The Official Romance Thread

[Rosbjerg]

As per the last installment.

 

Romance in PoE Thread Rules

 

- This thread is for people who wish to actually discuss the roleplaying merits of romances (or lack thereof) in regards to Pillars of Eternity. You can lament or celebrate that they are not included, argue why the game would have been better or worse, give examples from games that did it well or did it poorly, talk about modding efforts to add it in, or discuss how it might be included in future expansions or installments and anything related to those subjects, etc.

 

- Anyone posting simply to make fun of or abuse people who like or dislike romance or to point out how often this topic has been done before will find their posts deleted. If the thread goes off-topic or gets very hostile, it will get pruned.

 

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

 

Knock yourselves out.

[Lord of Riva]

Hey guys,

 

since we got a new topic we can get the discussions going again.

Hopefully this time we will be able to have constructive discussion, i am going to counter the awkwardness of the new topic now (which probably is the reason why nobody has written anything in here yet)

 

So Romance:

 

My standpoint on the matter is a little more balanced, i do not particulary care much for romances, even more in the style it came up in the games like DA, Mass effect etc.

 

Then again i feel, Love, Sexuality and caring for each other is an Integral part of being Human, so i can see why people would want to inlcude romance in a game like this.

It is a Matter of Immersion (damn overused word) and can make characters believable, it always feels wierd if there is no Love is to be had in a Story, since you just ignore a very important part of the charackters.

 

There are quite a few issues with romances though.

 

Do you Feel that Romances have to be sexual to be effective? even more if we see PoE in the light of its graphics were it would be even more ridiculous to see people having a intimate relationship.

 

Also there is the issue with inclusivness, We have more than one sexual orientation. And it is kinda udnerstandable that all of the, nowadays widely accepted forms (which is great), of sexuality wants to be represented. This also goes hand in hand with Racial implications where some groups feel underrepresented.

 

I think the Problem with the "modern" Romances is that as soon as you cater for every possible variant: eg. FxF FxM MxM and then have more romancable options to have different objects of your affections leads to a cluster of unbelievable Pick and choose.

 

 

How would you guys (the guys who want romances) propose to avoid/solve these Issues? ( i mean i can see where these complaints come from, if you are homosexual you do not want to be pressed into an heterosexual context (well not entirely true i can enjoy it all since im RPing not in the game myself, but i digress))

[Valmy]

I do not think it is a good idea to assume anything about the main character in a game where you can create your own.  If I was playing a premade character, like in an adventure game or something, then I would not have a problem with there being a set heterosexual or homosexual romance at the heart of the game.

 

If you are making a RPG and you are going to have romances well you are going to at least need to satisfy the big four (heterosexual male, female and homosexual male and female).  IMO.

[redneckdevil]

As someone who's okay with romance as long as it's oprional and u don't miss any content by not doing so but IS "against romance being the ONLY way to have deep meaningful roleplay options" mentality, I think a few ideas.

 

First and a huge one, make it completely optional. That means that if someone persues said romance, they get dialogue and maybe an option on how to resolve a situation, but no unlocking great mysteries or areas of items, etc etc.

Second,ur gonna have to make it for the big 4. They need to be done right as in the have their own ideals and there is no "minigame" of selecting heart dialogue. Also players are gonna have to accept that just as in real life, u won't always get the one u want.

Third, no cramming it down our throats. Anders from DA2 is a huge example. He was basically ur only healer depending on what class and sex u chose Hawke to be and while that alone u want to keep on his good side, it felt like the only way to stay on his good side was to full on accept his whining and he told he was right and a lot of times felt like u had no option BUT to flirt with him. By the time the game was done, anders was going on that block weither or not he blew up a building. If romance is in the game, it does NOT take first seat but as something of lesser importance.

