Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well we KNOW theres no romance for the players, but i have yet to play an obsidian game that didnt have some type of love story in it (albeit ones that were between npcs). So u very well may see some romance stories, just not with the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we KNOW theres no romance for the players, but i have yet to play an obsidian game that didnt have some type of love story in it (albeit ones that were between npcs). So u very well may see some romance stories, just not with the player.

 

Thats really not what I was looking for, so many of these games are just cutting their romances out. Shame.

 

Thank you both for the information, rather dissapointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well we KNOW theres no romance for the players, but i have yet to play an obsidian game that didnt have some type of love story in it (albeit ones that were between npcs). So u very well may see some romance stories, just not with the player.

 

Thats really not what I was looking for, so many of these games are just cutting their romances out. Shame.

 

Thank you both for the information, rather dissapointing.

 

It isn't really "cutting their romances out" as much as it is allocating the effort required by writing romances into writing something more relevant to PoE.

 

It's not like romances are a more essential element to a CRPG storyline than any other theme. Most RPGs don't have romances.

Edited by centurionofprix
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't really "cutting their romances out" as much as it is allocating the effort required by writing romances into writing something more relevant to PoE.

I wouldn't quite put it that way -- "something more relevant to PoE," since PoE doesn't exclude romance. It's not as if a proper implementation of romance would make the game cease being about anything-not-romance, and suddenly revolve around romance.

 

That being said...

 

It's not like romances are a more essential element to a CRPG storyline than any other theme. Most RPGs don't have romances.

This is true. It's not that romances NEED to be in a cRPG. It's just that they also don't need to specifically not be in a cRPG. If they're in, they need to not suck, and to play nice with the rest of the game's design.


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

 

It isn't really "cutting their romances out" as much as it is allocating the effort required by writing romances into writing something more relevant to PoE.

I wouldn't quite put it that way -- "something more relevant to PoE," since PoE doesn't exclude romance. It's not as if a proper implementation of romance would make the game cease being about anything-not-romance, and suddenly revolve around romance.

 

Of course not. A proper implementation of, say, artistry, likewise would not cause the game to be "about" art, but just as with romance, there is no particular reason to include art to the exclusion of ideas considered more relevant to the story. It also seems a "proper" implementation would require art or romance to be somehow connected to the themes of the game.

 

Both are potentially meaningful themes, and equally meaningful as aspects of human existence or whatever. Yet I don't see anyone clamouring for art mechanics to be included specifically and without regard for whether these have any relevance to the game.

Edited by centurionofprix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both are potentially meaningful themes, and equally meaningful as aspects of human existence or whatever. Yet I don't see anyone clamouring for art mechanics to be included specifically and without regard for whether these have any relevance to the game.

A very valid point. I should think it's at least partially due to a lack of people clamouring specifically against art. The more people feel like something won't even be considered, the more reason they feel to push for its consideration.

 

Obviously, you have your more extreme people on both sides. But, hey, if you strike up a topic about art, I don't know about anyone else, but I'll gladly evaluate its role in PoE. :)

 

Really, though, we do know that interpersonal interaction between characters is in PoE, so Romance, being a subset of that, is probably more pertinent than art (as anything more than a topic -- as some form of active interaction or mechanic. I would actually love to see Knowledge - Art, or even an Art skill/Artist profession in the game).


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

 

PoE would be improved so much by shoehorning in such a mature scene.

  • Like 3

"Take your child murderin' god and shove his him up his own ass."-Volorun

 

"...the vote of a black redhead disabled homosexual transsexual Jew should probably be worth the same as at least a hundred white heterosexual Christians."-Rostere

 

"i can think of many women i would gladly sleep with, but not a single one that i would want as a girlfriend/wife... neither real nor fictional."-teknoman2

 

"I'm all for killing dogs in film." - algroth

 

"Iselmyr is the one who did GOMAD... Aloth is lactose intolerant" -ShadySands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

PoE would be improved so much by shoehorning in such a mature scene.

 

it's perfect, they just needed to add a close up on torso up and a wobble  animation with the guy having a lasso and cowboy hat on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's perfect, they just needed to add a close up on torso up and a wobble  animation with the guy having a lasso and cowboy hat on.

 

 

I was thinking spurs, chaps and a saddle but hey different strokes ......

 

I really have to stop drinking wine before I post ...  I keep getting my genres confused.  :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I really have to stop drinking wine before I post ...  I keep getting my genres confused.

