The Official Romance Thread

[LeBurns]

This is what it boils down to:

 

Chris Avellone can write.

 

Chris Avellone gets paid to do what he does.

 

Chris Avellone does not want to write romance.

 

SNIP

I'm glad Chris can do exactly what Chris wants, or maybe he just knows him limitations and chooses not to push them. Most of us have to actually do what we are paid to do. Either way with the money they made in KS I think they could have hired someone to do romances. Having more than one writer for a game is not at all uncommon, particularly when there are several different NPC's to be writing for. I just don't accept the "What Chris Wants" as an excuse for romance not being in the game.

[lordgarius73]

Then it really would feel shoe horned in if they did that.  I say do it right, make it fully integrated into the story or don't do it at all.  You bring in someone who's only job is to write, "oh I love you" and "oh I love you too" and "not as much as I love you" lines than its going feel stupid.

[Longknife]

Maybe Obsidian just knew there was no way they were going to top the riveting romance options provided by Bethesda in Skyrim and didn't want to embarass themselves trying.

[Voss]

 

This is what it boils down to:

 

Chris Avellone can write.

 

Chris Avellone gets paid to do what he does.

 

Chris Avellone does not want to write romance.

 

SNIP

I'm glad Chris can do exactly what Chris wants, or maybe he just knows him limitations and chooses not to push them. Most of us have to actually do what we are paid to do. Either way with the money they made in KS I think they could have hired someone to do romances. Having more than one writer for a game is not at all uncommon, particularly when there are several different NPC's to be writing for. I just don't accept the "What Chris Wants" as an excuse for romance not being in the game.

 

I don't think it really is why. 

 

I think the obsidian team as a whole didn't think they could do it well and that it wouldn't be worthwhile to do it.   And going by everything they have done, and every cRPG that has had 'romance,' I think that it is a perfectly reasonable position to take.

[Raeya]

I will say that it's a nice change to not have romance be an overshadowing emphasis in PoE. I am looking forward to the rich story, compelling companions and amount of choices that we will get in PoE, that is why I backed it. I want RPGs to focus primarily on great storytelilng and adventures, and not on how many romance options can be catered to everyone. Too many romance options is not a good thing in my opinion. I am using Dragon Age Inquisition as an example of that. 

 

I understand that many people want romance and I see the value of having it in an RPG, but if a game developer is going to do it then do it right. Provide a meaningful, mature experience for the relationship development between the PC and NPC instead of something that is awkward and lacking.

[Gromnir]

 

This is what it boils down to:

 

Chris Avellone can write.

 

Chris Avellone gets paid to do what he does.

 

Chris Avellone does not want to write romance.

 

SNIP

I'm glad Chris can do exactly what Chris wants, or maybe he just knows him limitations and chooses not to push them. Most of us have to actually do what we are paid to do. Either way with the money they made in KS I think they could have hired someone to do romances. Having more than one writer for a game is not at all uncommon, particularly when there are several different NPC's to be writing for. I just don't accept the "What Chris Wants" as an excuse for romance not being in the game.

 

 

first, Gromnir is Not a fan o' biowarian tangential and optional side-quest romances.  that being said we will note that many a competent writer avoids romance.  the fact that chrisA doesn't wanna do romance is hardly a criticism o' game romance.  chrisA may not have the inclination or the skill set to do romance well.  not all accomplished writers can do justice to romance and we suspect that the biowarian tangential and optional side quest format makes the task o' writing a romance that avoids being cringe-worthy is all the more difficult. 

 

chrisA may be a competent writer.  chrisA could suck at romance even so.  without noting specifics as to why chrisA don't wanna do romance, we do not see chrisA reluctance as equalling a condemnation o' the... feature. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Longknife]

 

 

This is what it boils down to:

 

Chris Avellone can write.

 

Chris Avellone gets paid to do what he does.

 

Chris Avellone does not want to write romance.

