The Official Romance Thread

[Stun]

so then, this were fraudulent:

 

"Who's confused? Have we not established that Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not...?"

Not at all. Take everyone's definition of what a video game romance is or can be, put it all together, and ^^^that^^^ is what you get.

 

This has been demonstrated on every single romance thread ever done on this forum. Including the current one. Look what happened to me when I *dared* try to narrow that definition down. And Again, how else do you explain people coming on here and claiming that Skyrim had romances, and BG1 had romances, and Fall From Grace is romanceable? You can't. you can't explain such a thing without acknowledging that Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not.

 

 

Whatever the OP stated, or his motives, doesn't change the convention of what constitutes romantic literature.

You mean video game romances? Edited March 4, 2015 by Stun

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

so then, this were fraudulent:

 

"Who's confused? Have we not established that Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not...?"

Not at all. Take everyone's definition of what a video game romance is or can be, put it all together, and the Above is what you get.

 

This has been demonstrated on every single romance thread ever done on this forum. Including the current one.

 

...

 

...

 

wow.  

 

gonna do a pontius pilate and wash our hands o' you.  am hoping you ain't serious at this point, but we suspect you are.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 4, 2015 by Gromnir

[Stun]

It's the truth. Gamers have dozens of different ways they define romances in video games. The only way to accommodate them all is to broaden the definition of romance so that it is exactly as posted.

[Lephys]

This has been demonstrated on every single romance thread ever done on this forum. Including the current one. Look what happened to me when I *dared* try to narrow that definition down.

EDIT: Okay, I actually thought up a splendid example of what you're doing.

 

"I love weaponry, and I want to see a ton of weaponry in the game! I want there to be like, a bunch of coins on some kind of cord, that you sling around and hit people in the face with!"

 

You -- "That's not a weapon!"

 

Yes, I'm afraid it is a weapon. It's just a crazy weapon, and probably isn't useful in designing a medieval fantasy video game. But, the definition of weapon isn't really at question, there. Just the usefulness of said weapon design.

 

Same thing with romance. If two characters share some amount of romance, then those characters share some amount of romance. You don't get to change the definition of "romance." And there's no need to. "Okay, that's a romance, but it's a terrible and piddly one." Awesome. Why can't you just say that? Why do we need to argue about friggin' definitions for 93 pages?

Edited March 5, 2015 by Lephys

[CaptainMace]

The back-pedaling is quite insane in this discussion.

We could pretend that people who start these threads and, more generally, ask for romances or regret their absence in PoE have this loose definition of romance. At the end we all know they don't.

I don't get why you reproach Stunt to adjust the definition of the concept to make his point, when adjusting the definition of a romance is exactly what people who support it did during all the discusions about it so far.

 

I mean really, there are guys now discussing that love isn't always reciprocal and s**t. What the holy F does it have anything to do with romance mechanics in rpgs, ie the dialog mini-game ?

 

Let's summarize the discussion and hope to end it :

-Some people want romances (or regret its absence) as a feature.

-Most people couldn't care less.
-Some people don't want 'em (and are glad of their absence) as a feature.

 

After some *short* exchanges about the actual matter of this thread, aka the romance mechanic/feature/mechanic/callithoweveryouwant, people who are for it back-pedal like crazy at any turn and expand the definition of "romance" to such a wide spectrum that it becomes anything but a feature/mechanic and there's then, finally, absolutely no reason to either ask for it or regret its absence.

Since then everybody admit that this feature is far from needed and somehow irrelevant in games that have it, and even if it's always interesting to talk about love and butterflies, we really can end it there.

Edited March 5, 2015 by CaptainMace

[Stun]

Yes. Thank you.

[Lephys]

I don't get why you reproach Stunt to adjust the definition of the concept to make his point, when adjusting the definition of a romance is exactly what people who support it did during all the discusions about it so far.

What... do two wrongs make a right now?

