The Official Romance Thread

[redneckdevil]

Sheikh-as someone who rather not have romance in a videogame, i can see why people would want it and enjoy it and there are many reasons i can think even being on the other side of the equation.

-some people just like a good love story. From the bible to shakespear to modern movies and books, there have been love stories for ages. And again as i am someone who doesnt like romance in videogames, i will admit that i have liked and enjoyed a good romance story (a god story is a good story) throughout my life. Ill shy away from religious topics, but i have enjoyed watching certain romance movies (ill admit it i loved princess bride, cassaplanca(spelling it wrong im sure), gone with the wind, etc etc) and quite a bit of anime deal with romance. I like nontrashy romance but ones that have a great story. Look how much and how often trashy romance novels sells.

-it maybe a way to experience a love story while being deprived or able to experience one in real life. Some people for whatever reason cannot find someone who they can/will love or some are stuck in a place that they feel canjot get out or is devoid of love/passion so they seek it elsewhere in forms that will not cause probelms in real life.

-just a preference. Some people cannot think or enjoy a story unless it has suspence, action, horror, etc and some people do not find a story good unless it has romance in it. It may boil down to the reason why they engage a story and already have expectations wanting to be fulfilled before even knowing what the story is about. Just like how some people go into games expecting an epic campaign or some traces of horror, some people go into and engage a story to find and experience sometype of romance.

-some people are just crazy.

-some people have only experienced games that have romance in them and believe it is the norm.

 

 

Well that is just a few bc im at work on break and phone dying, but its basically boils down to different tastes really and expectations. Just how some people love mindless action and dispise well thought out plots or some people like games that are really challenging and some like games that arent and dispise the other, its the same with romance in games.

its not black and white as i being someone who doesnt like romance in games BUT mainly because i dont want the romance to involve my character. If it doesnt involve my character i have no problem with it in. And see thats just one person preference as there are many who want to involved, who dont want any form whatsoever in a game, and many others who are in between but different views as my own.

so i will stop here and just say romance in a game isnt right or wrong, its mainly a preference.

A good game and a good story can survive with or without romance.

[Lephys]

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?

You're not comparing them on even terms. What you're doing with romance is equivalent to saying that we can easily recreate war in real life, because we can go outside and approach any random person and shoot them.

 

That, and you don't really recreate actual war in video games. And we don't play video games just to do things that we'd like to recreate in real life, so that just doesn't really cover the evaluation of something like romance (or any other game component, for that matter). That, and sure, we can go approach a random girl in real life, but you can also help random people in real life, stop bad people from doing bad things in real life, resolve situations in real life, etc. What we can't do is control a party of people in a medieval fantasy setting, and direct and influence their choices and the state of things as a well-written narrative plays out.

 

Romance is no different from any other inter-character interaction. You could slap combat into a game and make it have nothing to do with the story or other components of the game, just like you could with romance. OR, you could make romance fit with choice-and-consequence gameplay. Does your main character develop a romantic relationship with this other character, as opposed to some other type of relationship? Then different things happen. Maybe they make different choices, maybe your character makes different choices. Maybe some foe finds out and targets that character instead of someone else to get to you. Maybe the character with whom your character is involved holds some position of nobility/responsibility, and runs into conflicts of interest that affect things on a large scale.

 

Some people might just want romance-for-its-own-sake tossed into the game like sprinkles on a cupcake, but I'd rather have it be an ingredient in the batter of that cupcake, just like I would with pretty much ANY other game design component.

[Sheikh]

Okay so basically since its not suitable from my viewpoint to go out and shoot someone, then its not suitable from someone elses viewpoint to go out and find romance so we enjoy different things in a video game.

 

Okay. I like medieval times though yes.

 

Cupcakes are not healthy though, I dont recommend them.

 

so i will stop here and just say romance in a game isnt right or wrong, its mainly a preference.
 

 

Fair enough but whats good about romance in a video game? Why is it enjoyable? What good feelings does it evoke? I honestly dont understand. Because I personally feel like I 100% need a real person to ever experience romance.

 

What I can say is that war is thrilling. Adventure is exotic. Medieval age is melancholic and romantic (pun not intended, but had anyway), in a way.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Sheikh

[Lephys]

Okay so basically since its not suitable from my viewpoint to go out and shoot someone, then its not suitable from someone elses viewpoint to go out and find romance so we enjoy different things in a video game.