Funny. I was going to say the exact opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make romance a DLC-option, IMHO. Spend some time working on it after the main game is finished, and then throw it on market. People who like romance options (like me :)) will buy it; others will enjoy the game as it is. Why make such a big deal of it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, the thing about the DLC option is you aren't adding much in the way of substance, except kind of wildly changing the character arc of the NPCs. I like the idea of romances in the game but I wouldn't pay to suddenly have my party members get the hots for the main character (a direction that isn't a part of there original intended development). Although, to be honest, I don't care for a bunch of DLC anyway; I would rather have a sizable expansion pack that adds a large, meaningful segment onto the game. Not bits and chunks with relatively little to offer.

I'm open to romance in future games, but I don't want it shoehorned into this or any one of them.

PS: Don't mean to say anyone is wrong, just bouncing off of what has been said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make romance a DLC-option, IMHO. Spend some time working on it after the main game is finished, and then throw it on market. People who like romance options (like me :)) will buy it; others will enjoy the game as it is. Why make such a big deal of it?

NO NO NO!!! NO ROMANCE IN THE EXPANSION!!! DON'T CHANGE THE CHARACTERS!!! Add romance to poe2 or not at all!


"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PieSnatcher, Namutree,

Honestly, if the game is good without a romance part, I’m on your side, folks. Just saying it would be a nice option, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be an optional DLC.


 

Edited by Nakia

 I have but one enemy: myself  - Drow saying


nakia_banner.jpg


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I've put about 15 hours into Inquisition, and seen the first many romance dialogue options, I think I've pinpointed the biggest (but not only) problem: The dialogue options have their motivation decided for you.

 

The option might be "That's an admirable quality in a person," in response to someone expressing concern over some personality trait of theirs. And, while that could simply be said in a re-assuring way, it's *dun dunn DUNNNN*, a ROMANCE OPTION! Obviously you're saying that with 73 winks and nudges at the end of it.

 

It's like they use the fortune cookie approach, silently adding "... in bed" to the end, to turn anything into a romance option.

 

I dunno what's worse, though. That, or blatantly romantic/flirty out-of-nowhere responses. "So, this war's going well, isn't it?" ... "It sure is, beautiful!"

 

... O_O

 

Haha. Annnnywho. Maybe one day we'll see it actually treated like a part of the world, instead of like "Okay, we're done with dialogue... NOW WE'LL ADD ROMANCE!"


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

Now that I've put about 15 hours into Inquisition, and seen the first many romance dialogue options, I think I've pinpointed the biggest (but not only) problem: The dialogue options have their motivation decided for you.

 

The option might be "That's an admirable quality in a person," in response to someone expressing concern over some personality trait of theirs. And, while that could simply be said in a re-assuring way, it's *dun dunn DUNNNN*, a ROMANCE OPTION! Obviously you're saying that with 73 winks and nudges at the end of it.

Yeah, well, that's just one of the inherent problems with Bioware's idiotic Dialogue wheel mechanic, which has been in every one of their games since 2010. It is designed to solve the problem that many players had in Origins where they'd simply choose the "curious" or "friendly" looking dialogue option then before they knew it, the NPC (Morrigan or Zevran in particular) asks them to bed. So now there's a dialogue wheel that labels every romance dialogue option with a giant Heart so that even the most clueless gamer knows what he's getting himself into before choosing a dialogue option.

 

Of course It ruins everything else. Romance is now a computerized mini-game, ie. "click here to romance this NPC!" but hey, This is what happens when you try to fit the square peg into the round slot.

 

Haha. Annnnywho. Maybe one day we'll see it actually treated like a part of the world, instead of like "Okay, we're done with dialogue... NOW WE'LL ADD ROMANCE!"

Don't hold your breath. The Proof that Romance and RPGs are a bad fit is clubbing you upside the head. You're even noticing it AND describing it, yet you're still willfully holding out hope that someone one day will invent the solution. The fact of the matter is that if an RPG ever does what you're hoping it will do (Treat Romance as part of the world) it will no longer be an RPG, it will be a dating simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, well, that's just one of the inherent problems with Bioware's idiotic Dialogue wheel mechanic, which has been in every one of their games since 2010. It is designed to solve the problem that many players had in Origins where they'd simply choose the "curious" or "friendly" looking dialogue option then before they knew it, the NPC (Morrigan or Zevran in particular) asks them to bed. So now there's a dialogue wheel that labels every romance dialogue option with a giant Heart so that even the most clueless gamer knows what he's getting himself into before choosing a dialogue option.

No no... I'm talking about the design of that dialogue response in the first place. It has nothing to do with the options being oriented in a radial fashion, or having icons to describe their tone.