 

Whoever arbitrarily adjusts the definition of anything is being an unreasonable and incorrect person. And, btw, pointing out the breadth of a definition is not adjusting it. Just so that's clear. I don't care if they support romance or not. If some guy says "Your characters have to have sex or it isn't a romance!", I'm going to tell him he's wrong. If he "supports romances," but insists that we have an inventory baby because that's what makes a romance a romance, I'm going to tell him he's wrong. Doesn't mean an inventory baby romance isn't a romance. It just means it doesn't define romance. There can be romance without such specifics. Someone else being wrong doesn't make you any more correct.

 

Or, you know... we cold just lump everyone together all the time for no reason whatsoever.

 

Hey guys! I'm going to attribute everything Stun's ever said to CaptainMace now, because CaptainMace isn't on MY side of the two, rigid sides of the argument! So now whatever reprimand CaptainMace for is justified, because of what Stun said! 8D!

 

See how that doesn't work? How's about we pretend people aren't a hivemind, and consider each person's posts individually. You know, kind of like a discussion. Oh, wait... maybe someone's decided that a discussion isn't that anymore. I'm so behind the times.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Lephys

[Cantousent]

Well, the Cap'n has a point in that most of the people arguing over the past few pages don't even want romances in the game.  It's a case of one side leaving the field and remaining side turning against itself.

 

On the other hand, there *are* romantic elements that can enhanced the game.  I'm sure it will actually *have* some of these elements.  It's just that the other side wants to take the tacit concession that romantic elements aren't bad and are already part of previous games to make a backdoor argument to include specific features in the game.  I disagree with Stun and the Cap'n on the nomenclature, but I understand that they're simply manning the barricades against what is undoubtedly a sneaky attack.  ...But, no matter what, Stun is still a crafty ol' scoundrel.  :Cant's polishing his halo icon:

[Stun]

Same thing with romance. If two characters share some amount of romance, then those characters share some amount of romance.

What if there's no sharing at all?

 

 

On the other hand, there *are* romantic elements that can enhanced the game. I'm sure it will actually *have* some of these elements. It's just that the other side wants to take the tacit concession that romantic elements aren't bad and are already part of previous games to make a backdoor argument to include specific features in the game.

That's no secret. That's how the goalposts always get moved in these debates.

 

In any discussion about romances in a video game, someone will bring up "romantic elements". And then a couple of pages later, someone else will argue that these romantic elements ARE romances. Next thing you know, the IE games are just glorified Dating Sims, so why can't PoE "carry on the tradition"?

 

But *I'm* the obtuse scoundrel for trying to friggin reel us back with a more *focused* definition of Video game romances.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Stun

[Valmy]

Does it really matter Stun?

[CaptainMace]

Damn the funniest part is, I'm not even against romances to begin with, and they don't even annoy me even in the slightest when some of these dialog options shown up on the screen.
I just don't like the idea of leaving stunt alone on defining what people have in mind when they talk about rpg romances, ie the game mechanic, ie the dialog options that lead to "thank you for your time my love, I'm done sharing those uncharted places of my heart with you, let's go back on slaying goblins now".

Because, even if I admit that's not a correct way to present it, I honestly think, and find it damn obvious, that people don't have this loose definition in mind when they talk about it.

 

If we're to talk about romances as part of a story, some relationship between npcs (i saw something about the lovers from bg1) and such, we wouldn't do it in a thread called "romance thread" otherwise let's create a "hatred thread"; a "indifference thread", a "rivalry thread" etc.

Edited March 5, 2015 by CaptainMace

[Stun]

Whoever arbitrarily adjusts the definition of anything is being an unreasonable and incorrect person.

That's exactly everyone who's ever posted here.

 

Including the developers themselves.

