The Official Romance Thread

[Valmy]

I agree with that, you can easily  see how   Planescape had an obvious undercurrent of Romance that was inextricably linked to the narrative 

 

 

Yes but at the sometime there were not romances Bioware style.  So maybe there will be elements like this in PoE.

[CaptainMace]

What about we define what  a romance is before talking about it. I've got the feel people ask for romances, as a game feature and not as a part of some side-stories or character background, yet when it comes to find good examples (or what we'll consider so) of romances, we end up talking about something that has nothing to do with the feature itself but more with good writing overall.
So I'm confused

Edited March 4, 2015 by CaptainMace

[Stun]

Ravel and TNO's story is about love, yes. He charmed her into falling in love with him and she fell for him hard. Everything she has done, she did for him. She still loves him. Even as he lies to her, she loves him. Its horrible, abusive and unhealthy but its still a story about love. What people would do for love or how they would use love to get what they want. The same thing as with Deionarra really.

 

I'm not saying the whole game is about love. Though maybe it is, what can change the nature of a man? Torment is a story about stories. Some of those stories are love stories.

Wow, that's an obtuse misunderstanding of the story.

 

First off, He did NOT 'charm her'. He wanted to become immortal, but since you can't just walk up to a fiend from the Gray Wastes and politely ask them to make you immortal, he decided to manipulate her emotions. And, NO, those emotions were NOT love. Or charm. They were Ego and Pride and Vanity. He posed a challenge to her. He taunted her by saying that even she isn't powerful enough to make someone immortal. And so she jumped at the challenge.

 

Second, we're not told the how's or why's of her infatuations with TNO, but the clues we are given suggest that the ritual may have caused Ravel to love TNO the same way that a Mother loves the children she gives birth to (Mabbeth is a mother figure, remember?)

 

Third, and most importantly, what does this have to do with ANYTHING? We were discussing Romance. Romance is *shared* love. And there's no such thing going on between Ravel and the Nameless One. There never was.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Stun

[Stun]

I agree with that, you can easily  see how   Planescape had an obvious undercurrent of Romance that was inextricably linked to the narrative 

<gag>

 

Why don't you two actually friggin PLAY PS:T, before leveling such insults at it.

[BruceVC]

 

I agree with that, you can easily  see how   Planescape had an obvious undercurrent of Romance that was inextricably linked to the narrative 

 

 

Yes but at the sometime there were not romances Bioware style.  So maybe there will be elements like this in PoE.

 

 

True, but the fact that Planescape didn't really develop the Romance arcs was also one of my biggest criticism of the game 

 

Now before people accuse me of  being a sad and lonely person and  " wanting virtual sex with a pixel generated women " or " dude you weird.. get a RL gfriend  " 

 

I need to clarify something, my criticism about the platonic Romance was that it was unrealistic considering the grandeur of the narrative 

 

Think about it guys, here is this person who has lived a hundred lives....crossed and explored the outer  planes....returned from the dead....battled demons...associated with gods....loved deeply and suffered equally....served in the Blood Wars and then has a party of people who are quite prepared to die for him in order for him to discover his identity and purpose 

 

And within  that party there are two beautiful and enigmatic women ( in the case Annah and Grace) who he is attracted to and have mutual feelings for him....now are you honestly going to  tell me  that after everything he has done and is doing he is not going to attempt to have a physical relationship with at least one of them during  his journey of self-discovery ? 

[Valmy]

 

And within  that party there are two beautiful and enigmatic women ( in the case Annah and Grace) who he is attracted to and have mutual feelings for him....now are you honestly going to  tell me  that after everything he has done and is doing he is not going to attempt to have a physical relationship with at least one of them during  his journey of self-discovery ? 

 

 

He was busy.

[Stun]

Think about it guys, here is this person who has lived a hundred lives....crossed and explored the outer  planes....returned from the dead....battled demons...associated with gods....loved deeply and suffered equally....served in the Blood Wars and then has a party of people who are quite prepared to die for him in order for him to discover his identity and purpose 

 

And within  that party there are two beautiful and enigmatic women ( in the case Annah and Grace) who he is attracted to and have mutual feelings for him....now are you honestly going to  tell me  that after everything he has done and is doing he is not going to attempt to have a physical relationship with at least one of them during  his journey of self-discovery ?

Yes. I honestly will. Maybe, Bruce, he doesn't engage them in romance because he has feelings for them?

