The Official Romance Thread

[Gromnir]

1) obsidian never called poe a "spiritual successor" to the ie games... whatever the hell that means.

 

2) immersion is meaningless w/o explanation

 

am not certain which were the first game blogger or so-called journalist who used the "spiritual successor" nonsense, but we wish that the shambling corpse would do us all a favor and give up the ghost.  fill its mouth with salt. chop off its head. stab it through the heart with a wooden stake while a legion o' exorcists recite our fathers and hail marys until their throats blister.  whatever... whatever it takes to finally put that unfortunate undead thing to rest is gonna get our support.

 

as for the immersion... well, immersion is extreme personal. for instance.  we find all past obsidian or biowarian romances to be rushed and immature.  this should not be a surprise as the romances, since bg2, has been relegated to a kinda optional and tangential mini-game status-- the romances do not and cannot fundamental affect the main story.  therefore, you got a relative small number o' complete tangential romance encounters to create a romance story arc. is no wonder that to Gromnir all such romances feel rushed and half-baked.  to us, immersion (HA!) suffers if we explore the romances.   the romances is kept relative meaningless to the critical path story, which inevitably results in a disconnect for Gromnir. how can something so significant be tangential?  also, the brevity o' the romance arcs inevitably makes such fodder feel immature as we is expected to embrace the notion that the person we just met, and perhaps fought in a life and death struggle as part o' our intro, has become our mostest significant other 'cause we had six dialogue encounters that included an awkward reveal o' whatever emotional baggage our prospective paramour has been carrying around for the past decades or centuries. such romances is childish and silly to us... and if you insist on using the hated immersion language, then romances invariably break such immersion.

 

is ironic, but as long a romances is optional and tangential, we do not mind their presence in a game because we have the choice to avoid them.  being tangential is the insurmountable obstacle we see for such romances, so yeah, we get the conflict. that being said, according to the obsidian developers, romances require considerable effort and if the developers choose to use that effort to enhance the portions o' the game we is actually gonna explore, we call that a win for Gromnir.  

 

regardless, more than a well-written crpg romance, we want an end to the spiritual successor language, and appeals to immersion without explanation/illustration.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Skree]

I can't understand how can someone seriously state that obsidian writing can't make someone "feel" for their characters.

 

 I felt the deepest "feelings" one can feel for a game character in KOTOR 2, and even characters from New Vegas were memorable, many of them.

 

How can someone say that PoE is a dungeon romp is Beyond me. It's heresy.

[gurufabbes]

@Gromnir:

Are you among the developers? Why are you using the 1st person plural? (Are you royalty?)

 

As for the romances, I agree with you what you've said, insofar as that as being optional, why should they be a problem?

I disagree that any romance short of a masterpiece should be absent... It's relative, particularly if you are of the opinion that all of the Bioware romances were rushed and immature. I don't share that view.

 

It's a point where I respect any effort rather than no effort at all by pretending it isn't apart of a good fantasy setting.

[Gromnir]

 

@Gromnir:

Are you among the developers? Why are you using the 1st person plural? (Are you royalty?)

 

As for the romances, I agree with you what you've said, insofar as that as being optional, why should they be a problem?

I disagree that any romance short of a masterpiece should be absent... It's relative, particularly if you are of the opinion that all of the Bioware romances were rushed and immature. I don't share that view.

 

It's a point where I respect any effort rather than no effort at all by pretending it isn't apart of a good fantasy setting.

 

you disagree that romances short o' a masterpiece should be absent?  with whom are you disagreeing?  Gromnir made no such suggestion.  we has not seen anybody else make such an argument.

 

the observation that it is our opinion that bioware AND obsidian romances is rushed and immature were precisely our point.  you used empty "immersion" language as if immersion had some kinda meaning beyond the four-corners of your post.  it doesn't.  we explained how romances break Gromnir's immersion, precisely 'cause immersion is subjective and personal.  *zoom* right over your head.  

