cheated of the obviously superior PC-NPC relationship if you can't romance every companion at the same time (as exclusivity would require that you miss superior romance relationships)?

 

In a RPG this shouldn't make a major difference as the dialogue options are  more or less similar if you Romance or don't Romance. But if you choose to not Romance someone or you attempt to Romance someone and fail you may be cheated out of certain quests or developments, like the Lolth attack on Viconia in BG2 that I believe was Romance initiated

 

But end of the day the Romance option is more of RP development that shouldn't penalize a person who chooses not to participate

 

O..kay? So a romance is "always...deeper and ... more meaningful" but it "shouldn't make a major difference" and "shouldn't penalize a person who chooses not to participate"? Isn't that contradictory? Its either deeper and more meaningful - and thus superior, or its just a different, equally viable alternative relationship, surely?

 

 

 

 

I merely acknowledged that my friends are very important to me but that doesn't change the fact that my ex-fiancée was equally important to me, if not more so. I can't marry my friends and have kids with them  now can I?

In other words, you didn't answer the question posed to you. You dodged it. We weren't discussing marriage and kids. And citing marriage as "proof" that romances are always deeper, or even potentially deeper is really silly, since most romances don't result in marriage anyway, and even the ones that do aren't necessarily deeper than a good friendship.

 

The point remains. All Relationships run the entire spectrum of depth. We've all had friends we value more than some of the people we've dated. And vise versa. Therefore, your claim that Romance is always deeper is false.

 

 

I have been thinking about what you guys are saying and I am going to change what I originally said. Romance doesn't always mean the relationship is deeper or more meaningful. Thanks for helping me understand that, I was wrong

 

But of course in the context of an RPG I still maintain that Romance adds to a more immersive and memorable RP experience with your party members :wub:

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been thinking about what you guys are saying and I am going to change what I originally said. Romance doesn't always mean the relationship is deeper or more meaningful. Thanks for helping me understand that, I was wrong

 

But of course in the context of an RPG I still maintain that Romance adds to a more immersive and memorable RP experience with your party members :wub:

Well I think romance can add a unique connection to a story or character; I think a well written other relationship can do the same. A lot of it, from a storytelling perspective, is that its going to depend a lot on the player's definition of character and the definition of the NPC.

 

To me the important thing for any relationship is they're well thought out, well implemented and ideally such that they do not sublimate the NPC to work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have been thinking about what you guys are saying and I am going to change what I originally said. Romance doesn't always mean the relationship is deeper or more meaningful. Thanks for helping me understand that, I was wrong

 

But of course in the context of an RPG I still maintain that Romance adds to a more immersive and memorable RP experience with your party members :wub:

Well I think romance can add a unique connection to a story or character; I think a well written other relationship can do the same. A lot of it, from a storytelling perspective, is that its going to depend a lot on the player's definition of character and the definition of the NPC.

 

To me the important thing for any relationship is they're well thought out, well implemented and ideally such that they do not sublimate the NPC to work.

 

 

That's a good post and on most levels I agree with it. But where we differ is I still say that Romance creates a  unique connection to your party members that other types of relationships don't. But this is only in the RP sense and how you imagine your characters journey, trials and tribulations. This is not something you can easily define in the literal sense

 

In other words  its important that the option exists to Romance even if the dialogue options around friendship and Romance are very similar.

 

This may sound confusing and I can explain it in more detail if necessary :geek:

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First time I played DA2 it was very effecting when I got Bethany killed (I'd originally planned on leaving her, then after she complained when the PC's mom suggested she stay, I decided to take her and since I'd rather lance boils than have Anders in my party she died. Oops). I don't think that romance is unique in its ability to connect the Player/PC to the game.

 

My point is, realistically every romance, every friendship, every rivalry should feel (as much as possible within the limitations of cRPGs) like the NPC is really reacting to the player's choice and definition of the PC.

 

I think this is part of why the constant flirting was received so negatively in DA2, it challenged the player's ability to define their character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First time I played DA2 it was very effecting when I got Bethany killed (I'd originally planned on leaving her, then after she complained when the PC's mom suggested she stay, I decided to take her and since I'd rather lance boils than have Anders in my party she died. Oops). I don't think that romance is unique in its ability to connect the Player/PC to the game.

 

My point is, realistically every romance, every friendship, every rivalry should feel (as much as possible within the limitations of cRPGs) like the NPC is really reacting to the player's choice and definition of the PC.

