Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

Oh that's very clever. So then it supports my view that in a RPG where your characters would be facing death on a daily basis Romance is more likely to flourish?

 

 

Yes,  to some extent, since we would never know if the relationship will last once the party is out of the hazardous situations for too long. :p

Edited by sorrowofwind
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Can you explain how your post is relevant to Romance that may or may not develop in a party on an RPG adventure to save the world or at least the land they are on from an ancient creature or demi-god or any other end boss in your typical  RPG? I am completely missing the relevance of your post to the discussion, sorry :blush:

 

Unless its not suppose to be relevant

 

 

The studies showed when people are under peril, they're more likely seeking for intimate relationships, although the attraction may originate from primal instincts.

 

Therefore, I think it relates to the whether romance/intimate relationship within a dark and gritty setting is realistic or not debate. 

 

 

Oh that's very clever. So then it supports my view that in a RPG where your characters would be facing death on a daily basis Romance is more likely to flourish?

 

 

Not romance... casual sex is a more accurate description. Sex is a good way to forget about difficult things and pumps up a lot of substances into your brain. But it's not a romance...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you explain how your post is relevant to Romance that may or may not develop in a party on an RPG adventure to save the world or at least the land they are on from an ancient creature or demi-god or any other end boss in your typical  RPG? I am completely missing the relevance of your post to the discussion, sorry :blush:

 

Unless its not suppose to be relevant

 

 

The studies showed when people are under peril, they're more likely seeking for intimate relationships, although the attraction may originate from primal instincts.

 

Therefore, I think it relates to the whether romance/intimate relationship within a dark and gritty setting is realistic or not debate. 

 

 

Oh that's very clever. So then it supports my view that in a RPG where your characters would be facing death on a daily basis Romance is more likely to flourish?

 

 

Not romance... casual sex is a more accurate description. Sex is a good way to forget about difficult things and pumps up a lot of substances into your brain. But it's not a romance...

 

 

Sure I hear you, but realistically in my RPG if I can have sex with someone then I will be dating them as well. So  Romance means a relationship for me


"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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the Nerf ammo get you anywhere, or, perhaps gentlemen don't kiss and tell. 

 

Yes I'm seeing her this week after work for drinks. The Nerf ammo  was very well received and appreciated. But its too early for predictions on how things will work out :)

  • Like 1

"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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D: Why has there been no posts since September? *flops*

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people hate freedom. :)


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Because they're in the Underdark so romances are on hold :p


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Because they're in the Underdark so romances are on hold :p

But a lot of romance occurs under things, AND in the dark. So, you'd think a place called the "Underdark" would be teeming with romance. :)

  • Like 2

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D: Why has there been no posts since September? *flops*

 

Because we are all distracted by the Beta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D: Why has there been no posts since September? *flops*

 

Because theres no romance in PoE?

  • Like 5

image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D: Why has there been no posts since September? *flops*

 

Interestingly enough with the arrival of DA:I just around the corner and that game having Romance it will soon be time to start discussing how we feel about the implementation of Romance in DA:I and will it be relevant for PoE 2?

So good reminder Lilly :thumbsup:


"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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because theres no romance in PoE?

Then why are people and creatures alike all getting engaged like there's no tomorrow?

 

6_u


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to take issue with Sawyer's statement about not having the resources to do romance correctly. Romance is simply a facet of a character - and didn't Obsidian set as a design goal, highly reactive NPCs with their own unique personalities and developed story arcs? How does one distinguish, resources-wise, between an in-depth PC-NPC relationship and a romance? In my mind they are one and the same. It's though Obsidian completely forgot about their own experiences working on games eg PS:T, where love - both amorous and platonic - was not a mere appendage but a central conceit woven into the plot, the NPCs, and their interactions with TNO. 

 

I am disappointed, therefore, to hear that Sawyer thinks of romances in the same way Bioware thinks of them: as a *feature*. Does Obsidian not understand that the flak Bioware takes for their romances is precisely because they treat it as a customer requirement rather than an organic property of the characters? People ridicule Bioware because their process of romance design is akin to selling NPC /cyber with a spreadsheet. Bioware markets their romances as check-off boxes, tries to score with the LGBT community by intentionally making an issue out of how-many-sexual-orientations-we-support, and makes hideously awkward out-of-character, immersion-breaking sex scenes for media attention. They treat their romances and their characters as inside jokes, so it's only fitting that we do, too.