 

as for Gromnir being royalty... well, we is a US citizen, and our Constitution precludes titles and royalty.  'course we is technical a dual citizen o' a "domestic dependent nation" and the USA, so it is actual a more complicated question than one might s'pose.  if it makes you feel better, you are free to refer to Gromnir as "your lordship,"  though we will not require such obeisance.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[gurufabbes]

Wow... there are a lot of angry pricks on this forum, that's for sure.

Particularly those that think passive aggression and silly insults are a substitute for a constructive discussion.

Whatever.

I've given my point why I think romances should be included. If you disagree, you disagree.

[Gromnir]

1)  "Wow... there are a lot of angry pricks on this forum, that's for sure.

Particularly those that think passive aggression and silly insults are a substitute for a constructive discussion."

 

am suspecting you didn't notice the overt hypocrisy.

 

2) suggestion: if you don't know what passive-aggressive means, don't use it. 

 

3) you may not have agreed with Gromnir observations, but we were being constructive until you abandoned reasoned discourse.

 

*shrug*

 

4) we disagree. more important, the poe developers disagree... they disagree now and they disagreed months and years ago when constructive debate o' romance mighta' been useful rather than +20 days removed from release.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gairnulf]

Just for the record, I count the Sharwyn and Aarin Gend (there may have been more, I don't know) interactions in NWN as romances. They were crappy, but that I consider to be in line with NWN as a whole, so the romances were of the same quality as the whole original campaign. The Aaring Gend one was also either bugged or the character was bisexual, because I discovered I could give him romance dialogue lines while playing a male character. I felt rather weird when I found that out, while playing at the age of 16-17.

 

I'd understand someone saying he wants well-developed characters which he can get to know and learn much about. This is asking for quality and quantity of content. This I agree with and approve of. Part of this content which allows further exploring the characters could involve romance, this part could even be available with NPCs which are impossible to get into the party, because why limit romance options just to party NPCs anyway, but these opportunities are only a part of a bigger whole.

 

On the other hand, when I see someone whine "no romances", all I read is "I want dating simulation functionality". This doesn't sound to me like someone asking for content, or for quality characters. It's asking for functionality, not for content. Do you care about the quality and detail of characters - I'd wager if you truly did, you wouldn't be asking specifically for this functionality - being able to navigate a dialogue tree where you develop an intimate relationship with some character. That shouldn't, I imagine, be important to a player who attaches importance to the level of development of characters in general.

 

You can't convince me your motive for wanting "romances" is concern over how well characters are developed. This motivation just doesn't add up with this kind of question, at least that's the way I reason.

 

As for the "BG romances, oh no I meant a fan-created NPC in the BG:EE", sometimes admitting your mistake (if it's even a mistake and BG:EE isn't the only version you've had experience with, which isn't the end of the world) is the mature thing to do, but refusing to do it is fun to observe.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Gairnulf

[Stun]

The contribution to story and immersion is colossal.

For BG2, it is miniscule.

 

The romances in BG2 are an after thought. (literally an after thought. they were squeezed in at the end of production) And they were a gimmick, neither meant to contribute to the game's story, nor do they succeed in doing so "by accident".

 

But the fact that you're citing Dragon Age and Mass Effect is the real story here. It demonstrates your misunderstanding of PoE and its whole purpose for existing. If Obsidian wanted to do their own brand of Mass effect or Dragon Age, they would have done it, and probably wouldn't have had too much trouble finding a publisher to fund such a project. But that is NOT what they wanted to do. Instead, they wanted to make another game like the Infinity engine classics. And as far as the IE games go, only ONE of them (out of the 5) had romances, and even that ONE only included them....as a gimmick....an afterthought.

 

So your talking point of "Be more like Mass Effect and Dragon Age!" is Noted.... And spit on. Stop asking the devs to copy the very games we needed an alternative to.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Stun

[gurufabbes]

Just for the record, I count the Sharwyn and Aarin Gend (there may have been more, I don't know) interactions in NWN as romances. They were crappy, but that I consider to be in line with NWN as a whole, so the romances were of the same quality as the whole original campaign. The Aaring Gend one was also either bugged or the character was bisexual, because I discovered I could give him romance dialogue lines while playing a male character. I felt rather weird when I found that out, while playing at the age of 16-17.

