Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There are already AAA games with romance. Can't you guys let us have at least our little niche games without insisting that they're just like the AAA titles? Please?

To be fair, it isn't like he's requesting a strictly AAA game feature, rather, a feature that was a part of the more story-driven IE games. I mean, sure, at this point we've been talking at each other for months and I'm sure many grow weary (and yet somehow these threads keep chugging along) of promancers' pleas. But this game is just as much "our" game too. I'm perfectly happy to have it sans romance. But I don't think promancers are obligated to swallow their opinions because many here are quite vocal about not sharing it.

 

MMO-ers on the other hand... ;)

 

That said, many arguments that have been made here in favor of romances are somewhat beside the point. Realism. Meh. (But the counter-point about rape I found equally beside the point) I think it's enough to posit that, at least for some, there are enjoyable story-telling possibilities. Both realistic and fantastic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a meta-romance whereby you stumble across a Blood Ninja.

 

He then proceeds to put on his robe and wizard hat. Hilarity ensues.

  • Like 4

You read my post.

 

You have been eaten by a grue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a meta-romance whereby you stumble across a Blood Ninja.

 

He then proceeds to put on his robe and wizard hat. Hilarity ensues.

 

Then your character will stomp the ground like a rhinocerus.

 

Man, that is some old, old, oooold school internet humor.

  • Like 3

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you only add ONE romance option for a guy dating a woman then feminists and gays are angry and so the complete package of romances have to be thought out in order no one complains and wants to sue you because you are a hidden sexist and xenophobe in their paranoia!

 

So the resources are a problem because romances can lead to paranoia by some people and they are very vocal about. They see sexism and whatnot everywhere... even there is just light they see dem darkness! Burn the witches....

Edited by NWN_babaYaga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize, the reason I ignored your other points is the "resources" comes up all the time. My view on this is its a red herring around why we can't implement Romance.

This. Here's the thing: Is "because resources" a perfectly valid reason for why romance isn't going to be a part of this particular project? Sure. What it isn't, though, is a perfectly good reason for why it cannot ever be a part of any RPG, other than just some pro-mancer-only dating sim game.

 

"A bunch of people don't prefer that" isn't really a valid reason for "no matter how much money a game budget gets, it should ALWAYS be spent on higher priority things." I guarantee you there's plenty of stuff in any game that doesn't need to be in the game, or that lots of people don't like. That doesn't mean there's never any reason not to put something in a game. All it means is, "the resources could be spent on something else" is not a good enough reason, by itself, not to put it into the game, because that's always true.

 

I mean, to hell with story in PoE! Let's just put all those resources into combat! 8D Or, away with the in-depth reputation system. Let's just go back to simple morality, and put all those resources toward 7 more hours of campaign, more varied creatures and encounters, etc!

 

Everything that requires resources comes at the cost of the potential for something else. Romance is not unique in this.

 

Plenty of things in games are optional and not-loved by the entire populous of people who play the game. Heck, when you look back at statistics, you often see that something like 20% of people who played a game ever used a particular class, for example. Doesn't mean that class should've just been knocked from the list and was a waste of resources.

  • 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

The "oh, but it's optional!" argument seems flawed to me, in that it more or less assumes that "antimancers" do not enjoy character/companion depth.

  • Like 1

This statement is false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends. "Oh, but it's optional, so nothing else matters!" is flawed. "It's optional" isn't any more flawed than the reasoning behind any optional stuff in the game. The game shouldn't force you involve your PC in romance. I think that's a given.


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

The "oh, but it's optional!" argument seems flawed to me, in that it more or less assumes that "antimancers" do not enjoy character/companion depth.

How so? And the "oh, but it's optional!" argument is the assertion that it is not or should not be obligatory to persue an in-game romance, correct? I'm just trying to connect the dots.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what if they do give birth?

 

aeries-baby.jpg

 

You put it in your backpack for some time, until you find some phat loot and remember that it's totally filling up your space. It somehow still lives although you forgot about it for some time (probably ate some crumbs lying around in your backpack) but you decide it's way better to carry another iron sword you found on your enemies and leave it at the next best floor in the church of some priest that prayed to the god of death. Then you go to the romance thread and brag about your superhuman sperm that got the girl to deliver a baby in just 33 days. You open the door, get on the floor and everybody walks the dinosaur. :dancing:

 

am thinking our neever suggestion deserves serious consideration.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66619-obsidian-pleasereconsider-adding-romance/?p=1475392

 

thanks to leferd input, neever would address four frequent fan requests. am understanding game is largely content locked, but we expect a neever encounter would be taking far less effort than much o' the beta work will.... give some o' the writers and an artist useful work to do.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Not sure if fishing for likes or trying to tickle the funny bone. Either way, both worked and I highly support your request. :thumbsup:

Maybe make a poll for it or something?

