The Official Romance Thread

[Cantousent]

If we could ascertain my cat's feelings towards me, we might find that she does indeed see in me a romantic interest.  If she could write a story in which she pines for the reciprocated romantic love of her master, believes she has it because he is so affectionate towards her, only to find that his love for her lacks that one small element that would be real 'romance,' then we would have a romance story.  Romance is a complicated term, and there's room for disagreement, to be sure.

 

For the first time, however, I actually believe you aren't just being tricky.  Clearly, you really want to keep the term romance on a short leash, which is fine.  ...But my point is that there is a boundary line somewhere, and we can argue over where that boundary will be, but it's separate from the discussion of whether this or any game should have one or more full blown romances in which a significant amount of time will be dedicated to 'romantic dialogue' between the PC and one or more NPCs.

 

I'm going to continue to believe that CRPGs for a long long time have had romance and romantic elements (and those in and of themselves are distinct).  I'm not playing word games when I say that Dak'kon would be an excellent template for a romance in a game, but nevertheless lacks that certain something that makes a relationship a romance.  However, if you follow Dak'kon's path with him to completion, you'll have a bond as strong as any lover, only without the courting or sexual component that creates the definition.  Ravel does have those elements.  She's jonesin' for TNO's flesh.  She cares deeply for him on a personal level.  She sees him somewhat as a mystery.  She tries to create something with him to bring them together and instead he grows more distant.  These are elements of a person pursuing a romantic relationship.  The player can't make TNO romance her, but she has clearly tried to romance him.

 

I'm putting away the sparring gloves because, while I've viewed it as friendly, it occurs to me I was mistaken that we were sparring in the first place.  My honest feeling is that what entails a romance is extremely difficult to define with 100% accuracy.  Some stories are clearly romantic.  Some stories are debatable.  To me, that's a good thing for an RPG.  We want more CRPG stories (and I mean this broadly to encompass something more than romances) that lend themselves to multiple or even conflicting interpretations by the players.  After all, the players as individuals should be the ones interpreting the stories.  That's why I don't want to include a romance mechanic per se, but to have elements that, to varying degrees, lend themselves to interpretation as romance.

[Darkpriest]

These walls of text are just unreadable in succession... you guys need to learn how to make your points in 150 words maximum... otherwise its just 4 ppl going circular with wall after wall effectively discouraging any new potential contributor to the debate...

[Cantousent]

Tell you what, DP, make a post and folks will read it, and if someone's already said it, we'll simply take it as affirmation of previous arguments.  Short enough?

[CaptainMace]

you guys need to learn how to make your points in 150 words maximum... otherwise its just 4 ppl going circular with wall after wall effectively discouraging any new potential contributor to the debate...

 

There's no debate, there's originally dudes who ask for the romance mechanic, this dialog mini-game which is about making npcs lose reason and sanity.

Then people decided to talk about love in storytelling in general, 'cause the original discussion has ended a long time ago.

 

sorry, but that is idiotic.  if other folks did the same stoopid thing,  it don't somehow make his ridiculous backpedaling any less silly.

 

I don't see how it's a stoopid thing to talk about the original subject of a thread. I think it's actually in every forum cores rules of the history of internet forums all over the web.

However nobody ever really reproaches people to denature the concept we're discussing, at the point where it's absolutely pointless to talk about it.

But, again, let's pretend the point of this thread was about romance in story-telling in general.

 

Then let's witness that the one and only thing that keeps this discussion alive is that nobody, at all, still talks about romances as game mechanics. The original subject of any romance thread in the galaxy.

 

Where do you see backpedaling in stunt messages. I'd rather say he sticks too much to the original debate which is over since several months. But then again how could I reproach him to stick to the original debate since the new one... isn't one at all.

Edited March 5, 2015 by CaptainMace

[CaptainMace]

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 consider that ps:t had romances even if not and decided that these ones are good, especially 'cause they're not romances.

 

Fixed. These "romances" you find good in ps:t, again, are just a matter of good writing. Every other npc interaction would be good and feel natural with good writing. Again, what do we wait to create the hatred thread, the rivalry thread, the family thread to "discuss" these aspects of story-telling ?