 

I'd understand someone saying he wants well-developed characters which he can get to know and learn much about. This is asking for quality and quantity of content. This I agree with and approve of. Part of this content which allows further exploring the characters could involve romance, this part could even be available with NPCs which are impossible to get into the party, because why limit romance options just to party NPCs anyway, but these opportunities are only a part of a bigger whole.

 

On the other hand, when I see someone whine "no romances", all I read is "I want dating simulation functionality". This doesn't sound to me like someone asking for content, or for quality characters. It's asking for functionality, not for content. Do you care about the quality and detail of characters - I'd wager if you truly did, you wouldn't be asking specifically for this functionality - being able to navigate a dialogue tree where you develop an intimate relationship with some character. That shouldn't, I imagine, be important to a player who attaches importance to the level of development of characters in general.

 

You can't convince me your motive for wanting "romances" is concern over how well characters are developed. This motivation just doesn't add up with this kind of question, at least that's the way I reason.

 

As for the "BG romances, oh no I meant a fan-created NPC in the BG:EE", sometimes admitting your mistake (if it's even a mistake and BG:EE isn't the only version you've had experience with, which isn't the end of the world) is the mature thing to do, but refusing to do it is fun to observe.

 

I see what you're saying.

 

The way I see it, having the romance potential within the game first of all shows the level of depth of potential character interaction. The romances in BG2 were all optional, could at any time have been broken off by a few off colour comments to your companions. If you wanted though, and played your cards right, the possibility was there. 

What is more, it also classicly would show which territory and themes the game dared to enter into. Sexuality, love, loss... aren't these deeper subjects that motivate and cause tremors in the world and story? To me it draws a line as to how invested my character should be in the world and with party members.

 

A good fantasy RPG is to me like a well written fantasy novel that you are protagonist in. 

 

My point earlier was still, and I stand by it, that opinions of romances vary. Let them at least try, provide different options. Some will like it, others won't. The feature is not worth removing and ignoring just for those that do not, and could easily skip it.

 

As for the "BG romances, oh no I meant a fan-created NPC in the BG:EE", sometimes it's admitting your mistake is the mature thing to do, but refusing to do it is fun to observe. 

 

I don't see why BG is crucial to a point which involves the entire series. While you nitpick, I'm emphasizing the general point I'm trying to make.

 

 

And as far as the Infinity engine games go, only ONE (out of the 5) had romances and even that ONE only included them....as a gimmick....an afterthought.

 

 

2 of them had player built parties which were silent. Numbers don't matter. 

The feature was popular, so much it was added to BG's predecessor making it 2 out of the 3 games that had more in depth, written NPCs.

Edited March 2, 2015 by gurufabbes

[Gromnir]

as an aside, our stated dislike o' crpg romance is specific tied to the companion romances that became common after the release of bg2.  optional and tangential side-quest/mini-game romances is what we find to be... puerile.  

 

on the other hand, we thought ravel's love for tno, romantic or otherwise, were essential for our appreciation o' ps:t. the single most moving dialogue encounter we can recall from any crpg we has played is the one we had with the mebbeth incarnation o' ravel 'pon our return to sigil after plane hopping.  is not what promancers consider romance, but before the release o' bg2 we woulda' argued that the ravel's love for the ps:t protagonist were likely our favorite crpg romance, though perhaps there is a my little pony crpg we has yet to play that would dislodge ravel for our favored spot. 

 

the optional and tangential side-quest /mini-game romances has reshaped the nature o' the debate, perhaps for the worse. one wonders if the existence o' the companion romances actual decreases or inhibits the possibility o' a more mature kinda exploration and expressions o' love in crpgs. even developers reference game romance in terms more familiar to the promancer than what we woulda' seen back in 1999 or 2000. has the romance question irrevocably changed the nature o' the games?  we hope that is not the case.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps  am gonna once again observe that questions o' companion romances in poe is about as moot as moot can be... just in case folks hadn't noticed.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Gromnir

[etagloc]

Here is my attempt to appease the argument:

Video game romance is for ***s. Who would give a crap about romance in a video game?