 

SNIP

I'm glad Chris can do exactly what Chris wants, or maybe he just knows him limitations and chooses not to push them. Most of us have to actually do what we are paid to do. Either way with the money they made in KS I think they could have hired someone to do romances. Having more than one writer for a game is not at all uncommon, particularly when there are several different NPC's to be writing for. I just don't accept the "What Chris Wants" as an excuse for romance not being in the game.

 

 

first, Gromnir is Not a fan o' biowarian tangential and optional side-quest romances.  that being said we will note that many a competent writer avoids romance.  the fact that chrisA doesn't wanna do romance is hardly a criticism o' game romance.  chrisA may not have the inclination or the skill set to do romance well.  not all accomplished writers can do justice to romance and we suspect that the biowarian tangential and optional side quest format makes the task o' writing a romance that avoids being cringe-worthy is all the more difficult. 

 

chrisA may be a competent writer.  chrisA could suck at romance even so.  without noting specifics as to why chrisA don't wanna do romance, we do not see chrisA reluctance as equalling a condemnation o' the... feature. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

Not only that but again: can we talk about how video game romance is a different dimension from hollywood movie romance?

 

In a TV show or movie, you design two characters and write up their backstories and their motivations for loving one another.

 

In a video game, you are selling your media to a large number of people with various personalities and backrounds, and you only get so many attempts to provide them with a romantic interest that doesn't feel awkward.

 

Statistically speaking, you are guarenteed to absolutely fail for a large chunk of your audience. That's just how it is. Come to think of it, I seem to recall some woman who wrote a long article about how Mass Effect totally screwed over women with ugly and uninteresting romance options, saying the men got way better choices and that the only interesting and potential partner who was actually attractive for women was actually gay. I think she got a lot of criticism cause she sounded shallow as all hell, but point being? That kind of stuff WILL happen. You cannot make a love interest that universally pleases everyone. Thank God. We'd be a boring species if that were plausible. Then from a game developer's perspective, you have to question if it's worth even wasting that time and effort on something where you cannot possibly please everyone.

 

 

Even logically speaking, it seems very wise to avoid romance and spend your time and effort elsewhere.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Longknife

[Jasta11]

I don't see why not.

 

It's a way for two characters to develop a relationship. They can be friends, rivals, simply coworkers, family, etc. Or sometimes they can fall for each other. Or just be in for the sex too, that happens. It can be interesting to explore. Romances aren't a crucial reason why I play RPGs (indeed half my saves in Bioware games don't romance anyone or do it as an afterthought), but if the writing team can pull off, go for it. 

 

As for the argument that good writers don't do romance, qué? Plenty of great writers through history have explored that, in a wide variety of genres. Or are we going to pretend that writers as diverse as Shakespeare, Alexandre Dumas and George R.R. Martin aren't good writers because some of their works have romantic content?, Sure, to be enjoyable, romances need to be well written, but isn't that the case for everything? Why single our romances as That Thing that takes up ressources and could be badly written? Every single word present in the game takes up ressources and could be badly written. I don't see why romances are singled out for that.

 

Now, if ChrisA/Obsidian don't want to do romance, that's entirely within their prerogative. They certainly aren't required to do so, and their reasons are their own, whenever it's a question of ressources, practicality, not feeling they can pull it off, or just plain not being interested. But we cannot really speak for them and say ''ChrisA doesn't want romances, end of discussion, deal with it creeps''.

[Sable Phoenix]

Apologies for snippage:

 

And yes, sorry, but there is going to be a degree of high horsing here and there. And yes, I am going to high horse on this subject matter. Not in some elitist belief I'm a better, more educated person and all my opinions are solid gold material mind you, but because I've given all the romance media a shot, and it's all the ****ing same.  If you have seen one, you've seen them all. I skimmed, but above there's a comment by a guy saying he's gonna have to give romance with X character from X game a shot, though it sounds as though it's still the story and character that are more compelling, not the romance aspects. This is the exact train of thought that rings true with me. Romance is just a cliche that's used over and over and over to hook people in, but when it comes to actually being original or thought-provoking in any way? It's not. How can it be? What's thought provoking about two people loving each other? Nothing unless something about one of the characters is thought-provoking, in which case the romance is something entirely different and not neccesary to the quality of that character.