Why do we still pretend romances are something else than features ? If that's not, what about I find you some good examples of romances in literacy, in cinema ? Since you'll agree that these are the romances you have in mind I guess.

Edited March 5, 2015 by CaptainMace

[BruceVC]

Tell you what, DP, make a post and folks will read it, and if someone's already said it, we'll simply take it as affirmation of previous arguments.  Short enough?

 

Also I don't think we need to lower our standard of communication because people battle to read and comprehend a few paragraphs. I like reading long posts if they are relevant to the discussion ..and I'm not that clever. So if I can focus on a relatively long post I'm sure others can handle it 

[Osvir]

Jumping into the discussion/debate just to repeat my sentiment (or, I might've started this post several times but then thought to myself "Nah" and never pressed that "Post" button~ *shrug*).

I think romance would enhance the narrative experience but... it shouldn't be a mini-game. It should instead be a part of the companions personality.

In Bioware games it's more or less a railroad dialogue path for all characters. It doesn't matter much how you go about your dialogue, you'll end up with a romance option eventually (unless you're all "Negative Attitude" and making everyone hate you).

What I'd like to see in romance options would be more of a genuine approach towards it, where each companion has their own preferences adhering to their characters. For instance, let's say X companion is totally into Aggressive characters, but doesn't like Stoic characters, you'd get hints and flirts from X companion if you made an Aggressive character, and you won't get any of it if you make a Stoic character (but instead another companion might be totally into Stoic characters and you can make a pass at that character instead).

Romance should also be complex in a way that, YOU as the Player might find a companion attractive and can romance them early (if you've made a compatible character for a companion) and then YOU realize that "This companion is... ugh! I'm ending it!" and that that awkwardness and depth to it should be included as well. After all, early love is often fantastic, but as you get to know each other better you start to learn flaws in each other. A romanceable companion might even find flaws in your character and might end it as well.

I understand why romance is hard to write, because there's so much complexity to cover to make it really good. The best romance is the one that is set in stone from the very start. The MC or Protaganist will fall in love with X character regardless how you built them. Book or movie romance (which is awfully difficult to recreate in an RPG with tons of C&C).

One of the very best romances that I've seen in games is in.... the Final Fantasy games (Final Fantasy IV, VI, VII and IX) aaand.. Kingdom Hearts. In FFVI & VII it is very much implied and they cover many areas of romance (Celes and Terra, and, Tifa and Aerith). I'd say VI is a bit more romantic though. In Final Fantasy IX, it is very much implied that Garnet and Zidane kiss at the very end too. Kingdom Hearts narrative is romantic, but Sora and Kairi doesn't necessarily have a "romantic relationship".

Those "romances" are not "mini-games" but they are part of the story/narrative/characters. It's not something you try to achieve but it is something that happens like it happens in a book. In Harry Potter, Ron and Hermoine, Harry and Ginny, they fall for each other, it is part of the official narrative and it happens. In ME and DA, nearly every character falls for the MC. It's flat, but sure... it is inclusive...

In Bioware games it is a mechanic. One could compare "romance" in Mass Effect and Dragon Age with "lockpicking" and "hacking", hence, it appropriatly falls into the same semantic... "romancing". Every character is romanceable just like every locked chest is unlockable. It's not good "narrative", but there is no denying that it is inclusive "game design".

Final notes: Romance works best in games that has a definite story with little to none C&C (e.g. some Final Fantasy games, Movie/Book romance/narrative). In C&C heavy RPGs... really difficult and rather complex if it were to compete with movie/book romance.

There's also the aspect of... the difference between a "romantic narrative" and being able to pursue "romantic relationships". For instance, Kingdom Hearts has a "romantic narrative" but it isn't a "romantic relationship". Don Quixote was written during the historic "romantic era", but it isn't a book or story about "romantic relationship" but rather a "romantic narrative" (well, "chivalric romance").

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I enjoy a good "romantic narrative" that touches me emotionally, but I don't like "wannabe romantic" mini-games.