 

You're welcome.

you are kidding me right..

 

its a story based game. Thats like saying romance dosn't belong in books aswell.

or creating a friendship with digital character dosn't create more immersion, 

 

if you had a romance/friendship with your companion and the game made you choose if she/he had to die or get hurt. would that Friendship/etc. not affect your choice, 

 

ofc. it would, and that would be a good thing for a roleplaying game. 

 

a romance dosn't had to involve you putting your dirty **** into someones vagina. 

 

Its about creating a bond between you and the characters in the game.

[Gairnulf]

The way I see it, having the romance potential within the game first of all shows the level of depth of potential character interaction.

I disagree that having romance potential, in itself, automatically means there is depth in characters. One doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

 

The romances in BG2 were all optional, could at any time have been broken off by a few off colour comments to your companions. If you wanted though, and played your cards right, the possibility was there.

So, "romances as a game mechanic". I'm against this existing as a game mechanic within the game, and I'm against it again, as a way of thinking about character development in the first place.

 

What is more, it also classicly would show which territory and themes the game dared to enter into. Sexuality, love, loss... aren't these deeper subjects that motivate and cause tremors in the world and story? To me it draws a line as to how invested my character should be in the world and with party members.

I don't agree. They can be deeper subjects, if they are presented as such, when the writing is good. When the writing is bad, they will not have the depth. Again - having a "romance" minigame where you navigate dialogue trees until you reach a "success" outcome has nothing to do with how well characters are developed in the game.

 

To demonstrate my point with an extreme case, there is a genre of books which deal with "romances", and "romances" are the center of the narrative, with minimal plot. There are also computer games (or if not games, at least PC software with rich graphics) which concentrate on the same parts of character interactions. So, lots of "romance" interactions, little depth. Apparently there is no correlation between "romance functionality" and writing quality or style in which themes are presented (mature treatment of the subjects you listed).

 

Alternatively to dinosaur porn, you can google the titles "Princess Trainer" and "Witch Trainer". Now that's what I call romance simulators, and pretty detailed too. But is the writing good, or important themes explored? I don't think so.

 

 

My point earlier was still, and I stand by it, that opinions of romances vary. Let them at least try, provide different options. Some will like it, others won't. The feature is not worth removing and ignoring just for those that do not, and could easily skip it.

And my point is that the existence of romance functionality is irrelevant to the quality of characters, and I can prove that with examples. I argue that the functionality being there means nothing without well-written characters, and well-written characters can be just as exciting to read about without the functionality.

 

In the days before video games, it was, and still is, possible to fantasize about developing a relationship with a character you read about in a book, if the book was well written. No dialogue trees, no kiss to build a dream on even. Just imagination. I don't see what having a character reply to my lines could add to this experience.

 

If anything, having some sort of interactivity could enhance and make more exciting those characters which otherwise you wouldn't see as so interesting, romance- or otherwise.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Gairnulf

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I disagree, especially for a dungeon crawl game.  The story is there to keep people engaged in killing more stuff, not for cares and feels.  I'll go watch My Little Pony if I want that.  [seriously, that isn't a dig, if I want warm fuzzies, I go watch MLP.]

 

 

I couldn't disagree more. Dungeon crawls without interesting stories or characters are boring as all hell, and a regression even from the pretty shoddy storytelling typically seen in games today.

 

I would rather the more imaginative designers start gaining the conviction that they can tackle practically any subject or evoke any emotion a book or movie can, just in a different way more suited to the medium they work in. I'd rather designers start gaining a bit of self-respect in regards to their ability to tell a genuinely good story, with genuinely interesting characters and a genuine ability to grab people beyond the game mechanics, rather than mindlessly accepting the John D. Carmack view that 'story in games is like a story in a porn movie, expected to be there but not important.' 