Fourth, if u do by the nines, have it connect somehow to the plot but in a way that is unnoticeable. I'll give morrigan from da:o as an example. While getting to romance her wasn't the most ideal way, IF u did it had some type of bearing to the final plot. Don't make romances in its own little world, just like with lore, culture, c&c, etc have it integrated into the overall plot. Not this "uve been acting in a way that totally goes against my values and I'm so close to hating you but since u said and have me gifts, I'm ur one true love now. Now let's continue on doing things that I totally disagree with so that I can forget that ur always like this and eventually leave you" type situations.

Fifth and final point. Be happy if the game has deep lore, deep culture, deep companions and deep c&c and doesn't have romance in it. Get it in ur heads that romance isn't the one true way and isn't any important than any of what I just listed above. It's equal to those but imho for people can be harder to pull off. So accept that their doesn't have to be romance in every single game and that those devoid of said romances can be deep and meaning roleplaying games with tons of options that aren't in any way lacking because of lack of romance. Also that a game can have OPTIONAL romances and as long as it doesn't full on focus and shove down ur throats, romance if done well can add roleplaying options to a game. Romance can be important but isn't any more important than a well down lore, culture, companions, c&c, game mechanics etc. I would argue that due to the type of story or setting or situation, romance can be very important. BUT isn't so important that game always needs romances for the player to be involved with.

[Cantousent]

I'd rather not have actionable romance between the PC and NPCs in a game.  Flirtation?  Maybe.  Sex?  Not really, although in some settings I guess it wouldn't bug me.  Full on romantic relationship?  No.  In a series of games, I would still say no, but it wouldn't be as bad if the PC develops a romance with one of the NPCs over time.  Flirt for a while.  Maybe eventually the physical heat gets the better of them and they have sex.  Then they start 'going out,' or whatever people fighting for their lives do these days.

 

NPCs having romantic relationships with each other that help drive the overarching story?  Sure.  Why not?  ...And it's become clear that 'romance' is like 'porn.'  Maybe they can't define it, but folks generally can recognize it when they see it.

[Valmy]

Oh I thought you literally meant it has become like porn.  Those Bioware sex scenes could get pretty explicit.

[Cantousent]

Oh I thought you literally meant it has become like porn.  Those Bioware sex scenes could get pretty explicit.

That too!

 

Actually, DA:O is the last Bioware game I played.  I don't remember any explicit sex scenes.  ...And I missed all the ME games and whatnot.  I think the previous Bioware game I played prior to DA:O was NWN, and I don't remember any explicit sex scenes in that either.

[Valmy]

I was kidding....mostly.

 

The things I have seen from DA:I seemed to be pretty spicy.

[BruceVC]

 

Oh I thought you literally meant it has become like porn.  Those Bioware sex scenes could get pretty explicit.

That too!

 

Actually, DA:O is the last Bioware game I played.  I don't remember any explicit sex scenes.  ...And I missed all the ME games and whatnot.  I think the previous Bioware game I played prior to DA:O was NWN, and I don't remember any explicit sex scenes in that either.

 

 

I like your posting style Cant, you always seem to be so controlled and never get personal. I'm glad you came back to the forums

 

And also something else that some of you guys may not realize is just what a formidable debating opponent Gromnir is, I feel I need to mention this because sometimes he is underestimated. When I first started chatting to Gromnir I focused on his usage of english and "couldn't really understand what he was saying" ( which isn't true..people just say this when they are frustrated by his logic ) but anyway he has had the most fascinating, difficult ( compared to most of us) and eventful life and his views are shaped by his life experiences. Thats a very relevant reason for some peoples perspective. Anyway Gromnir always debates from a position of logic and intellectualism, he is not like me as  sometimes I  joke and rely on a more esoteric and nebulous debating approach...my approach isn't wrong but its sometimes misunderstood 

 

Anyway I admit I am drawn to intellectualism but I'm not being sycophantic towards Gromnir I just want to say he often makes the most sense because he  can always back up what he says

 

The only  "criticism " I have around some of Gromnirs posts is he doesn't suffer fools and sometimes when  he really wins a debate he makes the person he is debating resent him because the person feels really inadequate because he was really proven to be wrong

 

Finally Gromnir had idea I was  going to say this and definitely doesn't need me  to vindicate his views but I made this post because I notice sometimes people say things like " Gromnir is babbling and no one has a clue what he is going on about " 

 

The reality is Gromnir makes loads of sense if people actually bother to understand what he is saying

[Valmy]

.