 

One should be able to say something and choose the tone himself. Or, rather, the tone shouldn't be definite until further choices are made. For example, you might say something that makes someone mad, because they thought you meant it a certain way. If they come back with "what the hell did you just say?!", you either respond with "You heard me..." or something of that nature, OR "I only meant that (clarification)."

 

That being said, there should definitely be blatant options that are mean/flirty/what-have-you. But, it's a bit silly when you go from listening to a serious account of some companion's history, straight to "lolz, yer pretty!" It really should be much more context-sensitive, on the choice-giving, for the blatant choices.

 

 

 

 

Don't hold your breath. The Proof that Romance and RPGs are a bad fit is clubbing you upside the head. You're even noticing it AND describing it, yet you're still willfully holding out hope that someone one day will invent the solution. The fact of the matter is that if an RPG ever does what you're hoping it will do (Treat Romance as part of the world) it will no longer be an RPG, it will be a dating simulator.

I'll hold my breath however I please. You're imagining proof. The solution already exists, it just doesn't get used. And no, it won't be a dating simulator. It'll be an RPG in which romance is much more subtle, AND actually matters in some shape or fashion. Being nice to people, or mean to people, or making this decision or that decision matters a great deal in many games and worlds and narratives. So, why is romance not a decision that affects anything?

 

You're a silly person, Stun. :)

Edited by Lephys

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

Being nice to people, or mean to people, or making this decision or that decision matters a great deal in many games and worlds and narratives. So, why is romance not a decision that affects anything?

Because it overlaps with your examples and you end up with the same problem that afflicts all RPG romances. Think it through.

 

1. Be nice to People- you can't have Romances in a game that also has a "be nice to people" option because that will just result in what we got in DA:O, where people were nice to Morrigan then all of a sudden she's inviting them into her tent and the player is like "WTF, All I did was agree with her that magic is useful and the chantry is wrong, now she wants to have sex."

 

2. Be an Ass to People - You can't have that in a game with Romances either, since that's the opposite of love and affection. Now, you could counter with: "well, I can be an ass to everyone but the person I wish to Romance". Yep, you sure can. You can be a total ass to, say, Lelianna, and then be nice to Morrigan. And then... see #1.

 

3. Be Romantic to people - Sure. Of course, this requires that every single NPC in the game be romanceable otherwise it'll be a mindnumbing mini-game of trial and error. That's what Dating sims are about btw. But if the game only has a few romanceable NPCs then you'll either have to know which ones are romanceable (metagaming) and then apply #1; or choose the flirt option whenever it pops up in dialogue (See DA2's dialogue wheel); or apply #1 to everyone and wait and see what happens (Dating sim); Or the game can be designed to give you romance quests (there's the non-subtlety you don't want)

 

And none of this even touches the REAL issue: Romance writing itself is invariably difficult to do in an interactive medium like a video game. the Player is forced to choose only the small set of dialogue options that the game gives him, and THAT is what differentiates "being nice/an ass" from something far more defined/emotional like romance.

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ False.

 

1) You can simply not have character written who go "Oh, he was nice? I LOVE HIM, TOO!"

2) Same as 1. Heck, you can even be an ass to people and have characters who find that appealing. So, yeah, just write characters who are believable and make sense.

3) No it doesn't require that. Everything in the game has a level of restraint placed on your choices. You can't just burn a random orphanage down because you want to roleplay not-a-goody-two-shoes. You can't just say "Screw it, I actually want to destroy the universe and be the threat that some adventuring party has to come stop! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!". Because then it's not a narrative, it's a sandbox. In fact, that's one of the main things that separates a narrative-driven game from a sandbox/simulator.

 

In general, it makes sense that you can only develop a full, romantic relationship with your companions, because they're with you throughout everything that happens in the entire narrative. That being said, it would be interesting to actually be able to have a relationship with someone who doesn't follow you around all the time, who just lives in some village somewhere and can't wait until you aren't on the run/off to fix some crazy thing that's befallen you/wrapped up in world-ending events.

 

 

And none of this even touches the REAL issue: Romance writing itself is invariably difficult to do in an interactive medium like a video game. the Player is forced to choose only the small set of dialogue options that the game gives him, and THAT is what differentiates "being nice/an ass" from something far more defined/emotional like romance.

A valid point. I don't think it's easy. But it's conceptually easy to not do it completely wrong. A company like Bioware just kinda goes "Meh, I think more people are interested in just the dating-sim aspect of it and getting to make the choices, for funsies, than they are in the actual overall design and how it fits into the world/narrative."

 

Basically, it gets treated like more character customization. "Who did you have YOUR Commander Shepard romance?! 8D!"

