The Official Romance Thread

[Lord of Riva]

ahhh at least you bring something worthwile to the discussion about now.

 

while i certainly do not agree with this statement to the same extent as you, since i do not see why shallow gameplay is a symptom of having romances in a game, but ok.

you are certainly not alone with your opinion.

 

Still i do think it is not okay to hinder others on worthwile discussions throwing rocks at people to hinder them on discussing what they like is never the right way.

Just imagine you on the Dragon age boards complaining about shallow gameplay and you get bashed around with semantic arguments that have no place in the discussion, obfuscating all the good and valid points you make.

 

If i understand correctly forums are a medium for discussion right?

You are deliberately hindering these discussions.

and again it is sad that you do not see a problem with that.

[Lephys]

The anti-mancers.

 

When was the last time you decided to Grill BruceVC with your pointless guess-questions?

I dunno. Why does a guy firing off shots in Disneyland get all the attention from security?

 

I guess with you calling everyone out on everything, I should randomly start questioning Bruce about the stuff you're saying. *shrug*

 

Also... you continuously group all "promancers" into one collective hivemind with the exact same thoughts and ideas on things, yet I'm the person taking "potshots" at "the anti-mancers"?

 

Name one time I've said anything against "the anti-mancers." Do you represent all people who don't advocate romance? Or do you just represent yourself? You can call out people left and right, to the point of no longer even caring what it is we're discussing, as long as someone "isn't doing it right," but heaven forbid anyone "grill" you with questions? My goodness, sweet child...

Edited March 6, 2015 by Lephys

[Gromnir]

 

The anti-mancers.

 

When was the last time you decided to Grill BruceVC with your pointless guess-questions?

I dunno. Why does a guy firing off shots in Disneyland get all the attention from security?

 

I guess with you calling everyone out on everything, I should randomly start questioning Bruce about the stuff you're saying. *shrug*

 

Also... you continuously group all "promancers" into one collective hivemind with the exact same thoughts and ideas on things, yet I'm the person taking "potshots" at "the anti-mancers"?

 

Name one time I've said anything against "the anti-mancers." Do you represent all people who don't advocate romance? Or do you just represent yourself? You can call out people left and right, to the point of no longer even caring what it is we're discussing, as long as someone "isn't doing it right," but heaven forbid anyone "grill" you with questions? My goodness, sweet child...

 

stun is a hoot and complete devoid o' any kinda sense on this topic.

 

bruce is dogged about romance.  bruce genuine likes biowarian tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game companion romances.  

 

...

 

can't have much o' an argument with bruce.  he likes the romances.  period.  he doesn't try to deny the existence o' romance in games previous to 2000.  he doesn't try and define what all promancers want.  bruce has never tried and tell us 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."  but heck, even if he believed such nonsense, he would recognize just how pointless such a definition is 'cause he would still want the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game companion romances... 'cause ultimately stun's attempts to define promancy for promancers (does that make sense?) is meaningless.  

 

stun has said some ridiculous stuff:

 

"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."

 

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

 

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

 

etc.

 

the longer the thread gets, the more ridiculous stun will be.

 

bruce, on the other hand, likes the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game romances.  bruce believes that the romances make crpgs better.  Gromnir disagrees with bruce, but what is the point o' telling a person that the thing they like, even when doe well, isn't very good.  bruce disagrees with Gromnir regarding the quality o' romances; he likes the biowarian style romances even so. 

 

*shrug*

 

there isn't anything to argue with bruce 'bout that would require more than a post or two.

 

stun, on the other hand, creates fodder as he goes... and again, Gromnir Loathes the biowarian style tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game companion romances.  as far as biowarian style romances being included in poe or poe expansions and sequels, stun and Gromnir want the same thing... and we still see stun as obtuse to the point that we has a hard time comprehending him.

 

bruce has been given a hard time by Gromnir regarding romance.  such stuff is maybe comprising a post or two o' mockery.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Stun]

can't have much o' an argument with bruce.  he likes the romances.  period.  he doesn't try to deny the existence o' romance in games previous to 2000.

True. Instead, in an attempt to 'prove' that Romances are what make all games great, he'll see "romances" in every great RPG that came out before 2000. He'll be just like Gromnir --- stretching, pulling, widening, and morphing the definition of romance until even a blood filled battle with the Final Boss in Diablo = "Hints of romantic residue!" or "Romance according to what [____ insert random Book writer here_____] would say" or "well, infatuation = Love, and Love = Romance, therefore It's a romance, so don't be so Ridiculous, Stoopid, Obtuse, a hoot. etc.!" Edited March 6, 2015 by Stun

[Lephys]

You're welcome to make a new thread entitled "Are there or are there not romances in these classic RPGs: (list)", if you'd like. Or maybe a "Can romance go unreciprocated?" thread. It doesn't cost anything.

[Stun]

You're welcome to make a new thread entitled "Are there or are there not romances in these classic RPGs: (list)", if you'd like. Or maybe a "Can romance go unreciprocated?" thread. It doesn't cost anything.