Sure. Also, basically, your previous point of "romance is bad because you can easily recreate it" was actually just "I don't like romance, but others do."

 

There's either something objective to be said about the implementation of such things into video game design, or it's all pure subjectivity. In which case, I'm not sure what discussion there is to be had about it, except "I like this!" versus "Oh, I don't."

[Sheikh]

 

Okay so basically since its not suitable from my viewpoint to go out and shoot someone, then its not suitable from someone elses viewpoint to go out and find romance so we enjoy different things in a video game.

Sure. Also, basically, your previous point of "romance is bad because you can easily recreate it" was actually just "I don't like romance, but others do."

 

There's either something objective to be said about the implementation of such things into video game design, or it's all pure subjectivity. In which case, I'm not sure what discussion there is to be had about it, except "I like this!" versus "Oh, I don't."

 

 

Everything everyone says is subjective at all times, including of course, what I say.

 

If I say 2+2=4 thats my opinion that its 4 no less. The only way humans are capable of knowing anything starts with perception, which is always an indirect and approximate way of gauging information and therefore no human knows anything for 100% sure as no human is technically capable of that. Therefore there really is no such thing as full objectivity among human thought.

 

For example if I think media source of info #1 is more objective than media source of info #2, then thats also my opinion.

 

And yes the point of all of this is to understand why do some people like romance in video games as I happen to understand it.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Sheikh

[Silent Winter]

^It needn't be 'romance for the player' in order for the player to enjoy 'romance for their character'.

If I read a book wherein there is romance for the character (I don't read 'romance books' but I've read books with romance in them), then it's not a substitute for my real-life romance nor a thing I can't get in real life - it's about caring what happens to the characters.

Romance, friendships, any other inter-personal relationships in the game will affect how your character views people (and how you as a player view them if you're roleplaying) - is Jaheira a disposable killing machine?  Do Jan's stories entertain you enough to keep him in the party, or do you just feel sorry for the guy?

 

I can go out and make friends in real life just as I can have romance - doesn't mean I don't want friendships and romance in my rpg.

[Namutree]

^It needn't be 'romance for the player' in order for the player to enjoy 'romance for their character'.

If I read a book wherein there is romance for the character (I don't read 'romance books' but I've read books with romance in them), then it's not a substitute for my real-life romance nor a thing I can't get in real life - it's about caring what happens to the characters.

Romance, friendships, any other inter-personal relationships in the game will affect how your character views people (and how you as a player view them if you're roleplaying) - is Jaheira a disposable killing machine?  Do Jan's stories entertain you enough to keep him in the party, or do you just feel sorry for the guy?

 

I can go out and make friends in real life just as I can have romance - doesn't mean I don't want friendships and romance in my rpg.

A damn fine defense of romance.

[Lephys]

Everything everyone says is subjective at all times, including of course, what I say.

 

If I say 2+2=4 thats my opinion that its 4 no less. The only way humans are capable of knowing anything starts with perception, which is always an indirect and approximate way of gauging information and therefore no human knows anything for 100% sure as no human is technically capable of that. Therefore there really is no such thing as full objectivity among human thought.

 

For example if I think media source of info #1 is more objective than media source of info #2, then thats also my opinion.

Negative. Some things people say are subjective. Some things are not. 2+2=4 isn't subjective. It's factual information. Doesn't matter that it's your perception of math. You're perceiving something static and truthful.

 

It's all about context. Here's an example:

 

You might say "This ferrari is better than that little economy car." That's subjective. However, if you said "This ferarri is faster than that little economy car," that's objective. The ferrari is measurably, truthfully faster than the other vehicle. You aren't speaking to your mere individual perception of things. You're speaking to observable facts.

 

Objectivity is essentially the basis for all science. You start with things you DO know, and try to figure out things you don't, so that you can know more things. Thus, if you're interested in objectivity in discussion, you're actually interested in evaluating whether or not there's some amount of concrete, truthful data that can be deduced from an exploration of a topic. Namely, romance in games, here. If you truly believe that everything's all just subjective, and objectivity doesn't matter, then what's even the point in saying anything more than "I don't like X" or "I like X."? Hearing the pleasant sound of your own text?

 

Also, nothing need be "fully objective" to be significant. Even though the ferrari is faster than the economy car, I can still subjectively like the color of the economy car better than the color of the ferarri, etc. So, the comparison of the two cars isn't fully objective, but so what? What IS fully objective? The fact that the ferrari is faster than the other car. That matters, as opposed to that simply being an opinion, or somehow unprovable.