TL;DR:
- Romance mini-games (a.k.a. "romancing", "lovelockpicking", "heart hacking"), to quote & link a recent movie, "smells like balls".
- A romantic narrative can be really good, though, it works best in movies and books. Can't think of a single C&C heavy RPG that has "excellent" romance or romantic writing/narrative. Though, many C&C heavy RPGs can have good "chivalric romance", but not so much "love romance".
- I challenge a game writer/author to attempt to create a romantic narrative that allows for pursuit of romantic/love relationships and make it work excellently in a C&C heavy RPG 

[Osvir]

TL;DR:

- I challenge a game writer/author to attempt to create a romantic narrative that allows for pursuit of romantic/love relationships and make it work excellently in a C&C heavy RPG 

Edit time ran out, forgot to say "and being able to compete with movie/book romance".

 

I believe it is/would be possible, but it would require a ton of time and work to feel as meaningful as it does in movies/books. Each companion and party structure would require their own dialogue, narrative, stories and so on, from start to finish. Plus, you'd have to add all of the Player C&C input on top of that, or vice versa. I also believe you'd have to have a much more freeform way of handling the game.

 

Having a much more open world, and especially where you begin/start the adventure/spawn, in the world. Baldur's Gate (the first, not related to romance) would have benefitted an immense amount of allowing the Player to start in different places (As a Cleric, start at the "Temple", as a Thief, start in "Baldur's Gate" or even being able to pick your starting position and then start your adventure from that point).

 

Though, the narrative of Baldur's Gate is so reliant on Gorion so it might've never worked.

 

Wizardry 6 to 8 trilogy attempts something that I find really intruiging (you always start in the same place in 6, but depending on how the game ends... you might find yourself starting elsewhere in 7, and then elsewhere in 8... multiple endings and multiple beginnings)... I hope Pillars of Eternity sells well, because appearantly there's "early endings" in Pillars of Eternity, which could set the second installment to begin with multiple beginnings in a whole new way :D

 

............... gosh..... I was only going to write that one sentence after the quote but then my fingers ran wild

[Gromnir]

 

you guys need to learn how to make your points in 150 words maximum... otherwise its just 4 ppl going circular with wall after wall effectively discouraging any new potential contributor to the debate...

 

There's no debate, there's originally dudes who ask for the romance mechanic, this dialog mini-game which is about making npcs lose reason and sanity.

Then people decided to talk about love in storytelling in general, 'cause the original discussion has ended a long time ago.

 

sorry, but that is idiotic.  if other folks did the same stoopid thing,  it don't somehow make his ridiculous backpedaling any less silly.

 

I don't see how it's a stoopid thing to talk about the original subject of a thread. I think it's actually in every forum cores rules of the history of internet forums all over the web.

However nobody ever really reproaches people to denature the concept we're discussing, at the point where it's absolutely pointless to talk about it.

But, again, let's pretend the point of this thread was about romance in story-telling in general.

 

Then let's witness that the one and only thing that keeps this discussion alive is that nobody, at all, still talks about romances as game mechanics. The original subject of any romance thread in the galaxy.

 

Where do you see backpedaling in stunt messages. I'd rather say he sticks too much to the original debate which is over since several months. But then again how could I reproach him to stick to the original debate since the new one... isn't one at all.

 

somebody isn't paying attention.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70723-the-official-romance-thread/

 

you may now correctly observe the original subject o' the thread.  

 

'course that ignores the fact that what stun did were abandon his untenable argument with Gromnir, and sudden argue stun v. promancers, wherein he came up with a definition o' what promancers consider romance w/o actual being able to point to anybody that actual supports his definition.

 

"Fixed."

 

sorry, but not fixed.  your attempted quote clear left something outta Gromnir's post 'cause what you fraudulently misrepresented as a Gromnir quote requires an extra infinitive... or two.  

 

"These "romances" you find good in ps:t, again, are just a matter of good writing."