 

I like your posting style Cant, you always seem to be so controlled and never get personal. I'm glad you came back to the forums

 

 

I like your's Bruce you are very entertaining, self aware, and intelligent.

 

But anyway there should be a ton of people around here soon.  Be interesting to see how that changes things.

[BruceVC]

 

.

 

I like your posting style Cant, you always seem to be so controlled and never get personal. I'm glad you came back to the forums

 

 

I like your's Bruce you are very entertaining, self aware, and intelligent.

 

But anyway there should be a ton of people around here soon.  Be interesting to see how that changes things.

 

Thanks Valmy, thats a nice thing to say

[CaptainMace]

 

 

.

 

I like your posting style Cant, you always seem to be so controlled and never get personal. I'm glad you came back to the forums

 

 

I like your's Bruce you are very entertaining, self aware, and intelligent.

 

But anyway there should be a ton of people around here soon.  Be interesting to see how that changes things.

 

Thanks Valmy, thats a nice thing to say

 

 

 

 

This romance thread is somehow the first metathread I've seen pop in a forum. All this love !

Edited March 6, 2015 by CaptainMace

[Lord of Riva]

Well at least its a lot friendlier now, group hug? :D ;P

[Cantousent]

Thanks, Bruce.  You're a standup guy.  I hate getting angry in a message board, although Gromnir has made me extremely angry in the past.  ...And we went at it hammer and tongs.  I'm pretty sure he could be me up in real life, but I was mad enough to throw fifty fits.  Anyhow, I hate being angry or losing my temper in general, message board or not.

 

...But, to segue into the romance discussion, I think emotions are an integral part of human life and need to be part of any realistic game.  Not all of them.  It's not necessary to have romance in a game, but it doesn't hurt it.  Romance is perhaps more nebulous as a concept because it entails a whole spread of emotions and inclinations.  However, revenge can be complicated too.  Heroism done well is just as complicated or moreso than romance.

 

CRPGs should be complicated beasts.  There might be one theme, such as the hero trying to save the world.  Okay, a little one dimensional, but fair enough as long as the devs take some time to explore the hero and his foes and explain why he's being heroic or what incentive he has not to be heroic.  ...But heroism is only one item in the repertoire of narrative development.  Revenge and desire for loot have been common themes.  Romance perhaps less, and certainly less from the PC's perspective, but even less than romance is cowardice, which is part and parcel of human existence and yet we virtually never see a reasonable depiction of cowardice from developers on the part of the PC.  Why?  No one wants his character to be a coward compounded by the fact that it would have to fit into a narrative of the PC actually striving to do something.  Hard to depict the guy hiding under his bed as progressing the story.  ...But Cowardice *can* be done in a CRPG.  It's just generally not.  Romance can be done, but it needs a lot of tinkering and whatnot and the dev has to understand his consumer and decide if the consumer even wants that content.

[Gfted1]

The romance thread spawns a romance....*wipes tear from eye*

[Cantousent]

No, doofus. It spawns a 'bromance.' Get it straight. No pun intended.

[Kjaamor]

If you are making a RPG and you are going to have romances well you are going to at least need to satisfy the big four (heterosexual male, female and homosexual male and female).  IMO.

 

And due to resources, almost inevitably that seems to mean having a romanceable female heterosexual npc, a romanceable male bisexual npc, and a romanceable female bisexual npc.

 

Which to be honest, for a long time has struck me as being even more offensive than having only heterosexual romances.