 

An objective statement can serve as a basis for something else. In fact, objectivity pretty much serves as the basis for subjectivity. We don't just randomly or arbitrarily like or dislike things. We like and dislike things for reasons. We believe certain ways for reasons. That isn't to say that we're always reasonable (specifically adhering to reason/logic for all our deductions/conclusions), but that you like the color of a car because it is, in fact, that color. If nothing was fully objective, then the color of the car would be completely just people's opinion. The court of law would be even worse than it is now. "Your honor... that my client's 73 stabs to the victim's headial region was somehow harmful to the victim, much less caused the victim's death, is PURELY subjective!"

 

Anywho, simply put, there is significance to the difference between objective context and subjective. It's all about the goal. You're either attempting to prove/deduce/support something you believe to be in some way observably true, to at least some degree, OR you're simply sharing your personal perspective that you know has nothing to do with objectivity. There's nothing wrong with that, if that is the case, but, you just can't really have both as a goal. What I mean is, something's either just opinion, or it's some combination of opinion and observable/measurable fact.

 

So, yes, we do all like different things in games. ALSO, even if you DO like romance, there's some aspect of objectively better and worse ways to do it. There's not ONE correct way to do it. But there is, in general, a right way and a wrong way to do it. As with anything else.

[ManifestedISO]

It's true, Ferrari had an objectively dismal season this year. Or is that comparatively ... I can't be sure, my subjectivity is clouded with tearful disappointment in the Scuderia. Next year will just be worse, thanks to Klaus Von Dummkopf signing on.   

[BruceVC]

 

Everything everyone says is subjective at all times, including of course, what I say.

 

If I say 2+2=4 thats my opinion that its 4 no less. The only way humans are capable of knowing anything starts with perception, which is always an indirect and approximate way of gauging information and therefore no human knows anything for 100% sure as no human is technically capable of that. Therefore there really is no such thing as full objectivity among human thought.

 

For example if I think media source of info #1 is more objective than media source of info #2, then thats also my opinion.

Negative. Some things people say are subjective. Some things are not. 2+2=4 isn't subjective. It's factual information. Doesn't matter that it's your perception of math. You're perceiving something static and truthful.

 

It's all about context. Here's an example:

 

You might say "This ferrari is better than that little economy car." That's subjective. However, if you said "This ferarri is faster than that little economy car," that's objective. The ferrari is measurably, truthfully faster than the other vehicle. You aren't speaking to your mere individual perception of things. You're speaking to observable facts.

 

Objectivity is essentially the basis for all science. You start with things you DO know, and try to figure out things you don't, so that you can know more things. Thus, if you're interested in objectivity in discussion, you're actually interested in evaluating whether or not there's some amount of concrete, truthful data that can be deduced from an exploration of a topic. Namely, romance in games, here. If you truly believe that everything's all just subjective, and objectivity doesn't matter, then what's even the point in saying anything more than "I don't like X" or "I like X."? Hearing the pleasant sound of your own text?

 

Also, nothing need be "fully objective" to be significant. Even though the ferrari is faster than the economy car, I can still subjectively like the color of the economy car better than the color of the ferarri, etc. So, the comparison of the two cars isn't fully objective, but so what? What IS fully objective? The fact that the ferrari is faster than the other car. That matters, as opposed to that simply being an opinion, or somehow unprovable.

 

An objective statement can serve as a basis for something else. In fact, objectivity pretty much serves as the basis for subjectivity. We don't just randomly or arbitrarily like or dislike things. We like and dislike things for reasons. We believe certain ways for reasons. That isn't to say that we're always reasonable (specifically adhering to reason/logic for all our deductions/conclusions), but that you like the color of a car because it is, in fact, that color. If nothing was fully objective, then the color of the car would be completely just people's opinion. The court of law would be even worse than it is now. "Your honor... that my client's 73 stabs to the victim's headial region was somehow harmful to the victim, much less caused the victim's death, is PURELY subjective!"

 

Anywho, simply put, there is significance to the difference between objective context and subjective. It's all about the goal. You're either attempting to prove/deduce/support something you believe to be in some way observably true, to at least some degree, OR you're simply sharing your personal perspective that you know has nothing to do with objectivity. There's nothing wrong with that, if that is the case, but, you just can't really have both as a goal. What I mean is, something's either just opinion, or it's some combination of opinion and observable/measurable fact.

