The Official Romance Thread

[Lephys]

I will just say, on the topic of Biowarian romances, that I can appreciate them for what they are, but do not consider them to be even close to the optimal design.

[redneckdevil]

 

 

Actually, didn't BG2 already fix that by halting romance progression while in dungeons? I know the progression pretty much stopped in The Underdark.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. You know what? Trained killers do fall in love with eachother. Shocking isn't it?

While traversing Ancient haunted crypts filled with Flesh rotting Ghasts? (Ie. the example of mine that you're attempting to counter)? Aaah. No they don't. Except maybe in poorly written Bioware fantasies.

This I do agree with.

 

However, this is exactly what Bioware romances is not. They are contrived and feels out of place. They aren't integrated into the storyline. They feel like a stalker mini-game, artificially added to the game. The Morrigan romance in DA:O was well written and was a natural part of the game. Zevran was amusing when I played as a female warden. All the rest of the "romances" in DA:O, in Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3, not to mention the travesty of a game that was DA2, made my toes cringe.

 

So if Josh Sawyer want to make something better than that, I applaud it. And if it's between the typical Bioware romance and no romance, I'll take the no romance option any day.

You guys have made me think about another Romance arc that will add to the realism of a Romance implementation

 

The basis of this Romance idea is you can't Romance someone if they haven't been in your party a while because how would feelings develop realistically if they haven't developed over time, so for example if you keep changing party characters it would be hard to build Romance with new members

 

But to add to this your chance of Romance would increase if the party faces certain epic challengers together. So take Firkraag, at the end of the battle when the party is recovering and resting in a Tavern or around a campfire someone that you have been particularly friendly with through previous dialog choices, like Viconia, would initiate a discussion with comments like "facing that Dragon made me realize what is important to me...life is too short to not be happy " ( obviously I'm not a writer so this is just an example ) , but the point is the Romance only starts if she is in the party a while and you have faced certain death before

 

I believe this would make the Romance less contrived and definitely more believable. And this seems to be one of the issues people have with Romance, previous implementations are just not believable?

I know this is an old post but i do like the idea and think its a step in the right direction of the perwon having to be in ur party for awhile before romance can even begin etc.

have it set up like arcades quest in fonv but have it only proc after an event happens instead of just visiting an area. Also u could add respect values so that u could "earn" respect from party members and could through same actions for both camps so that they cpukd earn respect (comradery) and same token IF they CHOSE form a romance with said party member.

the romance of course has its own setup which i dont think needs to be explained but the respect...earn enough respect and someone who has a strong view point on something will eventually respect u enough to "agree to disagree" and remain on good terms or stick up for u if getting bashed by a party member due to ur choice going against their views.

 

You know instead of asking FOR romance to be implemented, i think we shoukd come up with ways HOW romance could be implemented.

[PrimeJunta]

I disagree that Jade Empire would fall into the mini-game category. The primary focus in the Jade Empire romances was whether or not you convinced the love interest to remain open-palm, or become closed-fist. Actually getting them to love you was pretty much a given.

 

You know, you're right. That's probably why I found them least offensive of the BioWare romances.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Actually, didn't BG2 already fix that by halting romance progression while in dungeons? I know the progression pretty much stopped in The Underdark.

 

 

 

2. You know what? Trained killers do fall in love with eachother. Shocking isn't it?

While traversing Ancient haunted crypts filled with Flesh rotting Ghasts? (Ie. the example of mine that you're attempting to counter)? Aaah. No they don't. Except maybe in poorly written Bioware fantasies.

This I do agree with.

 

However, this is exactly what Bioware romances is not. They are contrived and feels out of place. They aren't integrated into the storyline. They feel like a stalker mini-game, artificially added to the game. The Morrigan romance in DA:O was well written and was a natural part of the game. Zevran was amusing when I played as a female warden. All the rest of the "romances" in DA:O, in Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3, not to mention the travesty of a game that was DA2, made my toes cringe.

 

So if Josh Sawyer want to make something better than that, I applaud it. And if it's between the typical Bioware romance and no romance, I'll take the no romance option any day.

You guys have made me think about another Romance arc that will add to the realism of a Romance implementation

 

The basis of this Romance idea is you can't Romance someone if they haven't been in your party a while because how would feelings develop realistically if they haven't developed over time, so for example if you keep changing party characters it would be hard to build Romance with new members

 

But to add to this your chance of Romance would increase if the party faces certain epic challengers together. So take Firkraag, at the end of the battle when the party is recovering and resting in a Tavern or around a campfire someone that you have been particularly friendly with through previous dialog choices, like Viconia, would initiate a discussion with comments like "facing that Dragon made me realize what is important to me...life is too short to not be happy " ( obviously I'm not a writer so this is just an example ) , but the point is the Romance only starts if she is in the party a while and you have faced certain death before

 

I believe this would make the Romance less contrived and definitely more believable. And this seems to be one of the issues people have with Romance, previous implementations are just not believable?