 

The game does not shy away from reminding the player (and the nameless one) that All of TNO's physical relationships end the same way: Bloody, and hideously non-romantic. Alynwyn, the Celestial you meet in the Clerk's ward, tells you a story about the time she courted one of your past incarnations...and then Mentally dominated him and ordered him to jump out the window to his death because he tried to force himself on her. And then there's the Deionarra thing... You know....murdering your girlfriend so that she can be your eyes and ears in the land of the dead.

 

PS:T didn't have romances, Bruce. PS:T went out of its way to be anti-romance. There's even an element of developer concept mockery going on (you DID notice that Annah and Grace are both demons, right?)

Edited March 4, 2015 by Stun

[Cantousent]

Oh, this is just Stun's typical refusal to budge.  Of course, if the theory is that a few tiny steps might presage a stampede, then a dogged defense is the only one that has a real chance of winning long term.

 

For my part, I think PS:T *did* have romance.  Because it's one way, it's not a romance?  Remains of the Day? Great Expectations?  How about a love unworthy of the object, who herself returns that love but imperfectly so?  The Great Gatsby?  Stories of unrequited love are still romantic stories.  I can see the point about anti-romances, but if we call them that, which seems reasonable on its face, then apparently even anti-romances have a lot of elements of romance.  As an aside, this should be evidence that I can enjoy romance as much as the next guy.  It just has to end horribly and maybe with one of the participants getting the chop.  :Cant's wry grin icon:

 

PS:T is a double edged sword in favor of romances.  It might leave the door open for more of these elements in a game, which moves the ball forward, but a lot of folks who want romances in games are going to blanche when they see some of the harsh depictions of romance a la the PS:T model.  It ain't your Saturday morning cartoon romance, after all.

 

The biggest fear I have, and maybe I'm not alone, is that based on the in game romances that have been so popular, maybe the greatest part of the romance fanbase doesn't *want* better written romances.  I don't even think it's about sex wish fulfillment.  I think it's about striking up a conversation, having someone take interest in you, maybe having some rudimentary back and forth, and then having that person romantically love you.  People who are gratified by that scenario might not want it soiled with significant doubt, or marred by the fact that there is no 'ever after' in a relationship, or silly things like pregnancy or health issues or the grind of daily life.

 

I can accept that some characters would be interested in sex with one another.  Hey, if you're constantly facing death, you might want to engage in some carnal pleasure the first chance you get.  I can also accept infatuations.  I can accept a bond between people who have suffered and striven together that transcends story book romance.  I even can accept that bond becoming a truly romantic loving relationship.  However, I also see some of those relationships heading right down the crapper for any number of reasons.  The really important things in a relationship, love and endurance and compromise, take years to prove.  Love, ironically, isn't the most important thing in a relationship.  People learn to love one another all the time.  You can proclaim love of anything, including inanimate objects.  I'm a Catholic and I love the Lord, whom people often try to convince me is imaginary.  Perseverance and determination are the vital ingredient in the vast majority of successful marriages I've seen.  This is why I generally don't like the idea of in-game romances.  Taking the time to deal with these issues in a meaningful way just strikes me as tedious.  However, all it would take to convert me is for someone to succeed.  That's an argument I could accept.

[Stun]

Because it's one way, it's not a romance?

Yes?

 

If we're going to just argue that any NPC friendship = Romance, then sure, PS:T had Romance. And so did BG1, and Icewind Dale, and Icewind dale 2. And PoE will have romance as well.

 

 

But pardon me for refusing to agree with such absurd goal-post moving in this debate.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Stun

[Gromnir]

 

For my part, I think PS:T *did* have romance.  

 

which is exactly the problem.  romance such as ps:t is different than tangential and optional companion mini-game/side-quest romances. sadly, or perhaps inevitably, the ps:t romances appear to have become mutually exclusive from the biowarian-style romances.

 

it is a bit unfair to argue the viability o' romance in poe and future poe games by use o' ps:t.  Gromnir used ps:t to show what is wrong with the tangential and optional mini-game/side-quest romances and you is, somewhat disingenuously, trying to use same such stuff to show why romance is good and right for crpgs.  naughty boy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 4, 2015 by Gromnir

[Stun]

The biggest fear I have, and maybe I'm not alone, is that based on the in game romances that have been so popular, maybe the greatest part of the romance fanbase doesn't *want* better written romances.  I don't even think it's about sex wish fulfillment.  I think it's about striking up a conversation, having someone take interest in you, maybe having some rudimentary back and forth, and then having that person romantically love you.  People who are gratified by that scenario might not want it soiled with significant doubt, or marred by the fact that there is no 'ever after' in a relationship, or silly things like pregnancy or health issues or the grind of daily life.