 

So, yes, we do all like different things in games. ALSO, even if you DO like romance, there's some aspect of objectively better and worse ways to do it. There's not ONE correct way to do it. But there is, in general, a right way and a wrong way to do it. As with anything else.

 

 

This is very true Lephys, also don't forget we like Chainmail Bikini armour

[Sheikh]

 

Everything everyone says is subjective at all times, including of course, what I say.

 

If I say 2+2=4 thats my opinion that its 4 no less. The only way humans are capable of knowing anything starts with perception, which is always an indirect and approximate way of gauging information and therefore no human knows anything for 100% sure as no human is technically capable of that. Therefore there really is no such thing as full objectivity among human thought.

 

For example if I think media source of info #1 is more objective than media source of info #2, then thats also my opinion.

Negative. Some things people say are subjective. Some things are not. 2+2=4 isn't subjective. It's factual information. Doesn't matter that it's your perception of math. You're perceiving something static and truthful.

 

 

Some things are objective, everything anyone says is technically subjective, even when it just happens to be 100% true in reality. Our perception works very well, but technically what our perception yields is our perception, not the essence of truth.

 

Lets assume 2+2=4 is true (because I really think it is). However the only way me, you or any human could ever know this goes through perception, so we can never be 100% sure that it really is true because our thought that it is is based on our perception. So the only way we can know anything is through a thought and the only way we can think anything is through perception.

 

So from a practical viewpoint, we are capable of thinking of things that are true, but not thinking things that are true. Our perception of truth is always flawed, even if it happens to work out in the end.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Sheikh

[rjshae]

Congratulations, this discussion is 100% guaranteed to absolutely suck all the life out of a romance.... Bravo. Well done.

[BruceVC]

Congratulations, this discussion is 100% guaranteed to absolutely suck all the life out of a romance.... Bravo. Well done.

 

Never !!!!!

 

Don't underestimate the indomitable and indefatigable spirit of the promancer !!! We never say die

[Sheikh]

So what good emotions are involved in video game romance? Same ones as in real life romance?

[Lephys]

Some things are objective, everything anyone says is technically subjective, even when it just happens to be 100% true in reality. Our perception works very well, but technically what our perception yields is our perception, not the essence of truth.

 

Lets assume 2+2=4 is true (because I really think it is). However the only way me, you or any human could ever know this goes through perception, so we can never be 100% sure that it really is true because our thought that it is is based on our perception. So the only way we can know anything is through a thought and the only way we can think anything is through perception.

 

So from a practical viewpoint, we are capable of thinking of things that are true, but not thinking things that are true. Our perception of truth is always flawed, even if it happens to work out in the end.

That's all true (at least we both think, I guess? heh). But, it's irrelevant to the point that we can and frequently do discern objectively true information. What you're saying is almost like saying "well, no one's psychic, but we often properly discover the location of natural resources anyway." What's important is that we can figure things out that DO happen to be true (it's not a coincidence). Not whether or not we can just know truth technically.

 

That's the nature of logic, though. Starting with things you DO know to figure out things you don't. That and philosophy. Things like "do I exist?" You may not be what you perceive yourself to be, but the very fact that you're perceiving anything at all proves that you aren't nothing, and that you actually exist. Etc.

 

Annnnywho. I get what you're saying, but it doesn't support "I'm going to throw reasons why something is the way it is at you, then just play the 'everything's subjective so none of this is right or wrong or valuable at all' card."

 

There's either no objectivity to be had with something, or there's more than none to be had. I don't even care if it never gets close to 100%, or if we'll always be limited to our pathetic human perceptions. We've figured out plenty of things with them, and we're not about to stop now. We can either put all our chips on "nothing we've ever perceived is actually real or true" -- which is a possibility -- or we can go on the basis of "assuming all the things that seem 100% to be true to our perceptions, after rigorous investigation and deductive reasoning, let's keep on applying these methods in order to actually find out more things, instead of just thinking whatever we happen to think and calling it a day."

 

I choose the latter.

 

Romance or anything else, take your pick... if there's no objective thought into designing a game involving it, then I don't want that game.

[BruceVC]

So what good emotions are involved in video game romance? Same ones as in real life romance?