[Lephys]

It's not very important in SOME games. Depending on the game's design, it can be unimportant. Like... Evolve. There's kind of a "story," but it's mainly just there to support the gameplay setup. Even though it doesn't make chronological sense that the same teams of the same characters will somehow keep trying to defend the same colony while it evacuates its people, it's just sort of one of those dynamic time-segment loops for the sake of gameplay. If there was absolutely no story, the game would still be fun in its "matches." But, what story IS there does, I think, add a bit of something to the ambiance of the matches.

 

But the story definitely matters in a lot of games. It would be silly to act as though the only video games we should have are ones like Evolve or Diablo, in which "Meh, there's kind of a story riding in the backseat, but it's really just all about playing them."

[Sanquiz]

Romance on video games is just for fun... masturbating fun.

 

This is why POE don't have.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Arturo Sanquiz

[Death Machine Miyagi]

It's not very important in SOME games. Depending on the game's design, it can be unimportant. Like... Evolve. There's kind of a "story," but it's mainly just there to support the gameplay setup. Even though it doesn't make chronological sense that the same teams of the same characters will somehow keep trying to defend the same colony while it evacuates its people, it's just sort of one of those dynamic time-segment loops for the sake of gameplay. If there was absolutely no story, the game would still be fun in its "matches." But, what story IS there does, I think, add a bit of something to the ambiance of the matches.

 

But the story definitely matters in a lot of games. It would be silly to act as though the only video games we should have are ones like Evolve or Diablo, in which "Meh, there's kind of a story riding in the backseat, but it's really just all about playing them."

 

There are plenty of games that don't need a story, true, or just need the bare minimum to offer an excuse for action. And there's nothing wrong with that, just as it isn't wrong if there are some CRPGs which are nothing but dungeon hacks.

 

But that is really, really not the direction I'm hoping PoE goes. 

[Stun]

I don't see why BG is crucial to a point which involves the entire series. While you nitpick, I'm emphasizing the general point I'm trying to make.

Oh no, you're not going to get away with dismissing your opponents' arguments as "nitpicks", when they aren't. First off, lets make one thing crystal clear. You're not making any "points" that haven't been made 10,000 times before on this subject. And one of the most common points (which you're making, right on cue), is to lump a bunch of old school classic games together, call them a "series", and then claim that they had romances. There's one obvious reason why a Promancer would want to do such an intellectually dishonest thing: It creates a wider net. It projects the illusion that Romances were "the series staple", and that they were the reason why those games were classics.

 

The fact that Bg1 (ie. 50% of the entire series) did not have romances, is NOT a nitpick. It's PROOF that you can have a great, classic, popular RPG with a really good story without romances.

 

 

feature was popular, so much it was added to BG's predecessor

Multi-player, and First person shooter mechanics are more popular. Doesn't mean we need them in PoE.

 

And BG did not have a predecessor. It did have 4 successors though, and only ONE of them had romances.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Stun

[gurufabbes]

Tsk tsk tsk... more aggressiveness.

Oh no, you're not going to get away with dismissing your opponents' arguments as "nitpicks", when they aren't.

 

Of course this particular point is. Me mentioning a number of games in the related RPG franchise, and then someone concentrating on one is nitpicking, especially considering that its most up to date version includes a romance. Is this point really that crucial?

You're not saying anything that hasn't been said 10,000 times before on this subject. 

 

I'm overjoyed to learn ten thousand people agree with me, which underlines my point why it would have been a good feature to include.

is to lump a bunch of old school classic games together, call them a "series"

 

Made by the same company... in the same universe.

It seems obvious to me that one refer to Baldur's Gate as a series.

I'm sorry, Obsidian, not Bioware, made KOTOR 2 and NWN2 and expansions... and they had romances still..

And one of the most common arguments (which you're making, right on cue), is to lump a bunch of old school classic games together, call them a "series", and then claim that they had romances. There's one obvious reason why a Promancer would want to do such a intellectually dishonest thing: It creates a wider net. It projects the illusion that Romances were "the series staple", and that they were the reason why those games were classics.