[Cantousent]

Okay, guys, I get you, but it remains that it's a nomenclature argument.  There's a point where the definition is too broad.  Fair enough.  However, there's a point where the definition is too narrow.  I would suggest that you're engaging in behavior actual somewhat akin to what you accuse the other side of doing, namely trying to use the definition to further an argument.  Romantic literature, which I believe does encompass crpgs, is more inclusive than you guys want, but I don't know why I should substitute your definition for.  For that reason, I don't.  Anyhow, I meant 'scoundrel' in only the friendliest of ways.  >,>

[CaptainMace]

Okay, guys, I get you, but it remains that it's a nomenclature argument.  There's a point where the definition is too broad.  Fair enough.  However, there's a point where the definition is too narrow.  I would suggest that you're engaging in behavior actual somewhat akin to what you accuse the other side of doing, namely trying to use the definition to further an argument.

 

Yet, a quick relecture of the thread shows that it always follows this order : pro-romance states he wants it, regrets its abstence or both. Anti-romance shares his view about it. Pro-romance now talks about romance in general as part of any kind of story, making his first point irrelevant. Anti-romance goes back to the original point of the thread.

I have yet to see somebody create a thread to talk about romances in general, and not the rpg mechanic, and someone replying to narrow the definition of the romance to make his point. That just doesn't exist. Because there's no particular reason to talk about "that" romance. And no particular reason to be against it.

 

If someone tells someone else that apples can heal scorbut, and this someone else says that it actually can't, and then the first dude assures him that fruits can heal scorbut and take the lemon as an example, will you really reproach the second dude to recenter the discussion on apples ?

This is a terrible example because it concerns facts and not opinions, but the idea is there I guess.

Edited March 5, 2015 by CaptainMace

[Cantousent]

I didn't completely follow everything, but yeah, I get the point that games have romantic elements which folks were never really saying should be missing, and that turns into weird side arguments like the definition of such and such.  ...Or even weirder stuff.  Fair enough.

[Gromnir]

The back-pedaling is quite insane in this discussion.

We could pretend that people who start these threads and, more generally, ask for romances or regret their absence in PoE have this loose definition of romance. At the end we all know they don't.

 

I don't get why you reproach Stunt to adjust the definition of the concept to make his point, when adjusting the definition of a romance is exactly what people who support it did during all the discusions about it so far.

 

 

sorry, but that is idiotic.  if other folks did the same stoopid thing,  it don't somehow make his ridiculous backpedaling any less silly.  heck, Gromnir also gave the genesis poster a hard time earlier in this thread.  so stun sudden had a brain seizure and started spouting nonsense that not only was utterly irrelevant, but were mimicry o' the idiocy o' the guy he were insulting earlier in this thread?  that is the why you feel stun does not deserve recriminations for his nonsense?  

 

HA!

 

okie dokie.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lephys]

That's exactly everyone who's ever posted here.

 

Including the developers themselves.

I don't buy that. Clarifying your usage of the word isn't adjusting the definition. I've seen plenty of people do only that. And I don't recall the developers trying to define the word. They simply referenced the word, in the context of the super-vague people demanding "romances" (usually, like Biowarian ones, etc.), and said that they're not doing "those."

 

Again, just because all cats are animals doesn't mean all animals are cats. Something can be "a romance" without romance being that thing.

 

This is just a really, really silly thing for me to even have to explain.

 

Look. This is how forums work. Someone makes a topic, and people share their thoughts on that topic, for the purposes of everyone collaborating on that topic toward some constructive end. Arguing about what an inanimate word means or doesn't mean is silly. Jeez... if you expressed something to me, and you used the completely wrong word, but I knew what you were talking about to any degree, I wouldn't even just go off on some complete tangent about how that word doesn't mean that, and just stop worrying about the topic at hand anymore. I'd just say "Hey, it seems like you mean this," and gather more info from you so that I can better understand the idea you're conveying, which is pretty much the most important thing in a discussion.

 

The only useful purpose of discussing the definition of a word is so that we can confirm we're all on the same page about ideas being conveyed and shared. If it's just to be righter than someone else, it's petty and pointless.