 

I also think an important topic that's often neglected in this thread is the joy of paying alimony and divorce fees. We should totally discuss the benefit of this, as it is important to make a romance feel more real, yes? :biggrin:

Edited by Doppelschwert
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "oh, but it's optional!" argument seems flawed to me, in that it more or less assumes that "antimancers" do not enjoy character/companion depth.

Bingo.

 

 

The "it's optional" retort has several issues associated with it that prevent it from being a very good argument. For one thing, Romance tends to encompass the NPC's personality. The result is that if the player chooses to opt out of the romance he/she must either 1) not talk to that NPC; or 2) endure the romance build-up until they're given the option to reject the NPC's flirtations/advances (which is often an uncomfortable situation, depending on the NPC's response to being rejected)

 

Also, unlike other game features (such as crafting) where you can choose to not engage in it and suffer zero ill effects, there's no such thing as "optional" when it comes to romances. If an NPC is romanceable, then that is what they *are*. There's no toggle for it in the game options screen. So anyone wishing to enjoy a deeply written character's personality (or even their combat skills) has no choice but to endure the romance elements that come pre-packaged with that character.

 

Of course, someone can always come back with: "just because this has always been the case, it doesn't mean that it HAS to be that way...etc". Sure, I suppose that's true. It's not impossible to simply give all romanceable NPCs 2 separate personalty sets and then actually make romance a toggle in the gameplay settings. So if you choose the "romances occur" option in the settings, then all Romanceable NPCs are given "Personality A", and if you choose "romances don't occur" then they're all given "personality B". But I can't think of anything more retarded and gamey than such a design. Or anything more costly (double the writing).

 

 

 

 

And what if they do give birth?

aeries-baby.jpg

 

You put it in your backpack for some time, until you find some phat loot and remember that it's totally filling up your space. It somehow still lives although you forgot about it for some time (probably ate some crumbs lying around in your backpack) but you decide it's way better to carry another iron sword you found on your enemies and leave it at the next best floor in the church of some priest that prayed to the god of death. Then you go to the romance thread and brag about your superhuman sperm that got the girl to deliver a baby in just 33 days. You open the door, get on the floor and everybody walks the dinosaur. :dancing:

 

LOL

 

Yep, and as pointed out in the other thread, PoE has a bottomless Deep Stash. You could just stick the baby in the deep stash and forget about it for the rest of the game.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The "oh, but it's optional!" argument seems flawed to me, in that it more or less assumes that "antimancers" do not enjoy character/companion depth.

How so? And the "oh, but it's optional!" argument is the assertion that it is not or should not be obligatory to persue an in-game romance, correct? I'm just trying to connect the dots.

 

Ah, my bad. I wasn't addressing whether or not it was forced. Like Lephys, I take it for granted that it isn't. The question is rather "what's the alternative?".

Are we talking a 50/50 split between romance-centered and non-romance-centered characters?

Or would each character be both romanceable and non-romanceable, but both paths offering content of equal value/depth?

The latter seems to me like a typical "split design" issue - like having both RTwP and TB combat - where the result isn't likely to be truly satisfactory to either side. 

The former, unless what is really asked for when people say they want romance is spending way more time on developing way more companions, would mean that the total number of potentially interesting companions (from an "antimancer" point of view) would effectively be reduced. That makes the "oh, but it's optional!" argument rather less than compelling.

Edited by dorkboy
  • Like 1

This statement is false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... that's the thing, I wouldn't really have "romance-centered" characters. I mean, unless it was some NPC or something. Even then, though, really... I'd much rather romance not be their sole interactive purpose in the game. Not even close.

 

Romance is a pretty minor thing, in-and-of itself. It's an aspect of character choice/reaction, just like a lot of other stuff. How you handle things/play your character affects how NPCs react, and how they behave affects how you decide things, etc. And all of that, ideally, affects the situations and events surrounding your party.