 

You use these terms like "promancer" (what kind of a stupid word is that?) and are associating what I think with apparently some established side on here.

You know what? I just arrived on this forum and I'm sharing my opinion and what feature I would have liked to see in the game. You disagree. Fine. 

What I'm getting from you is that you're either trying to "disprove" my opinion, or say that it is groundless. Groundless because you're claiming they weren't there, when clearly they were. Unless you received some version of these games that I didn't.

What makes a game a classic is an ensemble of things, of moments that made the game fun and memorable. I'm saying that the romances were apart of this.

 

The fact that Bg1 did not have romances, is NOT a nitpick. it is, in fact, PROOF that you can have a great, classic, popular RPG with a really good story without romances

 Yes, the original vanilla did not. The mythic sequel, which was its superior, did. 

As I said earlier, apparently this feature was so popular they put a romance into the enhanced edition, the most up to date version on the market today.

I guess people do like having the choice at least....

Seemingly BG1 vanilla was "improved upon" with this addition.

 

1) We're talking 1999-2000, here. The feature wasn't popular. It was an experiment. One that wasn't repeated in subsequent IE games

 

BG2, the most successful of all of them, did. It even had 3. It even continued them into its climactic expansion.

It wasn't repeated into subsequent IE games because there were no subsequent IE games, the genre moved on to another engine...  (Yes, there was Icewind Dale 2 which had custom parties rather than written NPCs).  NWN, which arguably had them. expansions... NWN2... expansions, Dragon Age...  romance remained apart of these.

 

The claim that the "feature wasn't popular" is such an utterly ridiculous claim that it's in contradiction with the facts, the sequels, the trends in the modding community, the line of romances that go all the way to DA:Inquisition. Hell, they even went back to the original Baldur's Gate and put one in there.

 

2) First person shooters are popular. Doesn't mean we need such mechanics in PoE.  

 

No, romances in RPGs are not like turning an RPG into an FPS.  

I argue they even complement each other perfectly.

Edited March 3, 2015 by gurufabbes

[Lephys]

The fact that Bg1 did not have romances, is NOT a nitpick. It's PROOF that you can have a great, classic, popular RPG with a really good story without romances.

See, I'm a "promancer," and I didn't even think that was something that was in question. I mean, heck, you don't even need combat to make a great RPG. Why would romance be crucial?

 

I'm honestly mind-boggled by the people who can't figure out if they want to buy the game or not, purely because of the absence of romance. That would be like ambivalence about the game because Ranger Pets aren't enough like Pokemon. "Well, I really just want another Pokemon game, but, I REALLY really want this game that's hardly anything like Pokemon to be a lot more like Pokemon."

 

Why would you order a buffet just for chicken strips? You could just go to a store that sells only (or mainly) chicken strips. Such a convoluted route to your goal...

[Nonek]

Ah romances in rpg's, excuse me a moment...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U68s4JI22Zk

Edited March 3, 2015 by Nonek

[Cantousent]

I don't mind the idea of romances per se.  Across the spectrum, I see folks who see NPCs as purely functional, like shopkeepers and the like.  On the other end, I see folks who want the PC to find the love of his life and spend a considerable amount of time exploring the unfolding of his relationship with that person.  I don't really understand the term Promancer, but if you want romantic elements and more significant interaction, then the best way to win over the crowd isn't to include romances.  The best way is to introduce elements that can eventually blend into an actual romantic scenario.  Don't fight like hell for a romance for this game (which is ridiculous at this point anyway) and don't even rail for it in the next game.  Take the long view and fight to include those design decisions that will be palatable to some of the folks who disagree with you about romances but might enjoy a story that introduces the trappings of romance sufficiently that it's not only palatable for your current foes, but even raises to the level of interest.  ...And you can take a small amount of interest and find someone skilled enough, then use it to make a truly romantic story.