 

   And to re-iterate: Again these guys made New Vegas. Excellent game, excellent story, and my money hands down for best written game of this millenia thusfar. It did not have romance. It didn't need it. The "survival of the fittest"-meets-philosophy story it had going for it was something very original and by no means overdone in media, and I loved every second of it. Had that been traded for "FIND CASS BOOZE SO SHE CAN BECOME YOUR WAIFU" then I think the game would've drastically suffered for it.  I would argue that even IF you have absolutely no interest in New Vegas' plot, an original idea holds far more worth and weight than a "good" idea (by your standards or rather the standards of an example person) just regurgitated back at us again. If Obsidian were to come on these forums right now and say'll make a new Fallout and they can either play it safe and revamp New Vegas' story elements and kinda repeat them in new ways or try a new style with new elements of war entirely, I would opt for the latter.

 

 And that's why yes, people are going to get a little high-horse about romance: it's not some belief that omg my opinion is gold so worship it, it's a desire to see new ideas and a disgust when people are begging and insisting to see the same old elements again and again and again, to the point where it drowns out any new potential stories or ideas.

 

 

Okay, if the thrust of your argument against romances is that they're all the same and there's no original concept left to explore, you shouldn't be consuming any media at all, because all stories have already been told countless times over.  There is no such thing as a new or original story.  What there are, are new and original settings and characters.  The stories have all been told already, but the people they happen to and the how and why of them happening is what makes them interesting.  And this applies to romance as much as it does any other aspect of any other story.

 

And frankly, your self-admitted "high-horsing" is coming across as condescending and, for some people I'm sure, almost offensive, with your implication that anyone who enjoys a romance in a game (which is not terribly different than a romance in any other media) is some kind of emotionally stunted social reject who can only experience intimacy through a virtual "waifu".  Just because you can't think of a good, interesting way to do romance doesn't mean it's not there.  Just because you don't enjoy romance (I'm assuming only in media, although from your vehemence I wouldn't be surprised if it's the very concept itself) doesn't mean that people who do are somehow lesser.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Sable Phoenix

[Fredward]

This is what it boils down to:

 

Chris Avellone can write.

 

Chris Avellone gets paid to do what he does.

 

Chris Avellone does not want to write romance.

 

 

 

  I'm sorry, but while it is an issue of preferences

 

 

Yeah, thanks that's basically what I wanted to see whether we were on the same page on. The rest of your post seems to be in the vein of:

 

Person X: You know that one law? I find it morally objectionable.

Person Y: No.

Person X: But-

Person Y: No.

Person X: But I-

Person Y: NO! YOU DON'T GET TO QUESTION IT IT'S THE LAW! AND I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH IT THIS TIME SO NO! NO! IT'S RIGHT! IT'S RATIFIED BY PEOPLE OF AUTHORITY AND EVERYTHING!

 

As for romance always showing up the same I'm sorry that's been your experience, romance can span the entire spectrum of human emotion so it's a shame the one kind is so ubiquitous. I could point you in the direction of some non-standard romance but I'm not sure you'd be willing to entertain it. I agree that often, especially in games, they take a relatively predictable path but that's what people like. Maybe the great writers that whipped up New Vegas could be the people to introduce something fresh?

 

As for knowingly getting on your high horse over preference... that's not something I understand or particularly want to but it's not like I can stop you from doing it yeah?

 

And lastly: be careful of conflating someone's stance in a discussion with what you THINK their view is. I like playing devil's advocate cuz it helps me understand others' PoV. As I stated earlier in this thread I don't care whether we have fully fledged romances all that much, I just don't want the idea entirely ignored. What I really wanted was to point out that 1) romance is not inherently bad, often badly done? Sure. Inherently lesser? Nah. And 2) to understand why people would get on their high horse over a preference/if they understood that it was preference at the end of the day. Number 2 is kind of a really broad, human nature kind of question though. Still. Insight is insight.