 

There are plenty of games that have all kinds of reactionary "You did such-and-such, so this character isn't very happy with you," etc. Heck, I think it'd even be great if it was possible, depending on what you did, for some potential companions to turn against you, and/or join some not-really-your-enemy-but-just-considers-you-to-be-interfering faction or something. Depending, partially, on what you do and how you handle things and just generally play your character.

 

I don't think romance is any different. It's a specific relationship that can either develop, or not, between your character and another in the game world.

 

So, yeah, if your game's design just focuses on it as a standalone "see if you can achieve wooing victory before the game ends" element, it's just a silly, optional thing. Whether or not it's optional at that point isn't even an issue, because before that comes "is this even pertinent to anything other than itself?"

 

If it were treated like it should be treated, what content is romance and what content is non-romance (the stuff romance is "taking resources away from") would be almost indistinguishable from one another.

 

It's like... playing a certain race or class. Maybe if you never play an Elven Wizard, you'll miss out on certain content. Reactions to elves/wizards in certain situations, race-affected lore checks, etc. (just examples, not necessarily confirmed, in-game things for PoE). But, that race and class aren't just arbitrarily "It's OKAY because they're optional! 8D!" things thrown into the game. The stuff you miss out on is just variation upon the existing story/narrative/world. It's not just standalone afterthought stuff. HAD you been an Elf or Wizard in situation X, you could've handled things a different way, but you weren't.

 

Same with romance. If you kindle a relationship with another character, it should be amid the story and world goings-on. The existence of that relationship should present different consequences/factors to your playthrough than the absence of it would have.

 

I don't really think that's any less viable than an alternative of the game being completely devoid of romantic relationships, conceptually.

 

The problem with game romances is that they're in just because some people like romances, and not because they're worked into the game story in any way, shape, or fashion. They just kind of find some empty space. "Oh, hey, you go off to war, here, so wouldn't it be nice if you could kiss someone goodbye, instead of just parting ways? *INJECT*". As an aspect of character development/interaction, romance, in general, is no different from any other aspect of character development. Characters can like you, hate you, plot against you, keep secrets from you, share things with you, go out of their way to back you up, use you, respect you, etc. Why is romantic fondness so alien in all of that? What... it's inherently incapable of being used by writers in a relevant-to-the-story fashion? I don't buy it. Just because people haven't done something doesn't mean it's because no one can do it.

 

So, I really don't think the existence of romance requires the reduction of interesting character development. As I've said before, for a game like PoE, I really think it could essentially function within the reputation/disposition system.

  • 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
 

want some romance into the game. its the reason why bg2 was better than bg1 and icewind dale and planescape. 

What?

 And i dont see how that would ruin any impact to the game.

As stated before, it would impact it by the game being very close to going gold. They are not going to shoehorn in hours of work just because. They budgeted for a timetable. They reached that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new to the forums and haven't kept up with news of PoE since it was successfully kickstarted.. 

 

I won't lie, I'm pretty disappointed there isn't any romance in the game. I don't NEED romantic subplots, but I do enjoy them. Alistair from DA:O has to be my favorite. <3

 

I just hope we don't have a few throw away flirty NPCs who you can sorta have a relationship with who all happen to be female. I'll go from disappointed to angry pretty quickly if that's the case. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new to the forums and haven't kept up with news of PoE since it was successfully kickstarted.. 

 

I won't lie, I'm pretty disappointed there isn't any romance in the game. I don't NEED romantic subplots, but I do enjoy them. Alistair from DA:O has to be my favorite. <3

 

I just hope we don't have a few throw away flirty NPCs who you can sorta have a relationship with who all happen to be female. I'll go from disappointed to angry pretty quickly if that's the case. 