I know this is an old post but i do like the idea and think its a step in the right direction of the perwon having to be in ur party for awhile before romance can even begin etc.

have it set up like arcades quest in fonv but have it only proc after an event happens instead of just visiting an area. Also u could add respect values so that u could "earn" respect from party members and could through same actions for both camps so that they cpukd earn respect (comradery) and same token IF they CHOSE form a romance with said party member.

the romance of course has its own setup which i dont think needs to be explained but the respect...earn enough respect and someone who has a strong view point on something will eventually respect u enough to "agree to disagree" and remain on good terms or stick up for u if getting bashed by a party member due to ur choice going against their views.

 

You know instead of asking FOR romance to be implemented, i think we shoukd come up with ways HOW romance could be implemented.

 

 

 

Thanks, I am surprised more people didn't agree with my post. I thought I had found a nice balance between realism and the reasons why Romance would develop in a party

[Stun]

Thanks, I am surprised more people didn't agree with my post. I thought I had found a nice balance between realism and the reasons why Romance would develop in a party

We discussed the pitfalls of realism on the last thread, Bruce. But, like all of our arguments, they simply went in one ear and out the other with you. Shall we do a quick recap?

 

1) The Passage of Time in the game world - In my last BG2 run, I think I managed to complete the base game in ~74 game days. That's 2 1/2 months. Realistically, that's about the length of a 'summer fling'. And while it's totally conceivable that a 2 month long relationship can achieve the deep, profound bonding that you seek in video game romances, I don't think that qualifies as realistic. Typically, a 2 1/2 month relationship is nothing of the sort. And in a game like Planescape Torment, where the adventure lasts an average of about 14 days, the situation is even less realistic.

 

2) Fights/divorce/lawsuits/"I-Get-Half!" - Realistically, 50% of marriages end in divorce. So if I were you, I'd steer very clear of the notion of video game marriage-based romances outright, unless you're willing to accept mechanics designed to enforce realism - Like losing your stronghold because your wife hired a good attorney. Or getting stripped of your equipment and gold, and maybe even some of your mutual friends if he/she decides that your differences are irreconcilable.

 

3) Cheating - video game romances are almost exclusively monogamous. And the ones that aren't usually only see the PC being able to sleep around. Yeah, prepare to say goodbye to such emotional security. A game that seeks realism will see your LI being 25%-40% likely to cheat on you, regardless of your actions. If the developers are merciful, they might even allow you to discover his/her secret lover via a quest. If they're not, you'll simply wake up one morning and find your LI has disappeared from your party lineup with no explanation.

 

4) This didn't work out! - Only in fantasy are you guaranteed to be able to romance a romanceable NPC. In the real world, you're more likely to meet someone, have a couple of dates, discover that there's no "sparks" or "chemistry", and that will be the extent of the "Romance". And then you and legions of other promancers will complain about false advertising.

 

5) You're ugly - No video game I have ever played has bothered to hold players accountable for their character's appearance. DA:O has a fantastic face customization system. You can create a hideous warden who looks like an 85 year old cave man who hasn't bathed in years. Yet Romanceable NPCs will still call you handsome and jump into bed with you. This is UNREALISTIC. If we make romances realistic in games, then expect to be locked out of the romances if you create an ugly Character.

 

6)Bros before Ho's - In current video game romances, your LI will not get jealous if you spend time with your other, non-romanceable party members. In a Realistic Romance though, things won't be so fantastically utopian. Expect enough frequent "what about us!" conversations to pretty much suck all the fun out of traveling with a party. She will want "alone time" with you, despite the fact that the game will be balanced for party play.

 

7)You're a lousy lover - See #2, #3, #4. In video games, Sex with your LI is a great "reward" that only strengthens the relationship. In the real world though, there are no such guarantees. In fact, Sex can end the relationship outright, and in the spirit of realism, there should be a chance of exactly that happening right after the Fade-to-Black. Bioware sorta tried this with the Viconia romance in BG2, only to drop the ball and squander the whole opportunity.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Stun

[BruceVC]

 

 

Actually, didn't BG2 already fix that by halting romance progression while in dungeons? I know the progression pretty much stopped in The Underdark.

 

 

.