 

I understand exactly what you mean, for example, Stun, about certain things posted in this thread questionably falling under the definition of romance. But, that doesn't mean that the definition is anything less than it is. I just... don't understand why that's SO important to you. "OMG, what if one person doesn't show interest in the other person? Is that technically romance?!" Who even CARES at that point? Like, if it is, does that mean you've LOST at something? Gyah...

 

Look, if someone wants to stick their tongue out at you for that, and count it some kind of victory, then let them. Why should you stoop to that level of pettiness? "See, the game DOES have romances! Hah!" Great, even if that's true, does that make those romances, and the ones "the promancer crowd" are demanding for the game the same thing? No. How should we go about romance in games, and for what reasons? Still a totally legitimate discussion. It remains completely unphased.

 

It's an idea to be explored. If a game decides to have content in which a character unrequitedly pursues another character, who cares what you call that? It's still what it is, and we can continue to describe it with words other than "romance" and discuss it constructively. OR, we could just sit around making a 1,000-page list of everything that is allowed to be called romance, and everything that isn't. "What if a dog mounts his favorite toy all the time. Is that romance?" Let's discuss that, instead of worrying about whether or not there's any value in using a toy-humping dog in an RPG narrative. *eyeroll*

[Stun]

If someone tells someone else that apples can heal scorbut, and this someone else says that it actually can't, and then the first dude assures him that fruits can heal scorbut and take the lemon as an example, will you really reproach the second dude to recenter the discussion on apples ?

Lets not forget the other "points" that will pop up in such a debate. People on the First Dude's side will then attempt to redefine "healing" so that it includes "actually worsening the affliction" or "not having any effect on scorbut whatsoever, but who cares, because Apples heal other afflictions... like hunger". While someone else will attempt to argue that according to ancient botanists, and thousands of successful produce vendors throughout history, there's really no relevant difference between Apples and Lemons, so that Second Dude is just resorting to semantics.

 

And then there's the occasional semi-uninvolved posters:

 

Mark: Lets remember that we're not just talking about Apples healing Scorbut, but "medicinal elements in general"

Timmy: An apple a day keeps the Doctor away, but that's just a saying. In southeastern Zulu Custom, the Voodoo can break up marriages! Therefore Apples heal Scorbut

Bobby: What's wrong with Apple Pie?

Joey: You guys are dumb

Mike: Your an idiot!

Jeff: Ok, lets clear up one thing: Healing exists. And generally, eating and drinking healthy foods and beverages flushes the body of impurities.

Second Poster: That's NOT what we're discussing!

First Poster: Stop being so Obtuse! and admit you don't know what you're talking about! Ha Good Funny!

 

 

^There^^^ that's every romance debate in Obsidian forum's history.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Stun

[Stun]

 

That's exactly everyone who's ever posted here.

 

Including the developers themselves.

I don't buy that. Clarifying your usage of the word isn't adjusting the definition.

 

Oh, In that case, I've made exactly ZERO adjusting to the actual definition of Video Game Romances. Or anyone else's definition of video game romances. Edited March 5, 2015 by Stun

[Lephys]

I see. Then I guess, in your own eyes, everyone in this thread is just as correct as you are. Good to know.

[Gromnir]

"I have yet to see somebody create a thread to talk about romances in general, and not the rpg mechanic, and someone replying to narrow the definition of the romance to make his point. That just doesn't exist. Because there's no particular reason to talk about "that" romance. And no particular reason to be against it."

 

btw, this is wrong.  we wish folks would quit with the sweeping (and wrong) generalizations. stun has been doing that a great deal.  there is no reason to copy his mistake.  he couldn't deal with Gromnir personal, so he started generalizing and telling us that ALL promancers and romance threads is alike and that all such folks in them say the same stuff. don't be that guy.  try and be better.  

 

is a guy earlier in this thread that pointed out that writer efforts to convey feeling is wasted effort.  in his opinion, any effort by the developers to make the player care about characters were pointless.  voss were quite animated and serious.