- Other romance threads will either be deleted or merged into this one.

No, Lephys I think I'll just adhere to the forum rules instead.

[Gromnir]

 

True. Instead, in an attempt to 'prove' that Romances are what make all games great, he'll see "romances" in every great RPG that came out before 2000. He'll be just like Gromnir --- stretching, pulling, widening, and morphing the definition of romance until even a blood filled battle with the Final Boss in Diablo = "Hints of romantic residue!" or "Romance according to what [____ insert random Book writer here_____] would say" or "well, infatuation = Love, and Love = Romance, therefore It's a romance, so don't be so Ridiculous, Stoopid, Obtuse, a hoot. etc.!"

 

we suspect that bruce is smarter than you.  so, Gromnir suggests that not only were there romances before 2000, but they were better?  bruce admitting that there were romances in games before 2000 does not change the fact that he wants current crpg developers to include tangential and optional mini-game/side-quest companion romances such as bioware popularized.  bruce, being smarter than stun, would likely not wanna concede our point that pre-2000 romances were better, and he would be aware that the mere existence o' such romances as the ravel and tno romance sub-plot from ps:t doesn't impact his lobbying for bioware-style romances to be included in games being developed in 2015 and beyond. bruce would surely not wanna agree with Gromnir that the tangential and optional mini-game/side-quest romances is mechanically flawed and that doing romance such as we saw attempted in ps:t is a superior approach compared to the one he is advocating.   we suspect that bruce would recognize that you mindlessly railing against Gromnir regarding the existence and nature o' ps:t romances is asinine given that you s'posed don't want tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game romances anymore than does Gromnir. 'course we suspect that bruce is smarter than stun. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Stun]

and that doing romance such as we saw attempted in ps:t

There were No romances in PS:T, Biowaresque or otherwise.

 

Get that through your thick, stubborn skull already.

 

Edit: Well, unless of course, your definition of Romances in pre-2000 video games is: "omg omg omg. Ravel Loves my toon, therefore, PS:T has romances."

 

Well? Is it?

Edited March 6, 2015 by Stun

[Diogenes]

What is the difference between romances, love stories and stories about/involving love?

[Cantousent]

This is no longer ridiculous.  Sublime is far far away.  This terminology discussion is actually transcendent at this point.  We are literally not even talking about romances at all.  We're talking about what does or does not constitute a romance.  I mean, in a way it's cool by me in that I guess we can't have romances if we render the term useless.

 

Here's one for ya, Dak'kon is the template for romance mini-games.  After all, your responses have an effect on all manner of things regarding Dak'kon, 'upgrading' him and ensuring he remains in your party.  I'm tellin' ya, just put lipstick on that Gith and you'll have heart pounding romance.   Seriously, we had the romance mechanic before we had any need to define romance.

[Valmy]

 

and that doing romance such as we saw attempted in ps:t

There were No romances in PS:T, Biowaresque or otherwise.

 

Get that through your thick, stubborn skull already.

 

Edit: Well, unless of course, your definition of Romances in pre-2000 video games is: "omg omg omg. Ravel Loves my toon, therefore, PS:T has romances."

 

Well? Is it?

 

 

Um...why wouldn't it be?  It is a romantic story element in any case.

 

If that counts then, as I have said 100x in this thread, then PoE may yet have a romance.  If what you want is Bioware romances it will not.  That is that.

[Valmy]

This is no longer ridiculous.  Sublime is far far away.  This terminology discussion is actually transcendent at this point.  We are literally not even talking about romances at all.  We're talking about what does or does not constitute a romance.  I mean, in a way it's cool by me in that I guess we can't have romances if we render the term useless.

 

Here's one for ya, Dak'kon is the template for romance mini-games.  After all, your responses have an effect on all manner of things regarding Dak'kon, 'upgrading' him and ensuring he remains in your party.  I'm tellin' ya, just put lipstick on that Gith and you'll have heart pounding romance.   Seriously, we had the romance mechanic before we had any need to define romance.

 

It did stroke my ego opening up that section he had not opened yet.

[Stun]

Um...why wouldn't it be?  It is a romantic story element in any case.

 

If that counts then, as I have said 100x in this thread, then PoE may yet have a romance.

If it counts, Valmy, then every RPG ever created has a romance in it.

 

And incidentally, it also means that it's not a matter of PoE maybe having a Romance in it. PoE DOES have a romance in it. There's one in the Beta.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Stun

[Gromnir]

 

 

and that doing romance such as we saw attempted in ps:t

There were No romances in PS:T, Biowaresque or otherwise.

 

Get that through your thick, stubborn skull already.

 

Edit: Well, unless of course, your definition of Romances in pre-2000 video games is: "omg omg omg. Ravel Loves my toon, therefore, PS:T has romances."

 

Well? Is it?

 

 

Um...why wouldn't it be?  It is a romantic story element in any case.

 

If that counts then, as I have said 100x in this thread, then PoE may yet have a romance.  If what you want is Bioware romances it will not.  That is that.