 

You guys have made me think about another Romance arc that will add to the realism of a Romance implementation

 

The basis of this Romance idea is you can't Romance someone if they haven't been in your party a while because how would feelings develop realistically if they haven't developed over time, so for example if you keep changing party characters it would be hard to build Romance with new members

 

But to add to this your chance of Romance would increase if the party faces certain epic challengers together. So take Firkraag, at the end of the battle when the party is recovering and resting in a Tavern or around a campfire someone that you have been particularly friendly with through previous dialog choices, like Viconia, would initiate a discussion with comments like "facing that Dragon made me realize what is important to me...life is too short to not be happy " ( obviously I'm not a writer so this is just an example ) , but the point is the Romance only starts if she is in the party a while and you have faced certain death before

 

I believe this would make the Romance less contrived and definitely more believable. And this seems to be one of the issues people have with Romance, previous implementations are just not believable?

 

I know this is an old post but i do like the idea and think its a step in the right direction of the perwon having to be in ur party for awhile before romance can even begin etc.

have it set up like arcades quest in fonv but have it only proc after an event happens instead of just visiting an area. Also u could add respect values so that u could "earn" respect from party members and could through same actions for both camps so that they cpukd earn respect (comradery) and same token IF they CHOSE form a romance with said party member.

the romance of course has its own setup which i dont think needs to be explained but the respect...earn enough respect and someone who has a strong view point on something will eventually respect u enough to "agree to disagree" and remain on good terms or stick up for u if getting bashed by a party member due to ur choice going against their views.

 

You know instead of asking FOR romance to be implemented, i think we shoukd come up with ways HOW romance could be implemented.

 

 

 

We discussed the pitfalls of realism on the last thread, Bruce. But, like all of our arguments, they simply went in one ear and out the other with you. Shall we do a quick recap?

 

1) The Passage of Time in the game world - In my last BG2 run, I think I managed to complete the base game in ~74 game days. That's 2 1/2 months. Realistically, that's about the length of a 'summer fling'. And while it's totally conceivable that a 2 month long relationship can achieve the deep, profound bonding that you seek in video game romances, I don't think that qualifies as realistic. Typically, a 2 1/2 month relationship is nothing of the sort. And in a game like Planescape Torment, where the adventure lasts an average of about 14 days, the situation is even less realistic.

 

2) Fights/divorce/lawsuits/"I-Get-Half!" - Realistically, 50% of marriages end in divorce. So if I were you, I'd steer very clear of the notion of video game marriage-based romances outright, unless you're willing to accept mechanics designed to enforce realism - Like losing your stronghold because your wife hired a good attorney. Or getting stripped of your equipment and gold, and maybe even some of your mutual friends if he/she decides that your differences are irreconcilable.

 

3) Cheating - video game romances are almost exclusively monogamous. And the ones that aren't usually only see the PC being able to sleep around. Yeah, prepare to say goodbye to such emotional security. A game that seeks realism will see your LI being 25%-40% likely to cheat on you, regardless of your actions. If the developers are merciful, they might even allow you to discover his/her secret lover via a quest. If they're not, you'll simply wake up one morning and find your LI has disappeared from your party lineup with no explanation.

 

4) This didn't work out! - Only in fantasy are you guaranteed to be able to romance a romanceable NPC. In the real world, you're more likely to meet someone, have a couple of dates, discover that there's no "sparks" or "chemistry", and that will be the extent of the "Romance". And then you and legions of other promancers will complain about false advertising.

 

5) You're ugly - No video game I have ever played has bothered to hold players accountable for their character's appearance. DA:O has a fantastic face customization system. You can create a hideous warden who looks like an 85 year old cave man who hasn't bathed in years. Yet Romanceable NPCs will still call you handsome and jump into bed with you. This is UNREALISTIC. If we make romances realistic in games, then expect to be locked out of the romances if you create an ugly Character.

 

6)Bros before Ho's - In current video game romances, your LI will not get jealous if you spend time with your other, non-romanceable party members. In a Realistic Romance though, things won't be so fantastically utopian. Expect enough frequent "what about us!" conversations to pretty much suck all the fun out of traveling with a party. She will want "alone time" with you, despite the fact that the game will be balanced for party play.

 

7)You're a lousy lover - See #2, #3, #4. In video games, Sex with your LI is a great "reward" that only strengthens the relationship. In the real world though, there are no such guarantees. In fact, Sex can end the relationship outright, and in the spirit of realism, there should be a chance of exactly that happening right after the Fade-to-Black. Bioware sorta tried this with the Viconia romance in BG2, only to drop the ball and squander the whole opportunity.