 

...But that's where you'll probably still lose me.  Forget my specific scenario.  Most of your players might not be married.  Let's just look at folks who're old enough to have had meaningful relationships.  How is a single game going to rise above laughable for most such folks?  How about people who've been in serious relationships that have failed?  What about someone who's married and meets someone who's clearly interested in him and with whom he falls in love.  In a CRPG you can have a two minute dialogue.  In real life, you might ask yourself if you want to throw away thirteen or fourteen years of marriage on a relationship that's probably going fail anyway.  Love isn't just wanting someone to make your various body parts feel good.  Love is loyalty and respect and willingness to throw it all on the line.  Grom mentions Ravel, for whom I always personally felt sorry.  I would cite Annah and Deionnara as well.  If they weren't fighting for their lives, would Annah and the Nameless One gotten together?  For a brief time of absolute misery, quite possibly.  I guess they had sufficient time to blow off some stress and hop in the sack.  That would have been believable if done right.  Gratuitous and pointless, but perhaps not sinfully so.  Romance?  Ha!

 

I don't think the door is closed on romances, but how do they please this vocal subset without trivializing real human relationships in the process.  Hell, they should practice making other relationships a little more realistic in CRPGs before they throw it all on the line for romances.  Good Lord, you think dragons are scary?  Just wait until you wake up from an all night bender, hungover and wishing for death, only to be faced with the dread glare of your beloved princess who *will* make your life hell for the foreseeable future before you make it up to her and she decides she loves you again.  If they could create a game that depicts that accurately, I'd agree they can do real romance.  I'd also probably pass it over, but that would depend on the game.

[Stun]

 

You're not saying anything that hasn't been said 10,000 times before on this subject.

I'm overjoyed to learn ten thousand people agree with me,

 

LOL How cute.

 

It's more like 3 or 4 people.... spouting the same argument 3000 times each. This is not the 1st romance thread on this forum. It's the 10th or 11th since 2012.

 

 

I just arrived on this forum and I'm sharing my opinion and what feature I would have liked to see in the game. You disagree. Fine. 

What I'm getting from you is that you're either trying to "disprove" my opinion,

Opinion? It is not an opinion that BG1 had romances. It's demonstrative falsehood. We can pull up the dialogue files if we have to.

 

And don't think for a second that anyone here is fooled by your silly bait and switch. You did NOT mention BG:EE in your OP.

 

 

As I said earlier, apparently this feature was so popular they put a romance into the enhanced edition, the most up to date version on the market today.

I'll repeat myself. Multi-player and First person shooter mechanics are more Popular. But that doesn't mean PoE needs them. Edited March 3, 2015 by Stun

[gurufabbes]

You did NOT mention BG:EE in your OP.

 

So you're crucifying me for not initially mentioning it more explicitly?

That would be taking nitpicking to its extreme. Either way, it's been laid out several times now in my previous comments.

Quite labouring your moot point.

Opinion? It is not an opinion that BG1 had romances.

 That wasn't the subject of that sentence. Stop conflating.

I'm just wondering what your argument still is. That the original, base BG1 didn't have romances. It didn't. Apparently the developers thought that was a missing feature and added it later in the enhanced edition.  It was included in the sequel and has been included from then onward.

I'm sorry if you don't like this fact.

 

I'll repeat myself. Multi-player and First person shooter mechanics are more Popular. But that doesn't mean PoE needs them. 

 

And that's not comparable to a fixed feature and mechanic in single player RPG of this type, like romance.

 

It's more like 3 or 4 people.... spouting the same argument 3000 times each. This is not the 1st romance thread on this forum. It's the 10th or 11th since 2012.

 

So fans wanted it, I've come here to let people know that I would have wanted it, so that should at least have merited an optional feature...

If you don't want it, don't use it, but opposing its inclusion as a choice is something I just don't understand.

I'm still actually wondering what your point is? Apart from arguing for the sake of arguing. 

On your Don Quixote crusade against "promancers".