[Longknife]

Apologies for snippage:

 

And yes, sorry, but there is going to be a degree of high horsing here and there. And yes, I am going to high horse on this subject matter. Not in some elitist belief I'm a better, more educated person and all my opinions are solid gold material mind you, but because I've given all the romance media a shot, and it's all the ****ing same.  If you have seen one, you've seen them all. I skimmed, but above there's a comment by a guy saying he's gonna have to give romance with X character from X game a shot, though it sounds as though it's still the story and character that are more compelling, not the romance aspects. This is the exact train of thought that rings true with me. Romance is just a cliche that's used over and over and over to hook people in, but when it comes to actually being original or thought-provoking in any way? It's not. How can it be? What's thought provoking about two people loving each other? Nothing unless something about one of the characters is thought-provoking, in which case the romance is something entirely different and not neccesary to the quality of that character.

 

   And to re-iterate: Again these guys made New Vegas. Excellent game, excellent story, and my money hands down for best written game of this millenia thusfar. It did not have romance. It didn't need it. The "survival of the fittest"-meets-philosophy story it had going for it was something very original and by no means overdone in media, and I loved every second of it. Had that been traded for "FIND CASS BOOZE SO SHE CAN BECOME YOUR WAIFU" then I think the game would've drastically suffered for it.  I would argue that even IF you have absolutely no interest in New Vegas' plot, an original idea holds far more worth and weight than a "good" idea (by your standards or rather the standards of an example person) just regurgitated back at us again. If Obsidian were to come on these forums right now and say'll make a new Fallout and they can either play it safe and revamp New Vegas' story elements and kinda repeat them in new ways or try a new style with new elements of war entirely, I would opt for the latter.

 

 And that's why yes, people are going to get a little high-horse about romance: it's not some belief that omg my opinion is gold so worship it, it's a desire to see new ideas and a disgust when people are begging and insisting to see the same old elements again and again and again, to the point where it drowns out any new potential stories or ideas.

 

 

Okay, if the thrust of your argument against romances is that they're all the same and there's no original concept left to explore, you shouldn't be consuming any media at all, because all stories have already been told countless times over.  There is no such thing as a new or original story.  What there are, are new and original settings and characters.  The stories have all been told already, but the people they happen to and the how and why of them happening is what makes them interesting.  And this applies to romance as much as it does any other aspect of any other story.

 

And frankly, your self-admitted "high-horsing" is coming across as condescending and, for some people I'm sure, almost offensive, with your implication that anyone who enjoys a romance in a game (which is not terribly different than a romance in any other media) is some kind of emotionally stunted social reject who can only experience intimacy through a virtual "waifu".  Just because you can't think of a good, interesting way to do romance doesn't mean it's not there.

 

 

I'm extremely tired cause my dumbass neighbor conveniently seems to use power tools whenever I'm sleeping and my lack of sleep this morning is suddenly hitting me (and lo and behold he has them back out now and it's 10pm wtf?), so I'm gonna simplify my response down quite a bit, but I might post some more later.

 

 

1) Arguing a hyperbole has never been a productive or objective argument. Saying "WE SHOULD NEVER CONSUME ANY MEDIA EVER THEN CAUSE IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE" is just ridiculous. It's akin to if I say "Hitler has done some terrible things so we probably shouldn't put too much value into claims he made" and the response is "EVERYONE HAS DONE TERRIBLE THINGS AT SOME POINT IN THEIR LIVES SO WE SHOULD NEVER PUT VALUE IN ANYTHING ANYONE SAYS EVER." There IS a degree of truth to it, but it also blatantly fails to see the rather obvious point being made. Yes you are correct, but my intention with my statement cannot be more obvious, and instead you've chosen to look over it and make a meaningless blanket statement that does nothing to further the conversation by either addressing or challenging the claim I've made.