 

You've raised some good points, some I agree with and some I don't. I'll respond in bullet form and each point from me correlates to one of your points. Also my idea for Romance, which I posted above, aligns to some of your points

• Passage time : This is the easiest to mitigate, people can "fall in love " on first sight. Time is not always a factor for feelings to develop. Also some RPG take place over years like DA2
• Fights and marriages : I don't marriage is a good idea in RPG, I was just trying to understand what others were saying. So we agree on this
• Cheating : I agree, as I said Romance in a RPG should be subjected to the same risks as RL Romance and cheating can be considered.  So we agree on this
• This didn't work out! : Not sure how this would be implemented because the dialogue options to justify "not working out" would require immense work. So I don't see this as practical even though realistc
• You're ugly : Not an issue because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But there should be chance based on Charisma maybe ( or other relevant attribute ) that Romance fails. I also mentioned this so we agree on this
• Bros before Ho's : Not an issue because the party travels and faces death together, so  there should be ample attention to your prospective Romance partner
• You're a lousy lover : RPG are not a sex game, so this would be over analysing the sexual part of Romance implementation and require immense and wasted resources to somehow address this

[Doppelschwert]

No I understood exactly what he was suggesting but I was trying to find some compromise. I get people don't want Bioware Romance, I get people want more realistic Romance, I get people want Romance that isn't  juvenile but I don't get a suggestion around Romance that doesn't actually involve interacting with someone. And that's ultimately what the marriage Romance suggestion is. This wouldn't  be acceptable for most promancers for reasons I mentioned. Romance involves seeing someone and having dialogue options with them, if you can't do this there is no real connection. It kind of defeats the point of Romance and the immersive side of the Romance interaction don't you think?

 

 

See, that's the part that pisses me off in this thread. Someone is sincerely suggesting something constructive, like the marriage option, and then Bruce pretends to get their point but ultimately just falls back to 'promancers gonna promance like they always did, herp a derp'.

 

Just because it is not immersive for you doesn't mean it's not for other people. Just because some bad romance is immersive for you, it doesn't mean it is for other people. Speak for yourselve all day long if you want, but please stop with this hypocrisy of claiming what is acceptable for a romance for a group of people while at the same time criticizing people for stating their personal levels of acceptance for a romance, just because they don't want one.

 

For what it's worth, romance involves building a connection for the player, yes, but that's about it. There is no magical checklist to achieve that, it either works or it doesn't. If you need to constantly look at a sprite and have same badly written dialogue with them to achieve that, good for you. But you shouldn't pretend that it's the only way. Sometimes it's better to show less and let imagination do its part.

 

You pretend you want deep relationships, but every single suggestion about them that excludes the feely-touchy part, like long distance-marriage or a couple of old people is denied by you. That's superficial at best. In the end, all I get from your posts is that you want some hot chicks running around with you, where you have the option to get them into bed. And that is ok per se, but don't pretend to care for deep relationships if it is looks before everything else to you.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Doppelschwert

[BruceVC]

 

No I understood exactly what he was suggesting but I was trying to find some compromise. I get people don't want Bioware Romance, I get people want more realistic Romance, I get people want Romance that isn't  juvenile but I don't get a suggestion around Romance that doesn't actually involve interacting with someone. And that's ultimately what the marriage Romance suggestion is. This wouldn't  be acceptable for most promancers for reasons I mentioned. Romance involves seeing someone and having dialogue options with them, if you can't do this there is no real connection. It kind of defeats the point of Romance and the immersive side of the Romance interaction don't you think?

 

 

See, that's the part that pisses me off in this thread. Someone is sincerely suggesting something constructive, like the marriage option, and then Bruce pretends to get their point but ultimately just falls back to 'promancers gonna promance like they always did, herp a derp'.

 

Just because it is not immersive for you doesn't mean it's not for other people. Just because some bad romance is immersive for you, it doesn't mean it is for other people. Speak for yourselve all day long if you want, but please stop with this hypocrisy of claiming what is acceptable for a romance for a group of people while at the same time criticizing people for stating their personal levels of acceptance for a romance, just because they don't want one.

 

For what it's worth, romance involves building a connection for the player, yes, but that's about it. There is no magical checklist to achieve that, it either works or it doesn't. If you need to constantly look at a sprite and have same badly written dialogue with them to achieve that, good for you. But you shouldn't pretend that it's the only way. Sometimes it's better to show less and let imagination do its part.

 

You pretend you want deep relationships, but every single suggestion about them that excludes the feely-touchy part, like long distance-marriage or a couple of old people is denied by you. That's superficial at best. In the end, all I get from your posts is that you want some hot chicks running around with you, where you have the option to get them into bed. And that is ok per se, but don't pretend to care for deep relationships if it is looks before everything else to you.