 

I think this is part of why the constant flirting was received so negatively in DA2, it challenged the player's ability to define their character.

 

Interesting post, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly

 

Are you saying in DA2 that the flirtatious comments from party members towards Hawke basically only accentuated  the Romance relationship at the expense of other emotions and experiences you may have had towards a particular NPC?

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First time I played DA2 it was very effecting when I got Bethany killed (I'd originally planned on leaving her, then after she complained when the PC's mom suggested she stay, I decided to take her and since I'd rather lance boils than have Anders in my party she died. Oops). I don't think that romance is unique in its ability to connect the Player/PC to the game.

 

My point is, realistically every romance, every friendship, every rivalry should feel (as much as possible within the limitations of cRPGs) like the NPC is really reacting to the player's choice and definition of the PC.

 

I think this is part of why the constant flirting was received so negatively in DA2, it challenged the player's ability to define their character.

 

Interesting post, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly

 

Are you saying in DA2 that the flirtatious comments from party members towards Hawke basically only accentuated  the Romance relationship at the expense of other emotions and experiences you may have had towards a particular NPC?

 

No, what I'm saying is that the player's ability to control their PC was challenged by the game having the NPC flirt with the player - sometimes even past being turned down.  The NPCs didn't give the player an ability to navigate the relationship before being hit on, thus a negative reception.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

First time I played DA2 it was very effecting when I got Bethany killed (I'd originally planned on leaving her, then after she complained when the PC's mom suggested she stay, I decided to take her and since I'd rather lance boils than have Anders in my party she died. Oops). I don't think that romance is unique in its ability to connect the Player/PC to the game.

 

My point is, realistically every romance, every friendship, every rivalry should feel (as much as possible within the limitations of cRPGs) like the NPC is really reacting to the player's choice and definition of the PC.

 

I think this is part of why the constant flirting was received so negatively in DA2, it challenged the player's ability to define their character.

 

Interesting post, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly

 

Are you saying in DA2 that the flirtatious comments from party members towards Hawke basically only accentuated  the Romance relationship at the expense of other emotions and experiences you may have had towards a particular NPC?

 

No, what I'm saying is that the player's ability to control their PC was challenged by the game having the NPC flirt with the player - sometimes even past being turned down.  The NPCs didn't give the player an ability to navigate the relationship before being hit on, thus a negative reception.

 

 

Okay I see what you are saying, I didn't have this issue or think the flirting was inordinate because I obviously embrace that type of interaction. But I can see how that would be annoying

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I see what you are saying, I didn't have this issue or think the flirting was inordinate because I obviously embrace that type of interaction. But I can see how that would be annoying

 

 

See, thats the reason most antimancers are, well, antimancers. For them, this distracts from the game, and if the existence of romance also implies that other things are cut from budget, then even you can realize why they feel that certain are games are better without romance.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again it may be how you view relationships. Other people may not. And I find it a very simplistic and short range view of it. And just because you haven't experienced other types of relationships doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't deeper or more meaningful.

Isn't that very spectrum of perspectives (the "Perspectrum," if you will, 8) ) sort of the heart of roleplaying?

 

Maybe we should take out religion, because some people don't view it as important, but other people do.

 

See, thats the reason most antimancers are, well, antimancers. For them, this distracts from the game, and if the existence of romance also implies that other things are cut from budget, then even you can realize why they feel that certain are games are better without romance.

Totally understandable, but the same case can be made for numerous things: voice-acting, graphics, the stronghold, crafting, etc.

 

Objectively, on a case by case basis, it's fair to say "I think, given this game's budget, etc., there shouldn't be any romance in it." But, there's hardly any evidence supporting "romance = bad, just as a sheer concept in RPGs."

 

I mean, if it was a stretch goal, and they had raised an extra $250,000 for it, would it be okay, then, in principle? Since it didn't detract from the budget? Or would there still be sufficient reason for people to be upset with its inclusion (before even seeing how it's included, etc.)?

Edited by Lephys
  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't that very spectrum of perspectives (the "Perspectrum," if you will, 8) ) sort of the heart of roleplaying?

 

Maybe we should take out religion, because some people don't view it as important, but other people do.