Edited March 3, 2015 by gurufabbes

[Lephys]

I don't mind the idea of romances per se.  Across the spectrum, I see folks who see NPCs as purely functional, like shopkeepers and the like.  On the other end, I see folks who want the PC to find the love of his life and spend a considerable amount of time exploring the unfolding of his relationship with that person.  I don't really understand the term Promancer, but if you want romantic elements and more significant interaction, then the best way to win over the crowd isn't to include romances.  The best way is to introduce elements that can eventually blend into an actual romantic scenario.  Don't fight like hell for a romance for this game (which is ridiculous at this point anyway) and don't even rail for it in the next game.  Take the long view and fight to include those design decisions that will be palatable to some of the folks who disagree with you about romances but might enjoy a story that introduces the trappings of romance sufficiently that it's not only palatable for your current foes, but even raises to the level of interest.  ...And you can take a small amount of interest and find someone skilled enough, then use it to make a truly romantic story.

Agreed. That's actually why I distinctly favor "romance," and not "romances." Romance"s" are their own thing. It's like the difference between having crafting, and "professions." Professions are entire volitions dedicated to crafting. Whereas, if a game has "crafting," it could be that you can craft 10 things in it, here and there. Or maybe some guy at your stronghold crafts all your stuff, etc.

 

Anywho. The words aren't really that restrictive, it's just that, statistically, everyone always refers to the awful "time out, let's try to build a relationship as separate from this whole actual plot! 8D!" intances as "romances." Then, there's the recurring argument "such-and-such doesn't have 'romances'", simply because they feel (and usually rightly so) that the content in a game doesn't constitute "a romance."

 

The way I look at it, you get to take different members of your band of potential party members out traveling with you throughout the game's plot, and for different reasons. Maybe you just like their combat effectiveness. Maybe you really like their ideals and want to explore what they're all about, etc. Either way, you're still just playing through the game. You can give a crap about how your character is interacting with them all the while.

 

Romance is just another subset of relationship types. It's just another connection two people can have towards each other. It doesn't take over and supercede all the others. You can hate what someone is doing, and refuse to travel with them (in the sense of an RPG), and even actively counteract their current plans or cause, all the while still caring very much about them, romantically. In fact, when it comes to inter-character interactions, one can find out that your motives for choosing option A instead of option B in some situation were "because I sappily love you, and just chose to do what I thought you wanted," and think you are a fool. "What the hell kind of decision-making process is that?!" I'd actually love to see that in an RPG. Sure, you can treat it like a dating sim, and it (the game) will respond accordingly,

[Stun]

Why would you order a buffet just for chicken strips? You could just go to a store that sells only (or mainly) chicken strips. Such a convoluted route to your goal...

I agree. But we can't dispute what we're witnessing with our own two eyes here.

 

Here, look. I'm going to copy and paste gurufabbes's first post on this thread, I will replace the games/companies he mentioned with "Buffets", and The word "romances" with Chicken strips, and you can judge for yourself. Here goes:

 

 

---------

Hi all,

 

I've been following this Buffet as Super Duper Buffet designer remains the top remaining hope for the genre. Like many of you, I'm a veteran of Golden Corral, Golden Coral Express, Old Country Buffet, Old Country Buffet 2, And the All-You-Can-Eat Series. Hearing about this New Buffet got me very excited, and I believe it has to potential to breathe new life into the genre.

 

However, what these Buffets all had and do have, is also something that apparently New Buffet lacks: Chicken Strips, and lack of this is keeping me on the fence of whether or not to Eat There. It's an extra motivation to invest emotionally in the Buffet, in its Food, having normal Chicken and potential Chicken Strips... having a story that builds around this relationship. It's an investment that sets Buffets apart from Non Buffets.

 

Even just one (or two) Chicken Strip choices would be something that most of the Eaters could get on board with, rather than doing a New Western Buffet: Inquisition, How about a DLC Chicken Strip or two? I wish this Buffet a lot of success, but I don't think I could do their effort justice without giving my opinion as an outside observer and potential Eater. This feature is clearly missing for me.

 

 

----

 

Yeah, not only does it fit, it's just as fickle and absurd as you'd imagine such a stance would be.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Stun