 

Sheikh I'm surprised you are asking " why do people like Romance"

 

When someone asks that question I tend to think " well if you are genuinely unsure then you probably won't understand " ....but then I realize..." No of course he will understand, someone just needs to explain it to him"

 

So let me give you my  Romance synopsis

 

Romance is part of the interaction aspect with your party members. But it offers more than just  getting to know your party members. It gives us a more realistic and immersive aspect to interaction. Romance allows us to build a certain bond with party members in a RP perspective. As I have often said imagine a scenario where you are on this epic quest to save the world from some sort of diabolical entity where everyday could be your last, you have this group of people who are prepared to die for, you face daily tribulations and there is a mutual attraction between yourself and someone else. Now you spend many nights around a campfire reflecting on the days trials..why wouldn't Romance flourish or at least be a consideration ?

 

I maintain this is completely normal and to be expected when it comes to human emotions. That's why I like Romance in RPG, it adds to the realism and depth around the overall  RPG experience

[dorkboy]

*Buys chocolate and roses. Lights living candles around elegantly prepared dinner. Compliments on appearance and gallantly pulls chair back.*

 

"Oh, how realistic.."

[BruceVC]

*Buys chocolate and roses. Lights living candles around elegantly prepared dinner. Compliments on appearance and gallantly pulls chair back.*

 

"Oh, how realistic.."

 

Yes you are spot on, most people acknowledge that Bioware can improve on that type of Romance implementation

[Stun]

As I have often said imagine a scenario where you are on this epic quest to save the world from some sort of diabolical entity where everyday could be your last, you have this group of people who are prepared to die for, you face daily tribulations and there is a mutual attraction between yourself and someone else. Now you spend many nights around a campfire reflecting on the days trials..why wouldn't Romance flourish or at least be a consideration ?

Because even in the context of "Role Playing", you know full well that these words ring hollow even in your own ears. Death is not permanent in most RPGs - and - most RPGs are set up in a chapter/act structure and the player knows that if he's in chapter 1, there is no chance that the adventure can 'end at any time'. Instead, he/she gets the opposite feeling: That he's in for the long haul.

 

Lets be a little more real now. Romance can 'flourish' in any situation. There's no point in arguing whether or not it can make sense in a story-based video game. The only relevant question that should be asked is whether or not romance can make a given RPG any better. I'd argue that it won't, IF the writers can do a good job of fleshing out the NPCs and giving them personalities that do not necessitate mushy drama-based sucker-punches to the player's heart-strings in order to feel "deep".

Edited November 12, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

The only relevant question that should be asked is whether or not romance can make a given RPG any better. I'd argue that it won't, IF the writers can do a good job of fleshing out the NPCs and giving them personalities that do not necessitate mushy drama-based sucker-punches to the player's heart-strings in order to feel "deep".

"Can it be good in a given RPG? Not if the romance is limited to drama-based suckerpunches."

 

Great point.

 

I dare argue combat is unnecessary in RPGs, purely because putting God of War's combat into every RPG would be a terrible decision. *nod nod*.

[Stun]

I dare argue combat is unnecessary in RPGs, purely because putting God of War's combat into every RPG would be a terrible decision. *nod nod*.

It's the truth...despite your silly goalpost-moving example. I can give you a laundry list of RPGs that would have been better off without combat.

 

As for romances, that's the truth too. And I cite Bioware. Romance has become a crutch for Bioware NPC writing because Bioware writers lack the ability to write deep, compelling NPC personalities without it.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

It's the truth...despite your silly goalpost-moving example.

So wait, it's the truth "purely because putting God of War's combat into every RPG would be a terrible decision"?

 

Because, if it's not, then methinks you didn't get the point. No one's arguing that romance is necessary in an RPG.

[BruceVC]

 

It's the truth...despite your silly goalpost-moving example.

So wait, it's the truth "purely because putting God of War's combat into every RPG would be a terrible decision"?

 

Because, if it's not, then methinks you didn't get the point. No one's arguing that romance is necessary in an RPG.

 

 

Lephys is right Stun, we know that Romance is not necessary. But it enhances the interaction between party members

[Lephys]

Lephys is right Stun, we know that Romance is not necessary. But it enhances the interaction between party members

More precisely, it can do so. Whether or not it does depends on how you do it, as with anything.

[BruceVC]

 

Lephys is right Stun, we know that Romance is not necessary. But it enhances the interaction between party members

More precisely, it can do so. Whether or not it does depends on how you do it, as with anything.

 

 

100 %,  whether Romance enhances your party interaction will always be a subjective question

 

Like every feature in every RPG