 

 

Wowzers dude, no need to get so worked up. Its just a debate around Romance. I am worried that you are actually getting  pissed off because I am disagreeing with a certain view, how do you react in RL when someone has a real argument with you?

 

With all due respects this is a discussion around Romance and the merits of Romance in RPG. There isn't a single implementation of Romance in any RPG I know of where the Romance implementation doesn't involve interacting with someone that you can actually see. Now you can disagree with me but that's just the reality. And if the marriage idea involves a scenario where you never see your Romance partner because its a wife at home where I can't initiate some dialogue the RP experience will obviously be diluted, and I doubt this will ever be considered an acceptable form of Romance? I am sure it will have other advantages but I feel its a stretch to call it Romance because once again Romance involves interacting with the person?

 

So in summary the marriage idea is a good idea but not as a substitute for Romance.

[Nonek]

You're showing a lack of imagination Bruce, one can use almost any form of interaction to reference ones relationship with a spouse, flashbacks, letters, requests, bequests, financially supporting ones family, having a long term goal, infidelity or not etcetera. All that you will miss is the teenage squeeing that constitutes the usual poorly written romance. As a motivation, a long term goal and a more adult relationship this idea shows far more promise than the usual implementation of a few correct lines of dialogue, then forcing yourself upon the poor npc.

 

The fact that you can't at the moment see your object of affection is neither here nor there, and affords a more realistic take on matters of endangering ones family as well as testing a players fidelity and commitment. Just because you like poorly written content does not mean that every situation has to ape that, thankfully.

[BruceVC]

You're showing a lack of imagination Bruce, one can use almost any form of interaction to reference ones relationship with a spouse, flashbacks, letters, requests, bequests, financially supporting ones family, having a long term goal, infidelity or not etcetera. All that you will miss is the teenage squeeing that constitutes the usual poorly written romance. As a motivation, a long term goal and a more adult relationship this idea shows far more promise than the usual implementation of a few correct lines of dialogue, then forcing yourself upon the poor npc.

 

The fact that you can't at the moment see your object of affection is neither here nor there, and affords a more realistic take on matters of endangering ones family as well as testing a players fidelity and commitment. Just because you like poorly written content does not mean that every situation has to ape that, thankfully.

 

Well this is one point we clearly won't agree on. As I mentioned numerous times an irrefutable part of all previous  Romance implementations is seeing the person and the interaction that entails. This is a foundation of Romance and the suggestion that  this expectation is actually juvenile is just silly.

 

Its like saying "we don't need to actually explore the dungeon or crypt to make it a worthwhile and exciting  RP experience, we will just look at a map of the dungeon  and the monsters will appear"

 

Its not the same experience, sorry Nonek. And no amount of spin will change that. But once again lets bring marriage in as a type of interaction but not as  a replacement for Romance?

[Nonek]

No Bruce seeing as it's an acknowledged fact that most discerning people find all previous implementations of romances to be of poor quality, trying something new away from the distasteful power fantasies of before is refreshing and pertinent. Interaction is interaction, and this seems like a far more mature, detailed and in depth method of interacting with ones loved ones, as well as fleshing out the protagonists backstory, without resorting to the poorly written "romances" of previous games.

 

The suggestion that one form of interaction is inferior is clearly idiotic, you yourself said that Deionarra was a superior form of romance, and yet interactions with her are based on memory and a past incarnations interactions, as well as flashbacks and such. Interaction is interaction, no difference. The dungeon example is purely false, as we would simply be replaying the dungeon as a memory.

 

This is an irrefutable and far superior alternative to the previous mostly poorly written implementation of forcing yourself upon npc's in my opinion.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Nonek

[Doppelschwert]

Wowzers dude, no need to get so worked up. Its just a debate around Romance. I am worried that you are actually getting  pissed off because I am disagreeing with a certain view, how do you react in RL when someone has a real argument with you?

 

With all due respects this is a discussion around Romance and the merits of Romance in RPG. There isn't a single implementation of Romance in any RPG I know of where the Romance implementation doesn't involve interacting with someone that you can actually see. Now you can disagree with me but that's just the reality. And if the marriage idea involves a scenario where you never see your Romance partner because its a wife at home where I can't initiate some dialogue the RP experience will obviously be diluted, and I doubt this will ever be considered an acceptable form of Romance? I am sure it will have other advantages but I feel its a stretch to call it Romance because once again Romance involves interacting with the person?

 

So in summary the marriage idea is a good idea but not as a substitute for Romance.

Actually, I'm not as worked up as it may have sounded to you. Thankfully, I don't know anyone who is trolling as hard as you in RL, so I don't know what I'd do in a real argument with them. This is also largely irrelevant to the given topic. And no, I'm not pissed off because of your opinion. Your opinion is fine (however twisted it may be) and you are entitled to it.