LOL

 

You give the BSN droid army Way too much credit. Their tastes aren't so refined. They don't care about any of this stuff. BruceVC is on the record here admitting that even a crap romance is better than none at all. And that being the case, what do you have to fear? These masses will orgasmically accept any "romance", well written or not.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Stun

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

Ravel and TNO's story is about love, yes. He charmed her into falling in love with him and she fell for him hard. Everything she has done, she did for him. She still loves him. Even as he lies to her, she loves him. Its horrible, abusive and unhealthy but its still a story about love. What people would do for love or how they would use love to get what they want. The same thing as with Deionarra really.

 

I'm not saying the whole game is about love. Though maybe it is, what can change the nature of a man? Torment is a story about stories. Some of those stories are love stories.

Wow, that's an obtuse misunderstanding of the story.

 

First off, He did NOT 'charm her'. He wanted to become immortal, but since you can't just walk up to a fiend from the Gray Wastes and politely ask them to make you immortal, he decided to manipulate her emotions. And, NO, those emotions were NOT love. Or charm. They were Ego and Pride and Vanity. He posed a challenge to her. He taunted her by saying that even she isn't powerful enough to make someone immortal. And so she jumped at the challenge.

 

Second, we're not told the how's or why's of her infatuations with TNO, but the clues we are given suggest that the ritual may have caused Ravel to love TNO the same way that a Mother loves the children she gives birth to (Mabbeth is a mother figure, remember?)

 

Third, and most importantly, what does this have to do with ANYTHING? We were discussing Romance. Romance is *shared* love. And there's no such thing going on between Ravel and the Nameless One. There never was.

 

what a horribly shallow notion o' love and romance has stun.  love can be one-sided and romance is all the more tragic when it turns out that one person were simple using the other. ravel knew she were used and still gives up everything for tno.  is saddening that you missed so much o' ps:t, 'cause it were a better game than what you seem to recall, or at least the story were more complex.  "better" is, after all, subjective.

 

btw, there is a reason chrisA almost invariably (we haven't played south park, alpha protocol or ds 3) adds ravel into bis/obsidian games.  if ravel were simple and shallow, we doubt he would invest so much time into her.  

 

ps it would be a terrible joke on promancers, but with critical path storytelling we can see a very compelling & tragic romance that does not have a happy ending and the romance is one-sided.  the promancer invests his heart into wooing Bert the Bulge only to discover that *gasp* Bert were a man-wh0re who were only using the protagonist. can be a romance without being happy.  in fact, most classic romance stories ain't happy.  sure, we made Bert a joke, but the developers need not do so and should not do so.  is nothing wrong with making love hurt in a story.  in fact, am not certain we see a point in writing about love that doesn't hurt.

 

 

if shel can make a kid's story that shows painful side o' love, then why not obsidian or bioware?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

edit: is a bit longer than what we first posted, but we found the shel narration o' the giving tree movie short.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Gromnir

[Stun]

what a horribly shallow notion o' love and romance has stun.  love can be one-sided and romance is all the more tragic when it turns out that one person were simple using the other.

We don't doubt Ravel loved The Nameless one. We wasn't arguing otherwise. We were pointing out that there was no romance between Ravel and the Nameless one.

 

'cause there wasn't. Romance is a shared thing. And the love wasn't shared.

 

 

 

Edit: And for F*cks sake, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Millions of little girls Love Justin Beiber. They'd die for him. But that doesn't mean that Justin Beiber is involved in a romance with millions of little girls. Does it.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Stun

[Cantousent]

Let's hope not! <.<

[Gromnir]

 

what a horribly shallow notion o' love and romance has stun.  love can be one-sided and romance is all the more tragic when it turns out that one person were simple using the other.

We don't doubt Ravel loved The Nameless one. We wasn't arguing otherwise. We were pointing out that there was no romance between Ravel and the Nameless one.

 

'cause there wasn't. Romance is a shared thing. And the love wasn't shared.

 

 

 

Edit: And for F*cks sake, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Millions of little girls Love Justin Beiber. They'd die for him. But that doesn't mean that Justin Beiber is involved in a romance with millions of little girls. Does it.

 

do you really want us to list all the tragic love stories in history?  how many you think include unrequited or fraudulent romances?

 

*snort*

 

you can yell that such stuff ain't romance all you wish, but you is gonna be wrong.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Mannock]

 

what a horribly shallow notion o' love and romance has stun.  love can be one-sided and romance is all the more tragic when it turns out that one person were simple using the other.

We don't doubt Ravel loved The Nameless one. We wasn't arguing otherwise. We were pointing out that there was no romance between Ravel and the Nameless one.

 

'cause there wasn't. Romance is a shared thing. And the love wasn't shared.