 

your point? am suspecting you complete missed our point that romances existed before the mini-game side-quests.  they were indeed the product o' well-written character interactions.  we noted elsewhere that the optional and tangential side-quests/mini-game romances is presenting a particular challenge for writers

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70723-the-official-romance-thread/?p=1576523

 

specifically:

 

"in any event, the thing that prevents the tangential and optional companion romances from being anything more than pap for the slobbering promancers and the gibbering sjw crowd is the thing that makes 'em acceptable to Gromnir: they are tangential and optional.  try and think o' a decent story with romance wherein the romance were complete tangential and coulda' been optional.  ask a rpg writer to create a good romance arc.  fine.  now tell him/her that he must complete the entire arc with a half-dozen dialogue encounters and the entire romance must be optional and tangential to the main plot.

 

"...

 

"@#$%.  @#$% U."

 

it were our point that romance plots and sub-plots existed and were well-written in games previous to september 2000.  the mechanic o' the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game romances actual make writing compelling romance more difficult.

 

am suspecting you is being intentional obtuse where stun simple flopped into his mess... but then again, perhaps we give you too much credit.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Darkpriest]

 

 

Tell you what, DP, make a post and folks will read it, and if someone's already said it, we'll simply take it as affirmation of previous arguments. Short enough?

Also I don't think we need to lower our standard of communication because people battle to read and comprehend a few paragraphs. I like reading long posts if they are relevant to the discussion ..and I'm not that clever. So if I can focus on a relatively long post I'm sure others can handle it

It is actually not lowering but improving the standards... concise and to the point is the standard in the high business and most presentations. Research papers are a different beast but they are treated as a source to which you refer during making your point.

[Darkpriest]

Tell you what, DP, make a post and folks will read it, and if someone's already said it, we'll simply take it as affirmation of previous arguments. Short enough?

Two points:

 

If you want to get romance in provide the data that supports it. Show that it considerably affects the sales and level of enjoyment across all the population or at least 50% of cRPG buyers.

 

Definitions are short. Have you seen an encyclopedia entry long for 4 paragraphs? Get key features in and then you can discuss if its accurate or not.

 

So far objectively we know that one vocal minority wants romances and another does not for various subjective reasons. *shrug* personally i see better options for the use of the limited money.

[Stun]

'course that ignores the fact that what stun did were abandon his untenable argument with Gromnir

Lol

 

Choosing to ignore the nonsensical ramblings of this forum's premier white noise producer, should not be interpreted to mean that an argument with gromnir was 'untenable' or 'abandoned'.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Stun

[Cantousent]

I'm not typing this with angry fingers, DP, but if you have something to say about romances, why not post it? In fact, you're right that folks read short posts more often. Post a sharp short point and give us your thoughts.

 

EDIT: sorry, phone typing

Edited March 5, 2015 by Cantousent

[Stun]

it were our point that romance plots and sub-plots existed and were well-written in games previous to september 2000.

Give us your definition of a video game romance. Edited March 5, 2015 by Stun

[Gromnir]

 

'course that ignores the fact that what stun did were abandon his untenable argument with Gromnir

Lol

 

Choosing to ignore the nonsensical ramblings of this forum's premier white noise producer, should not be interpreted to mean that an 'untenable' argument with Gromnir has been 'abandoned'.

 

you complete changed the subject being discussed.  your only explanation for doing so were that you were responding not to Gromnir but to your imagined definition o' romance from the promancer pov... or perhaps from the non-op poster.  you were a bit confused on the matter. it were embarrassing.

 

and no, Gromnir is not gonna provide you with his personal definition o' a romantic story.  as we noted elsewhere, quibble over the minutae o' the definition is pointless. we objected to the following bit o' stun silliness:

 

"There's no such thing as an unrequited romance."

 

our definition is a distraction and doesn't in any way impact the silliness you backtracked into regarding some weird kinda generalization for promancers.  you said something asinine.  am not sure why you can't just man-up and admit your obvious mistake.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps pardon us, what actual started your descent into madness were the following:  "There's no such thing as a non-reciprocal romance." for all practical purposes, the differences is unimportant, but we expect you will wanna fight the detail.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Gromnir

[CaptainMace]

 

your point? am suspecting you complete missed our point that romances existed before the mini-game side-quests.

 

Never said otherwise.