 

am reasonably sure that he has no idea what he is arguing or why the distinction is relevant.  bruce is smarter. so too is valmy.  however, those o' you who is showing more insight than stun is an increasing large group.  unlocking circles o' zerthimon should result in a significant greater ego boost than leaving stun baffled.

 

going nerdtastic, we believe the lesson from the 4th circle o' zerthimon is the most applicable to stun's plight... but the 6th also has relevance. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Diogenes]

In *knowing* the teachings of Zerthimon I have become stronger.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Diogenes

[Stun]

<<<<amusing attempts to measure other people's intelligence, being made by someone who possesses none>>>>

If Ravel is a romance, then Icewind Dale has romances. But only a palpable idiot would claim that Icewind Dale has romances.

 

Also, Whether or not Bruce is smarter than Stun doesn't really matter at the moment, since Gromnir isn't half as smart as either one of them.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Stun

[Valmy]

 

Um...why wouldn't it be?  It is a romantic story element in any case.

 

If that counts then, as I have said 100x in this thread, then PoE may yet have a romance.

If it counts, Valmy, then every RPG ever created has a romance in it.

 

And incidentally, it also means that it's not a matter of PoE maybe having a Romance in it. PoE DOES have a romance in it. There's one in the Beta.

 

 

I don't recall one in The Bard's Tale except my deep romance with the twisty roads of Skara Brae.  But yes, that was basically my point. 

[Valmy]

 

If Ravel is a romance, then Icewind Dale has romances. But only a palpable idiot would claim that Icewind Dale has romances.

 

Also, Whether or not Bruce is smarter than Stun doesn't really matter at the moment, since Gromnir isn't half as smart as either one of them.

 

 

I don't know.  A beautiful love story was at the heart of my hardy band of companions.

 

And Gromnir is awesome.

[Stun]

The First cRPG Romance (using Gromnir's warped definition of romance) appeared in the original Zork (1977).

 

That's right. Zork. You see, the game recognized "love", "f*ck" and "romance" as verbs. Thus, if you've got a Torch in your hand you could type the command phrase "Love Torch", or "F*ck Torch"...and the game would respond with "Torch does not Love you" <-----look at that! an unrequited Romance!

 

And of course this is Precisely what everyone means when they ask "will this game have romances?"...Right?

Edited March 6, 2015 by Stun

[Gromnir]

you are becoming a bit predictable with your imaginings o' what other folks must believe, though your amusing attempt to define romance for all promancers is still your best/worst work so far.

 

ah well, some folks has a ridiculous difficult time with the most simple o' lessons: keep your eye on the ball. maybe stun didn't play baseball as a kid... or cricket, or rugby or football or golf or whatever.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps it woulda' been funnier if your first example were pong.  two paddles, kept apart for all eternity, but fighting for some kinda connection... etc.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Gromnir

[Stun]

HA! Good Fun!

Hey, We missed a romance in PS:T: The Lim Lim. The game lets you pet it, and it coos at your caressing touch. (just like Ravel!)

 

So tell us, Gromnir, did you enjoy the Lim Lim Romance? Don't be shy. We're all comrades here! We're all nerdy gamers. We'll understand. You can trust us.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Stun

[Stun]

ps it woulda' been funnier if your first example were pong. two paddles, kept apart for all eternity, but fighting for some kinda connection... etc.

Silly Rabbit. Pong isn't an RPG, so why would I cite it as the first cRPG to have romances??

 

 

Edit: (oh wait, I forgot who I'm talking to. :::::waits for the obligatory insult-filled-rant about why Pong is an RPG and how obtuse and unintelligent I must be to claim otherwise:::: )

Edited March 6, 2015 by Stun

[Osvir]

^

[Kal Adan]

Your attempts to ridicule romance mean nothing. Romance has it own shelf full of books, but for purposes of other media it's accepted to shorten romance to "emotional attraction towards another person" and all it implies. How that goes in terms of story-telling, reactions of other people, etc. is entirely another matter. Having said this much I doubt it's reasonable to say anything more. Especially to a person who behaves like a troll, so I will say nothing else to you.

[Cantousent]

"...woulda' been funnier if your first example were pong.  two paddles, kept apart for all eternity, but fighting for some kinda connection... etc."

 

I laughed out loud.

 

I'm not going to wade into the middle of the romance nomenclature debate, but I still think there's a discussion to be had about how the story arcs come together.  The more I think about it, the reason we've got this definition thing going on is because the things that could be construed as romantic were more or less seamlessly built into the game.  I can't quite put my finger on why I hate the Bioware romances so much.  It's not because I can't abide romances.  I mean, not really my style in a game, but I enjoy the odd romantic comedy with my wife.  I thought Niles and Daphne were a splendid couple.  It's also not because I hate Bioware games.  Some of my favorite games have been Bioware crafted.  I would normally say it's because they're so simple, but Azarkon has a point about the fact that I'm more forgiving of other parts that are almost or just as simplistic.  What is it?