    

Don't get me wrong, I don't think for a moment that Sawyer and co. are ever going to stoop to Bioware's level of pandering. Yet the very belief that romance is 'content++' - and therefore requires tremendous additional expenditure of resources - is wrong-headed. A NPC isn't either a major character blessed with a romance or a minor sidekick/mercenary. That's the way the worst of BSN treat companions. A company of Obsidian's caliber ought to understand that you don't need to build a dating sim to achieve an effective romance. Hell, Pixar was able to tell a poignant love story in 8 minutes of footage and minimal dialogue in Up. 

    

I get that to have today's jaded gamers care about a NPC in a game takes great time and effort, but I don't see why Obsidian believes this characterization challenge is limited to NPCs whose plots involve romance. I'd believe an excuse to the effect of - 'our writers hate romance and that's why we won't have it.' That'd be honest. But saying that you're not against romance, but won't do it because you don't have the resources, reveals a disturbing leaning towards the idea that romance is a 'special feature' and not simply an aspect of characterization. In turn, it makes me worried about the rest of the game's characterization.

   

The decision's made and done, so I'm not here to crusade about it, and in fact I care little, ultimately, whether amorous love is central to PE - to each game their own. But the explanation given for why there won't be romance in PE: *that* I take issue with, and is what prompted this post. Don't put love on a pedestal. Love is basic. It is instinct. All else being equal, a complex character that is romantically involved with the PC is no easier and no harder to portray than a complex character that is platonically involved with the PC. In fact, as JRPGs show, it's frequently the opposite.

  • Like 2

There are doors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why are people and creatures alike all getting engaged like there's no tomorrow?

 

6_u

Because there is no tomorrow?

 

 

I'm going to take issue with Sawyer's statement about not having the resources to do romance correctly. Romance is simply a facet of a character - and didn't Obsidian set as a design goal, highly reactive NPCs with their own unique personalities and developed story arcs? How does one distinguish, resources-wise, between an in-depth PC-NPC relationship and a romance? In my mind they are one and the same. It's though Obsidian completely forgot about their own experiences working on games eg PS:T, where love - both amorous and platonic - was not a mere appendage but a central conceit woven into the plot, the NPCs, and their interactions with TNO.

I think the answer is in Sawyer's statement. He said they didn't have the resources to do romances correctly. And he's probably right about that. Obsidian does not have a staff of Harlequin novel writers, like Bioware does. So any romances they would have attempted for PoE would have probably sucked ass, like they do in every Obsidian game. And that's, You know, the opposite of correctly.

 

PS: there's no such thing as a platonic romance. If it's platonic, then it's a friendship. And Obsidian did not rule out friendships in PoE. It's a good bet they're in.

 

As for PS:T, well... Take it up with Chris Avellone? He's not the lead writer for PoE. He's got a limited role in the game's development so any romance he would write for the game would have been minor and peripheral at best. (and a waste of talent, but that's just my opinion)

Edited by Stun
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision's made and done, so I'm not here to crusade about it, and in fact I care little, ultimately, whether amorous love is central to PE - to each game their own. But the explanation given for why there won't be romance in PE: *that* I take issue with, and is what prompted this post. Don't put love on a pedestal. Love is basic. It is instinct. All else being equal, a complex character that is romantically involved with the PC is no easier and no harder to portray than a complex character that is platonically involved with the PC. In fact, as JRPGs show, it's frequently the opposite.

 

 

It actually is harder to portray. The classic JRPG romances are made the way they are because it's easier. When you're writing romance, it's way harder, and much more expensive to deal with the changes that happens after the romance starts. The character development and the change in group dynamics etc is not easy to make credible. 
That's one of the reasons why most games with romances ends with some defining quest, event or battle after the shagging. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how you look at it, it still comes down to a quantity of content. To be more accurate, they don't have the time and resources to do romance after the quantity of other priority content that they've already locked in. Think of it as a 9th companion. Sure, it's just another companion. It might be different from the other companions, and bring something else to the narrative and party dynamic, and it's not a separate feature, but, if they aren't able to do that companion, they just aren't.

 

It would probably be easier if it were simply an additional existing thing. But, it's a whole 'nother facet of character developmental representation. And, like you said, it's hard to properly portray. That's why most games just kinda have Romance make a cameo, rather than really be deliberately woven into the narrative design. It's like those movies that are based solely around "CHECK OUT THIS ACTOR SHOOTING THINGS AND KICKING ARSE!". All that really matters is that that actor is there, and not how good the script or story is, or really what that actor's even doing.