 

 

No idea what you mean by religion in the context of a romance thread.  And it seems from the updates, things like religion will be part of the story. So kind of hard to exclude it when the dev's have confirmed it will be in the game. Also, I thought you gave me three strikes and weren't going to indulge me any further. Looks like you can't keep away from me and you're back for more punishment.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II
Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectively, on a case by case basis, it's fair to say "I think, given this game's budget, etc., there shouldn't be any romance in it." But, there's hardly any evidence supporting "romance = bad, just as a sheer concept in RPGs."

 

 

Except for all of the poorly executed romances in other crpg's.

  • Like 4

Quite an experience to live in misery isn't it? That's what it is to be married with children.

I've seen things you people can't even imagine. Pearly Kings glittering on the Elephant and Castle, Morris Men dancing 'til the last light of midsummer. I watched Druid fires burning in the ruins of Stonehenge, and Yorkshiremen gurning for prizes. All these things will be lost in time, like alopecia on a skinhead. Time for tiffin.

 

Tea for the teapot!

Link to post
Share on other sites

See, thats the reason most antimancers are, well, antimancers. For them, this distracts from the game, and if the existence of romance also implies that other things are cut from budget, then even you can realize why they feel that certain are games are better without romance.

Totally understandable, but the same case can be made for numerous things: voice-acting, graphics, the stronghold, crafting, etc.

 

Objectively, on a case by case basis, it's fair to say "I think, given this game's budget, etc., there shouldn't be any romance in it." But, there's hardly any evidence supporting "romance = bad, just as a sheer concept in RPGs."

 

I mean, if it was a stretch goal, and they had raised an extra $250,000 for it, would it be okay, then, in principle? Since it didn't detract from the budget? Or would there still be sufficient reason for people to be upset with its inclusion (before even seeing how it's included, etc.)?

 

 

 

The intention of my post was the probably hopeless attempt to make Bruce less dismissive about the legit concerns that people have towards romance by appealing to his empathy (which he surely must possess, being a foundation for any romance).

 

Regarding your claim that there is no evidence that supports romance=bad, what is your conclusion? The way I read your posts, you sound like your argument is that there may be a good implementation that proves everybody wrong, we just don't know it. From a scientific point of view, that makes little sense - you can't check every implementation because there are infinitely many, so the most rational thing would be to just assume that the majority of samples are representive. And you know just as well as everybody (except Bruce and the BNS) that most implementations have a lot of flaws and most people on this board find them unsatisfactory.

Of course, no one will object if you can construct such a counterexample, but until then, it's IMHO more reasonable to assume that such a thing does not exist.

 

My conclusion is that this whole arguments breaks down on the subjective level of your standards, and I get the feeling that most people agree with me on this. In the same vein, I don't see how additional 250.000 $ makes any difference. Its still subjective in the end, the people who would spend the budget on romance would do it no matter how many money there is and the people that wouldn't spend the money on romance wouldn't change their minds either.

 

For the most part, atm the thread is more about getting Bruce to acknowlegde that other people have different and in particular comprehensible views. And the occasional humor of course.

Edited by Doppelschwert
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if romance was put in the game, if people would find it ok if we the PC was the "damsel in distress" or the one getting the moves put on. What if it was portrayed as the characters being the "dominate" or the one who the relationship is centered around and not our PCs if people would be fine with that. Meaning the characters are the ones who push it along and not our PC. The PC would have a say in it to determine how far the relationship goes but is not the one who instigates it. The PC can move it along by selecting dialogue or doing actions to show interest but is portrayed and executed as the one being "wooed" and not the one doing the "wooeing".

 

Would that be acceptable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if romance was put in the game, if people would find it ok if we the PC was the "damsel in distress" or the one getting the moves put on. What if it was portrayed as the characters being the "dominate" or the one who the relationship is centered around and not our PCs if people would be fine with that. Meaning the characters are the ones who push it along and not our PC. The PC would have a say in it to determine how far the relationship goes but is not the one who instigates it. The PC can move it along by selecting dialogue or doing actions to show interest but is portrayed and executed as the one being "wooed" and not the one doing the "wooeing".

 

Would that be acceptable?

Aside from the damsel in distress part, BG2's romances were like that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the same vein, I don't see how additional 250.000 $ makes any difference. Its still subjective in the end, the people who would spend the budget on romance would do it no matter how many money there is and the people that wouldn't spend the money on romance wouldn't change their minds either.