 

It's not like it's a snap of the fingers and you've got the perfect romance aspect in an RPG. But, it starts with not founding it on the idea that picking a bed-buddy will just be a cherry on top of the banana-split that is the game, and to treat it like any other emotionally-charged/socially-interactive choice in the game should be treated.

 

For one thing, it shouldn't even come down to a binary "OMG, I LIKEZ YOU! SAY YOU LIKEZ ME BACK, OR I CRY AND DISLIKE YOU!". IT should be more actual effort to understand a character who's romanceable, and if the personality you build for your character via player choices doesn't jive with what they're after, then they simply stop at friendship. They don't try to leap at you all of the sudden, then cry about it and hate you forever when you don't spontaneously catch them in your arms.

 

I've provided oodles of examples before now. Something that would be great would be to have some temporary companion (who the player doesn't know to be temporary) who is very, very interested in the player's character. Then, it turns out she/he is actually some agent of a foe (or at least just someone with some agenda), and whether or not you allow them your personal trust determines a lot of significant results.

 

It's really not that hard to produce a concept of how romantic interactions can be woven into an actual gameworld and narrative, instead of just included as a dipping sauce on the side.

Edited by Lephys

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

Kind of going to back both of you for a number of points on this one, especially the fact that limitted options mean limitted solutions, making RPG romance often a problem with the medium, but there's also the question of what is defined as romantic speak in the first place.

I remember noting quite strongly in BG2 that the romance options between Jaheira, Aerie and Viconia were startlingly different. You could talk to Viconia like you talk to Aerie, and vice versa, but if you're nice to VIc you get rejected, and if you're forward and rough to Aerie you also get rejected, and if you try either of those approaches wholeheartedly to Jaheira... well suffice to say that what counts as the 'romance' option changes depending on the character, and I really liked that. Far too many games treat 'romance' as a one size fits all, and then adds all the parts commented on above.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ False.

 

1) You can simply not have character written who go "Oh, he was nice? I LOVE HIM, TOO!"

And what would you suggest as an alternative to this "cause ---> effect" template that defines the RPG genre itself? A love meter, where the NPC's demeanor goes through incremental changes from neutrality to "I LOVE YOU" as the meter reaches 100 based on what the player does/says? Yeah, again DA:O did that. It's the only way to implement subtlety in a video game romance. It STILL fails. It fails because love is not a tangible thing that can be measured and attempts to conceptualize it with a meter just makes it feel gamey.

 

2) Same as 1. Heck, you can even be an ass to people and have characters who find that appealing.

BG2 did that with the Viconia romance. And the result is that it's probably the best one they ever did. But it still suffers from the "WTF! How did I get myself into this?" phenomenon because it's counter-intuitive. Someone who doesn't want to romance her will deliberately treat her like sh*t and the result is...romance!

 

So, yeah, just write characters who are believable and make sense.

No, that won't work. Obsidian did that in NWN2....and that game had the worst romances in the history of RPGs.

 

In general, it makes sense that you can only develop a full, romantic relationship with your companions, because they're with you throughout everything that happens in the entire narrative. That being said, it would be interesting to actually be able to have a relationship with someone who doesn't follow you around all the time, who just lives in some village somewhere and can't wait until you aren't on the run/off to fix some crazy thing that's befallen you/wrapped up in world-ending events.

Oh hey, I hear DA:I is attempting something like that. (you can romance one of your advisors or whatever) Yeah, do tell me how that goes in your game. Tons of people on BSN are already complaining about how dull and shallow such romances turned out to be. Which I assume would be an Obvious result, Since an RPG is about adventuring, and relegating your romance to 'weekend visitation' goes against that.

 

 

It's really not that hard to produce a concept of how romantic interactions can be woven into an actual gameworld and narrative, instead of just included as a dipping sauce on the side.

Empty words. PROVE IT. For the last YEAR that we've been having this discussion, you've given dozens of examples of what "could/should" be done, and every single one of those examples have already BEEN done and the results were always the same.... Failure.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Viconia's romance isn't counter-intuitive, but it's certainly very different given her personal orientation, which is certainly not the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about you guys but on my first run I'm not going to romance anybody. But I'm thinking maybe Sagani on my second playthrough but I'm not sure yet


Free games updated 3/6/19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about you guys but on my first run I'm not going to romance anybody. But I'm thinking maybe Sagani on my second playthrough but I'm not sure yet

 

Oh no I'll be Romancing from my first play through for sure. If I don't follow the provided Romance arcs I would feel something is missing from my RPG experience in DA:I

 

Also there are many games that don't have Romance so I want to take full advantage of DA:I :wub:


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

 

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

 

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...