 

Welcome to the forums and the promancer camp, your opinions are always welcome in our army :thumbsup:

 

But just to be clear I don't think there will be any relationships in the game even a quasi-relationship with NPC , I'm being honest with you so you don't get angry and disappointed later

 

But the good news is we have Modders who will be creating Romance options for us, Namutree is a Modder and  is active in this discussion and he  has already expressed an interest in creating Mods around Romance. So don't get disheartened, salvation lies in the path of the Modder !!! :biggrin:

  • 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

I like game romances in the sense they can offer some interesting and fun game-play.  Marriage and attachment to one person could bring said person into a dangerous situation, given your character's adventurous occupation or past, and create a sense of urgency to help the person who's been with you for so long.  It could also - in other games, not necessarily PoE - lead to a legacy of sorts, creating a family to continue the 'legend' of your name or house.  Should it be an inherent game-play requirement because it's a role-playing game?  No, but it could be a nice side offering, dependent on the time it would take to implement it.  Something like romance would be more a consideration before heavy engine development as it'd tie into a lot of facets throughout development that would create a high potential for introducing new bugs into the system if implemented late.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What fascinated me about romance in BG2 is how different the reception of them was among players. For example I really liked Viconia but was barely able to go past 2 dialog segments of Aerie - felt like a teen romance. Someone else might say Viconia was a complete domino bitch and had no merit being a romantic character in the slightest, while Aerie was really "sweet" and kind (I cringe as I type this).

 

I'd like romances to exist, there's no reason not to, even more subtle ones, like in PS:T. But I guess it's also good to get a feel for the characters first and then have the romance option later (sequel?).

  • Like 1

tsgUO.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when romances or interaction between npcs or PC´s are somewhat "realistic" but illogical at the sametime you get what i had in BG2 the underdark. The evil dwarf in my party was so bad to aerie that she left... she left right at the beginning of the underdark and i lost my main spell caster because of that. I couldnt adventure further and had to use a save game prior to the sahuagin quest... That was unnecesary, unrealistic (she would never ever walk alone back to athkala) and just bad design!

 

Because in reality my PC would have killed her but i did not had the option to do. A selfish traitor like she in such a situation would have been killed, female or not doesnt matter.

Edited by NWN_babaYaga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe she figured braving the underdark by herself would be less hurtful than braving it with you? Plus, you can totally kill leaving party members. I've done it more often than I can count. You just have to be quick about it, before they run into a door or out of your sight.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... you may be right about the killing but i dont think about a scripted npc as if it is a human being, deeply depressed and so irrational in the worsest way possible. If i had the intuition how selfish and stupid she realy is I wouldnt have brought both npcs together. (so here was bioware not good enough to tell me that there could be a REAL gamebreaker later on if ...)This is not a philosophical question for me when a npc´s decides to go berzerk, mad or just kill my gameplay right in the middle of a game... it is a question of how bad the design is and what can i do to restore my fun. You can also debate a whole day why a npc of any game with the name "noname" has no name and why he wears this red robe... but in the end it´s just some design some dude did and nothing of importance realy.

 

Have you always wondered about people who argue about a modern art image that is just random paint with nothing but could be anything in it and they realy see philosophical questions and what not in it...

Edited by NWN_babaYaga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe she figured braving the underdark by herself would be less hurtful than braving it with you? Plus, you can totally kill leaving party members. I've done it more often than I can count. You just have to be quick about it, before they run into a door or out of your sight.

 

I found another way to prevent characters leaving your party in BG2, Korgan ( dwarf berserker ) seemed to keep leaving my party at the certain time in the game in a town because of a particular quest I had agreed to. So what I did  was ask him to leave before that by restoring a game. He then went back to the Inn and I completed this particular quest, then I went back and asked him to join my party again. Problem solved :geek:

 

Your approach  seems rather brutal and cruel to me :ermm:


"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

Bruce, I think you of all people should understand the nature of roleplaying. I have played both good characters who would balk at such an act and evil characters who reveled in it.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when romances or interaction between npcs or PC´s are somewhat "realistic" but illogical at the sametime you get what i had in BG2 the underdark. The evil dwarf in my party was so bad to aerie that she left... she left right at the beginning of the underdark and i lost my main spell caster because of that. I couldnt adventure further and had to use a save game prior to the sahuagin quest... That was unnecesary, unrealistic (she would never ever walk alone back to athkala) and just bad design!

 

Because in reality my PC would have killed her but i did not had the option to do. A selfish traitor like she in such a situation would have been killed, female or not doesnt matter.

Which is evil/neutral parties are the best.

Edited by drake heath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce, I think you of all people should understand the nature of roleplaying. I have played both good characters who would balk at such an act and evil characters who reveled in it.

You right, I have never played an evil character before so the thought of killing someone who left my party would be unconscionable

 

But an evil character would see this as a betrayal and act appropriately


"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...