 

 

2) Let me spin it around to really sum this point up: How would you propose doing romance in PoE that would be universally well-received?

 

Just like you're annoyed with what you perceive as elitism or something, I get annoyed with the constant "THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE DONE." I could go to the President right now and say we should go land on one of Jupiter's moons and he might say it's not really conceivable, to which I could correctly respond "JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T IMAGINE IT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE DONE."

 

That's great and all, but if YOU want it done, YOU are expected to help explain how it's plausible and a good idea. You're essentially expecting Obsidian - a team that has expressed disinterest in doing romantic subplots - to wave their magic wands and somehow do romance correctly.

 

 

This is also part of the reason I'm not afraid to come across as so bold and offensive on this topic: because I firmly believe that if an idea is this simple to criticize (see my posts above about how it's not truly feasible to please everyone with romance) and so difficult to defend (all of your defenses have been inobjective broad statements that could be applied to literally anything), then yes, it is a ****ty idea. Maybe this is my law studies talking, but where I come from, debate is a matter of "put up or shutup." I don't agree with this "that's just like ur opinion man" view of things. Of course these are opinions, but if you've got a popular opinion, then I believe you should be able to defend it. I could state that a story about a companion who has a sexual relationship with his horse could make for a deep, compelling subplot that I'd like to see in PoE and rightfully state that it's "JUST UR OPINION MAN" if you say that sounds like a terrible idea, but this doesn't mean jack-all if I cannot convince the majority of it's audience and/or the developers that this is truly a good idea. Thusfar, I've yet to see a good defense as to how and why romance should, could and would be included. The answers are all "just do it" or "hire someone that can."

 

 

 

  So yeah, let's switch it around: how would YOU make it happen? What video game do you know of that provides a romantic interest that's universally praised by everyone and does not hit-and-miss with a lot of people showing complete disinterest in the feature? Remember I'm not saying it's not doable to make one some people will like, I'm saying it's not doable to make one that appeases to enough people that it warrants the time and effort spent designing it. Name examples of extremely popular romantic interests that did not have mixed reviews, and explain to me what kind of romantic interests you had in mind that you think everyone would be happy to see.

 

And again that's essentially my problem with the whole pro-romance crowd. A lot of meaningless "IT COULD WORK" statements with absolute ****-all to actually reinforce those claims or shoot down any counter-claims I'm presenting.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Longknife

[Jasta11]

 

Apologies for snippage:

 

And yes, sorry, but there is going to be a degree of high horsing here and there. And yes, I am going to high horse on this subject matter. Not in some elitist belief I'm a better, more educated person and all my opinions are solid gold material mind you, but because I've given all the romance media a shot, and it's all the ****ing same.  If you have seen one, you've seen them all. I skimmed, but above there's a comment by a guy saying he's gonna have to give romance with X character from X game a shot, though it sounds as though it's still the story and character that are more compelling, not the romance aspects. This is the exact train of thought that rings true with me. Romance is just a cliche that's used over and over and over to hook people in, but when it comes to actually being original or thought-provoking in any way? It's not. How can it be? What's thought provoking about two people loving each other? Nothing unless something about one of the characters is thought-provoking, in which case the romance is something entirely different and not neccesary to the quality of that character.

 

   And to re-iterate: Again these guys made New Vegas. Excellent game, excellent story, and my money hands down for best written game of this millenia thusfar. It did not have romance. It didn't need it. The "survival of the fittest"-meets-philosophy story it had going for it was something very original and by no means overdone in media, and I loved every second of it. Had that been traded for "FIND CASS BOOZE SO SHE CAN BECOME YOUR WAIFU" then I think the game would've drastically suffered for it.  I would argue that even IF you have absolutely no interest in New Vegas' plot, an original idea holds far more worth and weight than a "good" idea (by your standards or rather the standards of an example person) just regurgitated back at us again. If Obsidian were to come on these forums right now and say'll make a new Fallout and they can either play it safe and revamp New Vegas' story elements and kinda repeat them in new ways or try a new style with new elements of war entirely, I would opt for the latter.