 

What i said however is that you and others reproach somebody to get back to the original matter of the discussion. Aka the absence of romance, as the devs stated, in PoE claiming he distorted the concept of romance to fit his arguments, when really it was the opposite. He stated arguments in the discussion about romance, as a game mechanic, (because that's what is absent from PoE and that's what people are talking about when they start countless romance threads) and people then retorted that romances can be and are something else than game mechanics (which wasn't the point of all these discussions at all).

I think we can all agree that romance has been a part of scenarii and story-telling in games since a long time. I think we can say it's also part of movies and books obviously. Yet that's not what people have in mind when they start these countless threads, wether you like it or not.

 

Now, we can talk about romances as well-written part of game stories and characters relationships. But that's obviously not what generates these discussions. Heck there's even a new thread from today or yesterday when a dude sums up what he knows about the game and clearly specifies, under the part called "romance", that he's talking about the mini-game.

 

Now you can retort again and again that romances were and can be something else than the meaningless mini-game, we'll still see more and more people, especially after release, who'll come on this forum to complain about the absence of romance in PoE and they'll obviously be talking about the mini-game. Not the well-written ones that you focalize on.

[Gromnir]

 

 

your point? am suspecting you complete missed our point that romances existed before the mini-game side-quests.

 

Never said otherwise.

 

What i said however is that you and others reproach somebody to get back to the original matter of the discussion. 

and Gromnir observed that you not onlyy intentional misquoted us but mischaracterized stun's mistake, so much o' the rest o' your post....

 

*shrug*

 

wanna talk about romance in general?  that IS what the actual op topic is... in case you still hadn't recognized that fact.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[CaptainMace]

Well considering this topic is although regularly merged with the countless ones that actually talk about the game mechanic/mini-game romance, it's not really fair to pretend it's always just been about romance in its very general definition.

But we'll enjoy a ton more of these threads being merged ending in the same discussions we're having right now anyway. We'll have people create these threads talking about the mini-game, people who will react to 'em, and you'll be able to claim that romances are not about that. All over again and again 'til the end of times.

Edited March 5, 2015 by CaptainMace

[Stun]

you complete changed the subject being discussed.

What? I did no such thing. I did the OPPOSITE. The subject here is, and always has been, video game romances. It was YOU who decided that such a topic was too narrow, and so YOU branched off and began talking about Love; Romance in literature; how T.S. Elliot and F. Scott Fitzgerald define Love etc. etc.

 

Who are you kidding? <gag>

 

 

and no, Gromnir is not gonna provide you with his personal definition o' a romantic story.

I didn't ask anyone to give me their definition of a romantic story. And of course you won't give me (or anyone else here) your definition of a video game romance, because it would box you into a corner and you know it. And then you'd have to contend with the masses of posters here who'd pick apart this definition of yours on sheer principle alone.

 

our definition is a distraction

You mean a heavily guarded secret; an Achilles heel; a sure fire way to show the forum how warped your viewpoint on the subject really is.

 

and doesn't in any way impact the silliness you backtracked into regarding some weird kinda generalization for promancers.

Boy, for someone who takes such vehement offense at generalizations, you sure do like tossing around the "promancer" label on this thread, don't you.

 

Lets get down to the brass tacks, now, shall we? We are not discussing Love. We are not discussing romantic stories. We are not even discussing romances that occur in old books. We ARE discussing video game romances. Do you have a definition of what constitutes one or NOT? Because if not, then, what to you hope to accomplish with your little drama queen act here, condemning everyone's else's definitions but not actually offering up anything of substance to further the discussion?

Edited March 5, 2015 by Stun

[Kal Adan]

@Osvir

 

You put down some very interesting thoughts. I find it logical that an NPC will be attracted to player who displays certain attitude during questing. Interactions between NPC and player is another logical step in a relationship (plus how player decides to deal with quests, but from what I saw it also determines attitude of your character, so there is no problem with that). It should provide better base for writting down character interactions that make sense. Besides captivation (which can happen, but I don't know how one could model it in game. A roll based on charisma versus... what? Randomly generated number?).

Edited March 5, 2015 by Kal Adan

[Lephys]

Alright, here we go:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/romance?s=t

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/romantic

 

Obviously the definition is very broad. Some of the original definitions have more to do with simple fantasy/adventure/chivalry/fancifulness than love/affection.