 

What is not fine for me, however, is making broad generalizations based on your own opinion what people want in romances, what works for them and that you always derail discussions to your notion of a romance, in particular in other threads than this one.

 

I think there are quite some people on this forum that would like to see a tasteful implementation of romance. However, as soon as we are stepping out of bioware style romance to discuss the merit of doing things different (removing the sexual component or removing direct feedback), you try to make the implementation sound implausible in order to further beat a dead horse and that's hurting the discussion. Your argument is basically 'it's different as the stuff I'm used to, so it must be a bad romance'. You obviously like the way it has been done before, and that's fine, but everyone knows this by now, so you are actively blocking any progress on the topic in this thread. I'm sure you are a nice person, but you are not understanding anyone if you say you understand them and ignore their arguments anyway.

 

I'm not even arguing you should stop commenting, I'm just arguing you should stop speaking for other people. The majority of people who commented on the issue preferred the marriage idea to the usual romance.

[BruceVC]

 

Wowzers dude, no need to get so worked up. Its just a debate around Romance. I am worried that you are actually getting  pissed off because I am disagreeing with a certain view, how do you react in RL when someone has a real argument with you?

 

With all due respects this is a discussion around Romance and the merits of Romance in RPG. There isn't a single implementation of Romance in any RPG I know of where the Romance implementation doesn't involve interacting with someone that you can actually see. Now you can disagree with me but that's just the reality. And if the marriage idea involves a scenario where you never see your Romance partner because its a wife at home where I can't initiate some dialogue the RP experience will obviously be diluted, and I doubt this will ever be considered an acceptable form of Romance? I am sure it will have other advantages but I feel its a stretch to call it Romance because once again Romance involves interacting with the person?

 

So in summary the marriage idea is a good idea but not as a substitute for Romance.

Actually, I'm not as worked up as it may have sounded to you. Thankfully, I don't know anyone who is trolling as hard as you in RL, so I don't know what I'd do in a real argument with them. This is also largely irrelevant to the given topic. And no, I'm not pissed off because of your opinion. Your opinion is fine (however twisted it may be) and you are entitled to it.

 

What is not fine for me, however, is making broad generalizations based on your own opinion what people want in romances, what works for them and that you always derail discussions to your notion of a romance, in particular in other threads than this one.

 

I think there are quite some people on this forum that would like to see a tasteful implementation of romance. However, as soon as we are stepping out of bioware style romance to discuss the merit of doing things different (removing the sexual component or removing direct feedback), you try to make the implementation sound implausible in order to further beat a dead horse and that's hurting the discussion. Your argument is basically 'it's different as the stuff I'm used to, so it must be a bad romance'. You obviously like the way it has been done before, and that's fine, but everyone knows this by now, so you are actively blocking any progress on the topic in this thread. I'm sure you are a nice person, but you are not understanding anyone if you say you understand them and ignore their arguments anyway.

 

I'm not even arguing you should stop commenting, I'm just arguing you should stop speaking for other people. The majority of people who commented on the issue preferred the marriage idea to the usual romance.

 

 

No need to worry, I have no intention of not commenting

 

But  your characterization of me and how I dismiss any opinion different to mine in simply not true. In fact I have admitted several times  that Bioware Romances can be improved on, I have acknowledged we need more realistic Romances, I have said we need Romances that allow for fails and break-ups and I have suggested a Romance arc that builds over time but should only be feasible if the party faces real challengers together...basically an emotional connection through adversity. None of these follow the normal Romance implementation.

 

But yes I have an issue with a Romance suggestion that doesn't involve actually interacting with a character, sorry but that's just how I feel. But I am not the judge and jury of what constitutes acceptable Romance. This is merely my opinion, but I would wager a bet that other promancers will agree with me?

 

And I don't troll, this is my opinion and I am more than prepared to have a mature debate around what works and doesn't around Romance

[Namutree]

You know what would be hilarious for romance mods? An Npc of Josh Sawyer in one of the towns. 

 

Whenever the pc talks to him you could bring up romance, and if you do he says, "I'm not a huge fan of romance." Then suddenly the romance is instantly gone.

[Lephys]

I would agree with Bruce, only in that a lack of actual interactions would heavily dilute the existence of anything in the game, much less romance. Imagine if there was a reputation system, but you didn't get to do things and have it be actively effected, you just picked some background options and such at character creation, then went through the whole game having people respond to that, and nothing else. You just have a passively set reputation for the entire game, and that's that.

 

I would at least want to see the effects of my actions and choices on my distant relationship partner, etc.