 

Edit: Minor typo.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Kjaamor

[Valmy]

And due to resources, almost inevitably that seems to mean having a romanceable female heterosexual npc, a romanceable male bisexual npc, and a romanceable female bisexual npc.

 

Which to be honest, for a long time has struck me as being even more offensive than having only heterosexual romances.

 

Edit: Minor typo.

 

 

Not being offensive is a very daunting task these days.

[Fluffsy]

 

And due to resources, almost inevitably that seems to mean having a romanceable female heterosexual npc, a romanceable male bisexual npc, and a romanceable female bisexual npc.

 

Which to be honest, for a long time has struck me as being even more offensive than having only heterosexual romances.

 

Edit: Minor typo.

 

 

Not being offensive is a very daunting task these days.

 

 

Some seem to forget that everyone has feelings. I for one do not understand how bashing writers for writing a character of particular sexuality personality is not offensive in itself.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Fluffsy

[Legbiter]

Right now the romancers are contained on the Bioware forum. The wards are strong. The seals will hold. They have their new shiny romance simulator with crafting and inventory management added, there they happily frolic in their unending waifu wars inbetween denouncing each other for being insufficiently SJW .

 

 

Risking a major containment breach is foolhardy and should not be lightly contemplated.

[Shaz]

While not exactly pro-Romance, I am very pro-Relationship.

 

Relationships can be anything from friendly rivalries, to best of friends, to an actual romantic partner. Simply because of the fact that most game romances let you get to know a given character the best, I do tend to take part in game romances. I take a kind of joy in exploring well written characters, though the whole 'bumping pixels' part is completely irrelevant to me.

 

I just love interacting with companions and developing memorable relationships with them, whatever form of relationship that might be. I'm female, and I play females, and one of my most memorable game relationships was with Morrigan in Dragon Age: Origins. It wasn't (nor could it be) romantic in the slightest, but her admission of my character being her first and only friend has really stuck with me. I'm an emotional creature, and if I have companions, I want those emotions to be acknowledged and used to draw me deeper into interactions with those companions and thus with the story.

 

if and when possible, I want those interactions, and I want to see those interactions between companions. Do I need it? Not hardly. But I do greatly enjoy it.

[Cantousent]

I know how you feel.  The sense that the NPC is actually, I dunno, a *character?*  Maybe more than a cardboard cutout with a speaker attached to meaningless lines?  Even games that kept the backstory to the rear still tried to develop some semblance of a relationship between the PC or PCS and the NPCs.  I remember one of the old Gold Box SSI games where this was this annoying guy who always disappeared right before ambushes and such.  I didn't exactly faint with surprise when he turned out to be a traitor.  Hell, Diablo, where most folks are little more than shopkeepers, tried to give them some personality.  I remember finding Wurt's leg.  Obnoxious little runt.

 

As far as what I need?  Strictly speaking, a lot of the time I just need stats, weapons, and some poor bastard's head to cut off.  ...But a CRPG, to be a real CRPG, needs to have at least the semblance of some interaction and relationship.  I know!  We want another fifty pages where I try to defend my assertion that even Diablo had relationships!  It did, though.  Superficial, to be sure, but relationships nonetheless.

[Lephys]

Well, that's kind of the thing. Sure, there are plenty of people in existence that enjoy playing dating sims and the like. There's nothing wrong with that. But, there's only so much focus you can put on specifically a single relationship before it becomes more important than the rest of the game. On any of them. If the game focused way too much on my being able to just take a party companion to the taverns in our free time, and throw darts and drink all the time, and try to be each-other's wingmen, I would say "Umm... isn't there a big, impending narrative going on here? This doesn't feel right." It doesn't have much to do with the type of relationship that's going on. It's just more that... that doesn't feel like it fits with a game who's design is like that.