 

Adding onto this. I think making romance a stretch goal may be counter-productive to the story of the game if the story didn't intend to have romances in the first place. It would be shoe-horning a romance in via stretch goal and that seems like a bad idea. If the dev's already have a theme and story worked out in pre-development and no romances are in, then going to a KS and adding it in later with stretch goals may hurt the story. I could see people seeing Obsidian as 'selling out' to the lowest common denominator to get more money, when they never intended to have romances in the first place. I'm glad we never saw such nonsense as romance stretch goals in the Kickstarter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding your claim that there is no evidence that supports romance=bad, what is your conclusion? The way I read your posts, you sound like your argument is that there may be a good implementation that proves everybody wrong, we just don't know it. From a scientific point of view, that makes little sense - you can't check every implementation because there are infinitely many, so the most rational thing would be to just assume that the majority of samples are representive. And you know just as well as everybody (except Bruce and the BNS) that most implementations have a lot of flaws and most people on this board find them unsatisfactory.

 

Of course, no one will object if you can construct such a counterexample, but until then, it's IMHO more reasonable to assume that such a thing does not exist.

Our lack of knowledge is what "proves everyone wrong." This isn't about proving one thing or another. It's about what we know, and what we don't know.

 

And, personally, I cannot see how it's at all reasonable to assume a good implementation doesn't exist when all our examples are of how games keep using basically the same BAD implementation over and over again. That's what I don't understand. No one's like "Man, check out this really great quality example of romance in a video game! Everything was done about as right as you can do it, and it still caused all kinds of problems and felt out-of-place, etc." No, pretty much every single example I've seen anyone put out there has been blatantly criticism-worthy. It wouldn't matter if it was romance, or combat, or crafting, or what-have-you. If ANY of that was done so after-thought-ishly, it would suffer greatly.

 

You're right that there's a bunch of subjectiveness here, which is why it's pointless to contest any of these points unless we try to strip out what's subjective and leave what's not. The key word being "try."

 

I'm not saying this is the most imperative discussion ever, and people simply MUST go through all the trouble of doing this. But, it's just useless to toss opinions back and forth, and try to decide whose opinion is the best. That's why I'm not sitting here trying to prove "Romance is GREAT and should always be in every game, no matter what, simply because it's romance! 8D!" I'm simply calling out the "and therefore, it's reasonable to simply shun romance" conclusions. No... it's reasonable to subjectively dislike it, and it's reasonable to point out all the flaws in the many, many implementations. But, it simply isn't reasonable at all to say that romance objectively shouldn't be bothered with, as a concept.

 

I get your point about people's value of whatever extra money is put toward, but, my point still stands. They're really almost the same point, to be honest. All I'm saying is, there's got to be more of a reason than "some people like this" to put something into a game. Likewise, there's got to be more of a reason than "some people don't like this" to leave something out of a game. As I said, you could make the exact same argument about almost any other design decision in the game. Just look at all the threads we've had around here. "We need WAY more companions!" "No, we need fewer! I don't care about companions' stories and such! Just give me more combats and areas!" "No, we have too many combat scenarios and areas I wanna do a pacifist run!" "Blarg! There should be more levels!" "The whole game should be voice-acted!"

 

Etc.

 

I realize that, from a strictly business standpoint, you can't make a product with something that only 1% of your gamer consumers like, and that lacks what 99% of them like. It's not that it's wrong. It's just not going to succeed as a product. You're going to be broke.

 

But, a bunch of people not really preferring something, and pretty much only pointing out horrible examples of its implementation to somehow conclude that obviously any and all designs that include it are going to objectively fail, is not really a good enough reason to conclude "yes, that's a bad idea, then." Especially not when there are a bunch of people who also would like to see it in the game.

 

I realize you, specifically, are not arguing contrary to every single thing I'm laying out here. But, a lot of people on both sides of this have failed, miserably, to keep all this separated. One thing being a poor reason doesn't automatically mean there's NO reason not to always shove romance into a game, arbitrarily. Advocating the idea of putting romance into a game does not automatically mean "I thoroughly enjoyed romance in all the games you can possibly think of, and want to just copy-paste that over into this game, ^_^". Etc.

 

I grow weary of everyone grouping stuff and shortcutting through arguments/debates. Half the posts here (and in similar threads) are just the tossing of assumptions back and forth, and the subsequent attempted corrections of those assumptions.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding onto this. I think making romance a stretch goal may be counter-productive to the story of the game if the story didn't intend to have romances in the first place. It would be shoe-horning a romance in via stretch goal and that seems like a bad idea. If the dev's already have a theme and story worked out in pre-development and no romances are in, then going to a KS and adding it in later with stretch goals may hurt the story. I could see people seeing Obsidian as 'selling out' to the lowest common denominator to get more money, when they never intended to have romances in the first place. I'm glad we never saw such nonsense as romance stretch goals in the Kickstarter.