 

BUT, I will also say that the only way for this whole romance thing to be done well is to, as Nonek said, utilize our imaginations to scour the possibilities.

 

I really think the main reason most romances in games are so "meh" (at best) is that the box in which they're allowed to be conceptualized is so small. Reminds me of MMOs. People keep making 'em, and they keep being 85% identical.

[Nonek]

You can interact with your spouse in such a situation, in as many or more ways as the traditional dialogue choices, messengers, letters, flashbacks etcetera, as i've stated before. Each with there own set of choices and consequences. It is a fallacy to say that there cannot be any interaction without the spouse being present, and likewise ones spouse can communicate with the protagonist, through various means, and provide their feedback and outlook.

 

It is merely another (refreshingly original) option in my opinion, one i'd prefer over the teenage squeeing yet again.

[Namutree]

You can interact with your spouse in such a situation, in as many or more ways as the traditional dialogue choices, messengers, letters, flashbacks etcetera, as i've stated before. Each with there own set of choices and consequences. It is a fallacy to say that there cannot be any interaction without the spouse being present, and likewise ones spouse can communicate with the protagonist, through various means, and provide their feedback and outlook.

 

It is merely another (refreshingly original) option in my opinion, one i'd prefer over the teenage squeeing yet again.

In the case of the distant wife/husband scenario I'm thinking that you can write letters to your spouse and receive letters in return. Kinda like this:

 

Let's say you're in your stronghold; by some table or whatever there could be a stack of paper. You click on the paper and the game asks:

 

Do want to write a letter? Your options are yes/no.

 

If yes; you'll get a few options. Kinda like this:

 

1) Write a witty letter.

 

2) Write a reassuring letter.

 

3) Write a romantic letter.

 

Etc.

 

Afterwards, you have some servant npc deliver it for a bit of gold. In a few days (or weeks depending on how many in-game days go by during a normal play-through) you receive a letter from your beloved. Your spouse's letter will be different based on how you chose to write yours. Plenty of interactivity.

 

Also, I should note that in a few conversations with npcs you can mention that you are married.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Namutree

[Namutree]

Another romance idea that would be neat is if you could romance a npc who isn't in the party. After you are "together" your love interest moves into your stronghold. That could lead to some interesting stronghold events/quests.

[Lephys]

You can interact with your spouse in such a situation, in as many or more ways as the traditional dialogue choices, messengers, letters, flashbacks etcetera, as i've stated before. Each with there own set of choices and consequences. It is a fallacy to say that there cannot be any interaction without the spouse being present, and likewise ones spouse can communicate with the protagonist, through various means, and provide their feedback and outlook.

 

It is merely another (refreshingly original) option in my opinion, one i'd prefer over the teenage squeeing yet again.

Apologies, as I did not mean to suggest that there's no interaction whatsoever without a present spouse/apple-of-your-eye. What I mean is... there's a certain kind of interaction that's absent. It's the difference between just sitting at your stronghold and issuing orders to parties and forces you send out, then waiting for news of their return and their progress, and actually venturing out and participating in bouts of combat, yourself. It's the difference between sitting there with someone and playing a timed chess match, and mailing your moves to each other at a rate of one move per week.

 

Also, I, too, prefer it over the teenage squeeing, but having a present interest does not automatically = teenage squeeing, for what it's worth. I don't want the person to be present so that I can have teenage squeeing. I want them to be present so that they can actually be a part of what ever else is going on in the world, and not some separate, disconnected thing. There's nothing wrong with their being separate via distance or memories, etc. That's perfectly fine and allowed, and does what it does very well. I just prefer that other things, that it does not do (and that are not teenage squee-worthy) to also be present, is all.

 

Honestly, though, that particular example of letter-writing sounds like an overly convoluted typical romance dialogue. Again, not that letter-writing is inherently bad, but it does seem to be a bit more difficult to intertwine the whole romance/relationship thing and the lore/world/narrative when the only interactions you ever have with said person comes in the form of isolated letter-writing.

 

Romance needs to get away from being an intermission amid the rest of the game.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/04/16/the-art-of-letter-writing/

[Lephys]

Dude... wax seals are too legit to quit.

[Namutree]

 

 

Honestly, though, that particular example of letter-writing sounds like an overly convoluted typical romance dialogue. Again, not that letter-writing is inherently bad, but it does seem to be a bit more difficult to intertwine the whole romance/relationship thing and the lore/world/narrative when the only interactions you ever have with said person comes in the form of isolated letter-writing.

 

Romance needs to get away from being an intermission amid the rest of the game.

 

I disagree. Sometimes a change of pace can be very refreshing. I'm not saying that romances MUST be an intermission, but there are advantages to have them serve as one. Also, I'd have to object that the letter system in my example was all that convoluted. It was actually pretty simple.