 

Too many games do that, and that's why people tend to groan at the sheer mention of romance.

  • Like 1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm going to take issue with Sawyer's statement about not having the resources to do romance correctly. Romance is simply a facet of a character - and didn't Obsidian set as a design goal, highly reactive NPCs with their own unique personalities and developed story arcs? How does one distinguish, resources-wise, between an in-depth PC-NPC relationship and a romance? In my mind they are one and the same. It's though Obsidian completely forgot about their own experiences working on games eg PS:T, where love - both amorous and platonic - was not a mere appendage but a central conceit woven into the plot, the NPCs, and their interactions with TNO. 
 
I am disappointed, therefore, to hear that Sawyer thinks of romances in the same way Bioware thinks of them: as a *feature*. Does Obsidian not understand that the flak Bioware takes for their romances is precisely because they treat it as a customer requirement rather than an organic property of the characters? People ridicule Bioware because their process of romance design is akin to selling NPC /cyber with a spreadsheet. Bioware markets their romances as check-off boxes, tries to score with the LGBT community by intentionally making an issue out of how-many-sexual-orientations-we-support, and makes hideously awkward out-of-character, immersion-breaking sex scenes for media attention. They treat their romances and their characters as inside jokes, so it's only fitting that we do, too.
    
Don't get me wrong, I don't think for a moment that Sawyer and co. are ever going to stoop to Bioware's level of pandering. Yet the very belief that romance is 'content++' - and therefore requires tremendous additional expenditure of resources - is wrong-headed. A NPC isn't either a major character blessed with a romance or a minor sidekick/mercenary. That's the way the worst of BSN treat companions. A company of Obsidian's caliber ought to understand that you don't need to build a dating sim to achieve an effective romance. Hell, Pixar was able to tell a poignant love story in 8 minutes of footage and minimal dialogue in Up. 
    
I get that to have today's jaded gamers care about a NPC in a game takes great time and effort, but I don't see why Obsidian believes this characterization challenge is limited to NPCs whose plots involve romance. I'd believe an excuse to the effect of - 'our writers hate romance and that's why we won't have it.' That'd be honest. But saying that you're not against romance, but won't do it because you don't have the resources, reveals a disturbing leaning towards the idea that romance is a 'special feature' and not simply an aspect of characterization. In turn, it makes me worried about the rest of the game's characterization.
   
The decision's made and done, so I'm not here to crusade about it, and in fact I care little, ultimately, whether amorous love is central to PE - to each game their own. But the explanation given for why there won't be romance in PE: *that* I take issue with, and is what prompted this post. Don't put love on a pedestal. Love is basic. It is instinct. All else being equal, a complex character that is romantically involved with the PC is no easier and no harder to portray than a complex character that is platonically involved with the PC. In fact, as JRPGs show, it's frequently the opposite.

 

 

This is a very good post. Around the topic of Romance its both erudite and reasonable

 

Welcome to the promancer army...I am going to suggest we make you a major in our grand cause . We need people of your insights :thumbsup:


"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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread hasn't needed serious moderating in months. I'm proud of you guys. :)

  • Like 2

The sky had never seemed so sky, the world had never seemed so world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just haven't provided enough noteworthy modes to rate, I suppose.

  • Like 1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally feel recreating romance in video games is boring. Recreating adventures and war is interesting because you cant do that really in real life unless you for example went to the iraq war or something along those lines, but that is dangerous and requires enormous dedication.

 

On the other hand I can go outside and approach any girl I want to if I wanted to start a new romance so why would I do it in a video game instead?

 

That is my perspective and probably my masculinity talking. I know this is all part of a duality so I would be interested in hearing the other side of the story - why is romance in a video game interesting? I know that women arent good at approaching the opposite sex, so it doesnt work as easily for them. So from the perspective of femininity, it would be different, but how exactly I dont know  :no:

 

I do not personally feel like romance is an extension of roleplay. Romance is just romance the same way my romantic partner is not an extension of my character in any way, just a complementing part of my life. For roleplay purposes a romantic relationship is no different from any relationship. Roleplaying is not about relationships at all, its about individuals, their personas and characters. Relationships aka interacting are useful to bring that character inside the person through social interaction. But really from the perspective of roleplay, I feel relationship = social interaction. Relationship (whether it be master-tutor relationship, romantic or friend or enemy relationsip) is just a special type and/or form of social interaction and romantic relationships do not deserve special attention from my perspective.

Edited by Sheikh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...