Quite true. However, it was purely a hypothetical. I can't know the developer's initial thoughts on the story any more than you can. I was merely making an example. Maybe a better one would've been "what if they have infinite money?" My point is, at what point is it not a waste of money to not-spend the same money on something else? At what point is the rest of the game sufficient enough to allow for money to not-wrongfully be spent on something purely because some people would rather see any money spent, spent on something else?

 

So many things that oodles of people say they could do completely without in the game "waste" this very same money, yet romance gets to be the poster child for some reason.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the same vein, I don't see how additional 250.000 $ makes any difference. Its still subjective in the end, the people who would spend the budget on romance would do it no matter how many money there is and the people that wouldn't spend the money on romance wouldn't change their minds either.

 

Adding onto this. I think making romance a stretch goal may be counter-productive to the story of the game if the story didn't intend to have romances in the first place. It would be shoe-horning a romance in via stretch goal and that seems like a bad idea. If the dev's already have a theme and story worked out in pre-development and no romances are in, then going to a KS and adding it in later with stretch goals may hurt the story. I could see people seeing Obsidian as 'selling out' to the lowest common denominator to get more money, when they never intended to have romances in the first place. I'm glad we never saw such nonsense as romance stretch goals in the Kickstarter.

 

Sticking to artistic goals regardless of the users worked so well with the Mass Effect 3 ending (sarcasm). There is quite a hefty number of us promancers. While I can accept the loss of this option/immersive story element, I will always mourn what could have been/wait for second rate mods that support this. 

Edited by Greydragon
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite true. However, it was purely a hypothetical. I can't know the developer's initial thoughts on the story any more than you can. I was merely making an example. Maybe a better one would've been "what if they have infinite money?" My point is, at what point is it not a waste of money to not-spend the same money on something else? At what point is the rest of the game sufficient enough to allow for money to not-wrongfully be spent on something purely because some people would rather see any money spent, spent on something else?

 

Well when you have dead gods as one of the central themes of the story, it's fair to say religion will probably play a part in it. Trying to "take out religion, because some people don't view it as important" as you suggested earlier would seem to goes against that theme. It's not like Obsidian can do a $250K stretch goal for 'Religion' and if the stretch goal is reached, then religion will be added. It sounds rather silly to have those type of themes and story concepts as stretch goals. It comes across as Obsidian has no idea on what the story is about.

 

So many things that oodles of people say they could do completely without in the game "waste" this very same money, yet romance gets to be the poster child for some reason.

 

No. There are lots of topics where people have stated they don't want something particular in the game. Or they do want something and it gets shot down in flames by other posters. What we don't see is those people creating topic after topic wanting to see that particular thing in the game. They move on. As opposed to the promancers who create topic after topic and beating a dead horse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But, a bunch of people not really preferring something, and pretty much only pointing out horrible examples of its implementation to somehow conclude that obviously any and all designs that include it are going to objectively fail, is not really a good enough reason to conclude "yes, that's a bad idea, then."

Why not? If there's a complete absence of any good implementations of romances in past RPGs, then why would anyone conclude that it would be a good idea to put romances in the next RPG?
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The AC is out and I'm watching Planet of the Apes in my boxers trying to stay cool. As I do this, I'm listening to a couple fight about the chick having used the last damn clean towel. She has just started mocking his **** size while he informs her of his dissatisfaction with her in intimate matters. Pretty much everyone can hear them.

 

Romance at its finest.

  • Like 3

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlshot

"I'm fine with humanity being wiped out" - majestic

Link to post
Share on other sites

The AC is out and I'm watching Planet of the Apes in my boxers trying to stay cool. As I do this, I'm listening to a couple fight about the chick having used the last damn clean towel. She has just started mocking his **** size while he informs her of his dissatisfaction with her in intimate matters. Pretty much everyone can hear them.

 

Romance at its finest.

 

Having a CRPG romance that evolves into something as petty as this might actually be pretty funny.

 

Whoever said romance involves intimate talks with the one true love of your life, as Bioware seems to think? Sometimes it involves bitching your partner out over using the last clean towel or insulting the size of his ****.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...