 

 And that's why yes, people are going to get a little high-horse about romance: it's not some belief that omg my opinion is gold so worship it, it's a desire to see new ideas and a disgust when people are begging and insisting to see the same old elements again and again and again, to the point where it drowns out any new potential stories or ideas.

 

 

Okay, if the thrust of your argument against romances is that they're all the same and there's no original concept left to explore, you shouldn't be consuming any media at all, because all stories have already been told countless times over.  There is no such thing as a new or original story.  What there are, are new and original settings and characters.  The stories have all been told already, but the people they happen to and the how and why of them happening is what makes them interesting.  And this applies to romance as much as it does any other aspect of any other story.

 

And frankly, your self-admitted "high-horsing" is coming across as condescending and, for some people I'm sure, almost offensive, with your implication that anyone who enjoys a romance in a game (which is not terribly different than a romance in any other media) is some kind of emotionally stunted social reject who can only experience intimacy through a virtual "waifu".  Just because you can't think of a good, interesting way to do romance doesn't mean it's not there.

 

 

I'm extremely tired cause my dumbass neighbor conveniently seems to use power tools whenever I'm sleeping and my lack of sleep this morning is suddenly hitting me (and lo and behold he has them back out now and it's 10pm wtf?), so I'm gonna simplify my response down quite a bit, but I might post some more later.

 

 

1) Arguing a hyperbole has never been a productive or objective argument. Saying "WE SHOULD NEVER CONSUME ANY MEDIA EVER THEN CAUSE IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE" is just ridiculous. It's akin to if I say "Hitler has done some terrible things so we probably shouldn't put too much value into claims he made" and the response is "EVERYONE HAS DONE TERRIBLE THINGS AT SOME POINT IN THEIR LIVES SO WE SHOULD NEVER PUT VALUE IN ANYTHING ANYONE SAYS EVER." There IS a degree of truth to it, but it also blatantly fails to see the rather obvious point being made. Yes you are correct, but my intention with my statement cannot be more obvious, and instead you've chosen to look over it and make a meaningless blanket statement that does nothing to further the conversation by either addressing or challenging the claim I've made.

 

 

2) Let me spin it around to really sum this point up: How would you propose doing romance in PoE that would be universally well-received?

 

Just like you're annoyed with what you perceive as elitism or something, I get annoyed with the constant "THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE DONE." I could go to the President right now and say we should go land on one of Jupiter's moons and he might say it's not really conceivable, to which I could correctly respond "JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T IMAGINE IT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE DONE."

 

That's great and all, but if YOU want it done, YOU are expected to help explain how it's plausible and a good idea. You're essentially expecting Obsidian - a team that has expressed disinterest in doing romantic subplots - to wave their magic wands and somehow do romance correctly.

 

 

This is also part of the reason I'm not afraid to come across as so bold and offensive on this topic: because I firmly believe that if an idea is this simple to criticize (see my posts above about how it's not truly feasible to please everyone with romance) and so difficult to defend (all of your defenses have been inobjective broad statements that could be applied to literally anything), then yes, it is a ****ty idea. Maybe this is my law studies talking, but where I come from, debate is a matter of "put up or shutup." I don't agree with this "that's just like ur opinion man" view of things. Of course these are opinions, but if you've got a popular opinion, then I believe you should be able to defend it. Thusfar, I've yet to see a good defense as to how and why romance should, could and would be included. The answers are all "just do it" or "hire someone that can."

 

 

 

  So yeah, let's switch it around: how would YOU make it happen? What video game do you know of that provides a romantic interest that's universally praised by everyone and does not hit-and-miss with a lot of people showing complete disinterest in the feature? Remember I'm not saying it's not doable to make one some people will like, I'm saying it's not doable to make one that appeases to enough people that it warrants the time and effort spent designing it. Name examples of extremely popular romantic interests that did not have mixed reviews, and explain to me what kind of romantic interests you had in mind that you think everyone would be happy to see.