 

 

 

Edit: And for F*cks sake, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Millions of little girls Love Justin Beiber. They'd die for him. But that doesn't mean that Justin Beiber is involved in a romance with millions of little girls. Does it.

 

 

Then perhaps 'romance' is the wrong label regarding what we are talking about? Maybe it should be called something else, so it also would incorporate situations like the one in PS:T?

 

And by the way Stun; I applaud your gentle and polite manner. It really sets a standard.

[Stun]

do you really want us to list all the tragic love stories in history?  how many you think include unrequited or fraudulent romances?

There's no such thing as an unrequited romance. That's like saying "this is a solo duet!"

 

You're discussing love. Don't confuse the two terms.

[Gromnir]

 

do you really want us to list all the tragic love stories in history?  how many you think include unrequited or fraudulent romances?

There's no such thing as an unrequited romance. That's like saying "this is a solo duet!"

 

You're discussing love. Don't confuse the two terms.

 

*sigh*

 

you is imposing your own definition, and your definition conflicts with romance as attributed to henry james, vitor hugo, f. scott fitzgerald, louisa may alcott, george elliot, kazuo ishiguro and literal thousands o' other authors who has penned stories described by literature professors and casual fans o' the written word the world over as ROMANCES.

 

for chrissakes, don't be so arrogant.  you can't honestly think you got some kinda perfect notion o' romance that is more accurate than the multitude.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 4, 2015 by Gromnir

[Stun]

It's settled then. BG1, Icewind Dale, and Icewind Dale 2 had Romances.

 

Have it your way.... Freak.

[Valmy]

 

do you really want us to list all the tragic love stories in history?  how many you think include unrequited or fraudulent romances?

There's no such thing as an unrequited romance. That's like saying "this is a solo duet!"

 

You're discussing love. Don't confuse the two terms.

 

 

Who are you, the Webster's English Dictionary?

 

Semantics are the last refuge of a scoundrel, don't go there.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Valmy

[Stun]

Like I said. Have it Your way. BG1, Icewind Dale and Icewind Dale 2 have romances. And PoE will have romances too (despite the fact that its developers have said it won't).

[Gromnir]

bg1 did indeed have romance.  sure, the romances were fragments o' the plot and poorly crafted, but skie and eldoth were professed lovers and tamoko claimed to love sarevok, though we doubt it were mutual love.

 

*shrug*

 

you wanna distinguish romantic love from familial or fraternal love?  fine, we can get behind that.  is tricky to distinguish categories o' love, but am willing to separate such for the sake o' convenience. wanna distinguish romantic love from the idealist who loves/obsesses over an idea such as freedom or God?  fine.  ultimately the willingness to sacrifice for _________ is likely the same, but if it makes you feel better to categorize, we will go along with it.

 

distinguish romantic love from romantic loves that is unequal, one-sided or fraudulent?  dear lord, why?  the complete reciprocated and balanced love stories is likely the minority o' written love stories.  there needs be some kinda obstacle to love to make the story dramatic, and the most common obstacle is the lovers themselves. 

 

we rare say this: you are wrong.  is not a subjective or opinion kinda thing in this case.  you are wrong.  period.  

 

and yeah, we agree that poe will likely include some romance... which is why we keep saying that use general romance terminology is wrong.  what the genesis poster wants, and what the obsidian developers is refusing to provide, is tangential and optional mini-game/side-quest romances with the companions.  even so, your ridiculous definition has no bearing on distinguishing mini-game romances from those found in ps:t.  you wanna inexplicably change the definition o' romantic love for some reason that eludes us.  perhaps you just don't wanna admit you were wrong.

 

romantic can be sad, funny, tragic, unrequited, doomed.  romantic love can be easy and balanced and comforting like a warm blanket on a cold winter's night.  romantic love is many things.  however, romantic love is not what you think it is limited to. you are wrong.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 4, 2015 by Gromnir

[Valmy]

Like I said. Have it Your way. BG1, Icewind Dale and Icewind Dale 2 have romances. And PoE will have romances too (despite the fact that its developers have said it won't).

 

Yep.  When the whole "PS:T had romances" thing got going I said that, in that case, PoE may yet have them after all.

[Gairnulf]

With such a loose definition, you're sure to find a romance in almost any game.

 

I suggested what people asking for "romances" understand under "romance" - a minigame where the player navigates a dialogue tree until he reaches some outcome where an NPC declares its love for him/her.

[Valmy]

 

I suggested what people asking for "romances" understand under "romance" - a minigame where the player navigates a dialogue tree until he reaches some outcome where an NPC declares its love for him/her.

 

Yep.  This will not happen.  But there will probably be romance.