 

Oh, wait. You were responding to Nonek's example. My bad.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Namutree

[Stun]

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/04/16/the-art-of-letter-writing/

Nice link! Useless trivia: In the banner at the top of that page.... The man on the right (the one in the fighting pose) is John L. Sullivan. Last world Bare knuckle Champion and the first Heavyweight Champion of the world under the Marquis of Queensbury rules. he officially compiled a record of 38-1-1 with 32 KOs, but since record keeping in the 1800s was mostly based on rumor, most people believe he probably won and lost hundreds more than that. His last successful bare knuckle title defense was against Jake Kilrain. The fight lasted 75 rounds. Edited August 6, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

I agree about a change of pace being refreshing. I should've said it should get away from being a forced intermission. We don't need our regularly scheduled programming to be interrupted every time there's romance.

 

And I was talking about your example. I didn't mean it was a convoluted example. Just that it seemed to be a very convoluted form of the dialogue we see in typical game romances. It's just the same random "Hey, I felt like now was a good time to just chat like we're on OkCupid.com, and your answers here will directly impact our relationship, and nothing else" we've already seen, only with long-distance delays. That's what I meant.

 

I know the example was meant to simply show that there's interactivity present, so I'm not trying to tell you it's ineffective or terrible or something. Just, for what it's worth, you could do that level of interactivity with letters, but I don't think it would bring anything to the table, really. At least if I'm standing here, talking to another NPC, face-to-face, they're also involved in/dealing with whatever's going on around us. The building we're in could get attacked, whether or not we chose to go off somewhere and talk would affect where we are when the poop hits the fan, etc. Just like all other NPC direct interaction that doesn't involve letters. With letters, if something happens, you just get no letters.

 

That's the thing. I'd want romance to be going on in the midst of whatever else is going on. I want romance to affect other things, and other things to affect romance, etc. Not "let's take a break and make out." That's not romance. That's not a relationship. A real relationship is a devotion to one another throughout whatever life's bringing. It's dealing with actual stuff that's going on, not grinding to level up your love-o-meter.

 

Letter writing could be used in a good way, I'm sure. But, simply "hey, your love interest isn't present, so that takes care of teen squee-age" just feels way too much like "Hey guys, time out... gotta check my mail and do some romance. I'll be ready to go in about 30 minutes."

 

Out of all the interaction you can have with other NPCs around you, long-distance letter-writing doesn't utilize very much of that, is all.

[Namutree]

I agree about a change of pace being refreshing. I should've said it should get away from being a forced intermission. We don't need our regularly scheduled programming to be interrupted every time there's romance.

 

And I was talking about your example. I didn't mean it was a convoluted example. Just that it seemed to be a very convoluted form of the dialogue we see in typical game romances. It's just the same random "Hey, I felt like now was a good time to just chat like we're on OkCupid.com, and your answers here will directly impact our relationship, and nothing else" we've already seen, only with long-distance delays. That's what I meant.

 

I know the example was meant to simply show that there's interactivity present, so I'm not trying to tell you it's ineffective or terrible or something. Just, for what it's worth, you could do that level of interactivity with letters, but I don't think it would bring anything to the table, really. At least if I'm standing here, talking to another NPC, face-to-face, they're also involved in/dealing with whatever's going on around us. The building we're in could get attacked, whether or not we chose to go off somewhere and talk would affect where we are when the poop hits the fan, etc. Just like all other NPC direct interaction that doesn't involve letters. With letters, if something happens, you just get no letters.

 

That's the thing. I'd want romance to be going on in the midst of whatever else is going on. I want romance to affect other things, and other things to affect romance, etc. Not "let's take a break and make out." That's not romance. That's not a relationship. A real relationship is a devotion to one another throughout whatever life's bringing. It's dealing with actual stuff that's going on, not grinding to level up your love-o-meter.

 

Letter writing could be used in a good way, I'm sure. But, simply "hey, your love interest isn't present, so that takes care of teen squee-age" just feels way too much like "Hey guys, time out... gotta check my mail and do some romance. I'll be ready to go in about 30 minutes."

 

Out of all the interaction you can have with other NPCs around you, long-distance letter-writing doesn't utilize very much of that, is all.

I should say that I don't feel that the letter idea is better; just that it's different in a way I feel would be interesting. If I ever do add it; I'll keep it as I originally pitched it. Just as a part of your biography/background and add a few new dialog options in-game.

 

Now that I think of it; I'd probably just make a whole bunch of new biography options and make the, "I'm married" just one of them. Then I'll call the compilation the, "Extra Bio" pack.