 

So, now, we can just take each person's post/point individually, and ask them what kind of romance they think would be of value in a video game narrative. If it wouldn't, cool. If you think it's weird -- their particular desire/example -- cool. This is the stuff of discussion. Not foul-calling on weird semantics technicalities that need to be reviewed by the refs for 15 minutes.

 

And with that breadth of meaning in-mind, I very much think that it's about time games stopped worrying about "a romance" between your character and another character, and instead simply included fanciful/romantic yearnings and motives for the characters throughout the narrative, where appropriate.

 

I get people desiring "romances" -- very rigid relationships built mostly in isolation from the rest of the goings-on of the game -- but I dare say that pretending that's the only way (or even the best way) of doing things in RPGs in general is like saying the only way to cook a meal is to make a Cup-O-Noodles.

[Lord of Riva]

you want a Definition of game romances? i suspect you want to hear that there is none.

 

What being romantic is, is something you could ask in general, nobody will give you the same answer. Still the same is true for RPGs, or for Combat systems, or for well written texts.

 

Tastes are different and that means that all people perceive things differently, there is no reason not to try though?

[Gromnir]

Well considering this topic is although regularly merged with the countless ones that actually talk about the game mechanic/mini-game romance, it's not really fair to pretend it's always just been about romance in its very general definition.

 

But we'll enjoy a ton more of these threads being merged ending in the same discussions we're having right now anyway. We'll have people react to these thread talking about the mini-game, people who will react to 'em, and you'll be able to claim that romances are not about that. All over again and again 'til the end of times.

it is perfectly fair as the thread had been merged Before you and stun made your relative faux pas.  and as we noted already, 

 

"'course that ignores the fact that what stun did were abandon his untenable argument with Gromnir, and sudden argue stun v. promancers, wherein he came up with a definition o' what promancers consider romance w/o actual being able to point to anybody that actual supports his definition."

 

so again, regardless o' the time and method o' merging, you mischaracterized.

 

your fraudulent misrepresentation o' a Gromnir quote remains a complete separate issue.

 

and now to stun... *sigh*

 

"What? I did no such thing. I did the OPPOSITE. The subject here is, and always has been, about video game romances. It was YOU who decided that such a topic was too narrow, and so YOU branched off and began talking about Love; Romance in literature; how T.S. Elliot and F. Scott Fitzgerald define Love etc. etc."

 

you musta' missed where we quoted you. am not certain how you could miss that.  you said something stoopid.  we called you on it.  you fought needlessly.  then you attributed a definition o' romantic love to imaginary promancers, a definition nobody has embraced.  want us to quote your silly romance definition too?

 

"Now then, lets get down to the brass tacks here. We are no discussing Love. We are not discussing romantic stories. We are not even discussing romances that occur in old books. We ARE discussing video game romances. Do you have a definition of what constitutes a video game romance or NOT?"

 

great.  finally. now we can get back to this nonsense:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70723-the-official-romance-thread/?p=1576847

 

whether it is novels or games, you are still wrong.  

 

"There's no such thing as a non-reciprocal romance."

 

"There's no such thing as an unrequited romance."

 

you are still wrong, and if you again backtrack to some ridiculous invented notion o' what you thinks all promancers Really mean by romance, we will laugh our self right outta our chair. whether is games or novel is not helping you.

 

you are making yourself into a joke, and you don't even realize it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 5, 2015 by Gromnir

[Stun]

Tastes are different and that means that all people perceive things differently,

So if we were to come up with a definition, it would necessarily need to be quite broad in order to cover all the different perceptions. Wouldn't you agree? Edited March 5, 2015 by Stun

[Lord of Riva]

thats not correct, the definition doesnt need to be broad. PoE eternity is a game, Call of Duty is a game as well. that doesnt mean that all PoE players need to like CoD.

 

Not all of you want romance, Not all people want the same kind of romance. But that doesnt mean that there is no appeal in it, even if its something only a niche of players want.

 

You do not need to cover the whole spektrum of users with every feature, if you had to PoE wouldnt exist.

 

The question remains what is to be gained to find a specific Definition?