 

So, romance is just another type of relationship, and I feel it should be treated as any other relationship should. It's not even a separate relationship, as you can be someone's friend, and venture into romantic territory with that person. There's overlap. Stuff that constitutes strictly "romance" is really not that much, quantity-wise. A relationship that's pure romance is essentially just a quick fling.

 

But, as with anything else in a cRPG, the significance of these feelings and emotions between characters lies in how it motivates their actions/decisions/behavior/character development, and how the narrative is affected. In terms of design, it should be approached just like "what happens if you have really high Lore? How does that affect this situation, or this other one? Or really high Resolve?". Or, "What happens if you make a decision to handle this situation in a way that is very meaningful to THIS companion, as opposed to doing it your own way and upsetting them?". That kind of thing. The whole purpose of choices in an cRPG is to effect significant outcomes. To produce a world and narrative with dynamic, instead of a linear "just play through this big obstacle course from start to finish."

 

So, while I get that people all like a lot of different things, I think when it comes to game design, what would simply be nice can't rule over the cohesion of the design. I mean, look at how many threads we've had on simulated systems. "There should be durability!". I, for one, LOVE stuff like that. But, I have to recognize when and where it's actually supportive of a game's design, and when it isn't. Or the resulting game is just going to be some weird, hodge-podge of things that were neat in isolation, but don't necessarily go together. If you like oil, and you like water, that doesn't mean oil-and-water is a good mixture, unfortunately.

 

So, yeah, when it comes to romance in games specifically like PoE, I think it can be very valuable, but not as a purely "this is just to appease people who like romantic stuff" way. I'm a person who enjoys romance, but I don't enjoy it just for its own sake. So, there's go to be a focused, processed goal for it. And, in that regard, I think it needs to be approached much like all the other choice-presenting player-character options in the game.

 

Then, of course, it also has a place in "side content"; actually goings on that can be affected, etc., between NPCs and the like. Maybe one path of choices has you find out some information about the Big Bad Guy's beloved that actually lets you get through to him in a different way and affect some choices he makes. Maybe you make him question some things. Or, maybe it doesn't go that high, but I don't think he should be immune, either. But, there's plenty of room for that kind of relationship -- past, present, or in-the-works -- to support the narrative weavings of many an NPC throughout the game, even if it's not YOU taking part in that relationsip.

[RussM8330]

To me since this game claims Baldur's gate as one of its spiritual ancestor's and from what I've seen the writer's intense dislike of romance that is what prevent's me from buying this game ever it was on my steam wishlist no longer. Had it not mentioned that would I of bought it? Absolutely...Had the writer's showed even slightly less dislike almost bordering on hatred for romance would I of bought it? Absolutely But combining those two the almost hate for it and the fact they claimed those were spiritual ancestor's to this game show's me that might of just been using that for sales and that to me shows an arrogance that I can not deal with. If you claim baldur's gate as a spiritual ancestor most think Baldur's gate 2 as that was by far the best of the series you play Baldur's gate once the 2nd is where the memories lie it had the better writing,better banter,and yes the romances which both I and many player's loved the story was amazing yes but the interaction's and romance were major component's in how fun it was so without that yet them claiming this as a successor I shall pass on this hopefully many other's do as well and the writer's learn to respect the lineage they attempt to claim for their game and not show such a revulsion in parts of that lineage.

[Cantousent]

There's no reason to believe there will be no banter or substantial interaction. I personally don't place BG2 at the top for NPC interaction. I place PS:T at the top. BG2 had romances, but it is, no matter how you cut it, *one* of the IE games. For many of us, at least going by the community here, PS:T is the primary reason for supporting the game. For many, once again going by posts I've read here, IWD is the draw. I don't doubt that BG2 is the first love of many of the community. I greatly enjoyed BG2 also, but romances don't figure in to that esteem. Frankly, they really weren't all that big of a part of the games. NPC banter was a big part of the game, yes, but NPC banter need not, and has never as far as I've seen, been confined to romance. ...And IWD 1 and 2 didn't even have intraparty banter.