 

also, as Gromnir indicated earlier in this thread, there is a very good reason to discuss romance separate from the tangential and optional mini-game/side-quest companion romances.  we observed that we believed romance were handled well in ps:t.  we gave examples o' poignant and heartfelt romance.  we also observed that such romance existed and were possible Before the proliferation and popularity o' bioware style romance.  we lamented that it is possible that bioware style romances decrease the likelihood o' more mature romances being included in crpgs.  after all, if you already got considerable resources devoted to exploring thematic love via the optional side-quest nonsense, it makes sense that as a developer/writer you would be less inclined to make serious exploration o' similar themes in the critical path.

 

etc.

 

don't generalize.  stun did so to avoid making a rational argument.  am not sure why you are doing.  don't make the same error.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 5, 2015 by Gromnir

[redneckdevil]

........suddenly realizes I should have already been eating popcorn.....goes and grabs some,

[Stun]

I see. Then I guess, in your own eyes, everyone in this thread is just as correct as you are. Good to know.

Yes? Have you not been reading the last two pages? In an attempt to reconcile all viewpoints I have produced a clarified definition based on everyone's stance of what can pass as a video game romance. Here I'll re-post it:

 

Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not.

 

So far, no one has really taken issue with it, except for maybe Gromnir, but who the hell ever knows what he's babbling about 99% of the time?

Edited March 5, 2015 by Stun

[Cantousent]

I wasn't able to respond at length when that definition came up, but I don't agree with it.  It might take delving into the finer points of the definition, but I speak affectionately to my cat, but I do not have a romance with her.  The argument that I must concede romance with the cat because we have to try the muddy the waters is ridiculous.  People say they love their children.  We wouldn't say that's romance, even if it has many of the trappings of romance:  love, sacrifice, commitment.  I think you guys are intelligent and clever.  An intelligent person can find similarities in... discrete?  separate?  anything different things.  An intelligent person can find differences in similar things.  Cool.  Makes getting lost in the nomenclature possible, but Lephys is entirely right in that nomenclature is important, but only inasmuchas it facilitates communication of actual ideas.

[Stun]

I wasn't able to respond at length when that definition came up, but I don't agree with it.  It might take delving into the finer points of the definition, but I speak affectionately to my cat, but I do not have a romance with her.  The argument that I must concede romance with the cat because we have to try the muddy the waters is ridiculous.  People say they love their children.  We wouldn't say that's romance, even if it has many of the trappings of romance:  love, sacrifice, commitment.  I think you guys are intelligent and clever.  An intelligent person can find similarities in... discrete?  separate?  anything different things.  An intelligent person can find differences in similar things.  Cool.  Makes getting lost in the nomenclature possible, but Lephys is entirely right in that nomenclature is important, but only inasmuchas it facilitates communication of actual ideas.

This is a very interesting post. Especially in light of our PS:T discussion. For a couple of reasons.

 

First off, I applaud you for finally pointing out what NO ONE ELSE on this thread (except for me) has: That Love does not automatically equate to Romance. That is the Bottom line here. Ravel Loves you. So what. She's not romancing you, nor are you romancing her. Past or present.

 

Second, Does it matter whether you're romancing your cat? What about your cat's feelings? <-----this was the argument I gave when Someone here tried to repeatedly say that Since Ravel loves you, then that means there's a romance between TNO and Ravel.

 

And then there's the racial...excuse me, SPECIES difference. And that raises a ton of new issues. You know, about how exactly can one conclude the existence of Romance, when one of the entities is a Hag from Hades (ie. another plane of existence. A plane of existence where the entire concept of Romance, as we know it, does not necessarily imply romantic love, so much as: " I love you so much that I desire to suck the blood from your body and then chew on your intestines and wear your skull on my head like a helmet and then re-animate the rest of your body to hang around and keep me company forever")

 

 

 

But again, there are people who insist that Ravel is One of PS:T's romances, so to accommodate those people, we must broaden the definition of Romance to include what's going on between TNO and Ravel, as well as you and your cat.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Stun