 

And again that's essentially my problem with the whole pro-romance crowd. A lot of meaningless "IT COULD WORK" statements with absolute ****-all to actually reinforce those claims or shoot down any counter-claims I'm presenting.

 

 

Why should a romance have to be universally praised to justify its existence?

 

If we've established one thing in recent years, it's that people who play video games are a wildly diverse crowd with loads and loads of divergent interests. Making anything that is universally praised is impossible.

 

Your argument could be used to suit basically any aspect of game design. Hobbit-like creatures aren't liked enough, cut the Orlans. Nature-loving types aren't liked enough, cut Druids. Spears aren't popular enough, cut spears. Magical catastrophes aren't liked enough, cut that stuff out. Why should romances need to be superbly written to justify their existence over anything else? Beyond you not liking them?

 

To see such an opinion on the forum of a Kickstarter backed title is utterly baffling to me. ''Infinity Engine RPGs aren't universally praised enough and not worth the ressources, don't make them''. This seems suspiciously similar to the logic you advocate, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[sparklecat]

Personally, I've never seen a criticism of the way romance was handled in Planescape: Torment.

[Voss]

I don't see why not.

 

It's a way for two characters to develop a relationship.

Sure.  But they actually have to develop a relationship.  And this is where the whole thing usually falls apart.

Take DA:I.  It takes a great deal of pain developing the idea that your relationship with these various crazy people is as the second coming of their personal savior, their boss, leader and the key to saving the world.  But on the side you can repeatedly sexually harass them until they give in and have sex.  And this is the pinnacle of CRPG romance.

 

Or take BG2.  You can either get a whining crying teenage ex-slave pregnant, or randomly marry a horrible woman seeking to replace her recently mutilated dead husband after a matter of days. Or be 'edgy' with the S&M dark elf stereotype.

 

Yeah. Pass.

[Lephys]

Because romance is like the trope of tropes. You can find tons of TV shows and media where the entire thing that holds everything together is sexual tension between two people who like each other but are trying to figure out how to express their love.

So, what you're saying is, "crappy romance is crappy"? I mean, I can point out some action movies and shows in which the only thing holding everything together is explosions. Does that mean action is bad? Or does it mean it needs to be used properly in order to create a quality result?

[sparklecat]

 

I don't see why not.

 

It's a way for two characters to develop a relationship.

Sure.  But they actually have to develop a relationship.  And this is where the whole thing usually falls apart.

Take DA:I.  It takes a great deal of pain developing the idea that your relationship with these various crazy people is as the second coming of their personal savior, their boss, leader and the key to saving the world.  But on the side you can repeatedly sexually harass them until they give in and have sex.  And this is the pinnacle of CRPG romance.

 

Or take BG2.  You can either get a whining crying teenage ex-slave pregnant, or randomly marry a horrible woman seeking to replace her recently mutilated dead husband after a matter of days. Or be 'edgy' with the S&M dark elf stereotype.

 

Yeah. Pass.

 

From what I remember of it, I thought the DA:O Alistair romance was handled fairly well, awkward sex scenes aside.  Especially the part where he broke up with my character halfway through for political reasons.

Edited March 25, 2015 by sparklecat

[knightguy]

I must say, the game I liked most was Neverwinter Nights 2, and all the expansions.  I think that game got romance right and it didn't need all that FMV stuff.  That's all the romance I think that pillars really needs.  We don't need a Crap Effects sex simulator, didn't like that series after the first game so pardon the bash, but something more akin to NvN 2.  And it has to make sense, not something forced.  That said, Dragon Age 1 made sense story wise, so it kind of worked well for that game.

Edited March 25, 2015 by knightguy

[Longknife]

 

 

Apologies for snippage:

 

And yes, sorry, but there is going to be a degree of high horsing here and there. And yes, I am going to high horse on this subject matter. Not in some elitist belief I'm a better, more educated person and all my opinions are solid gold material mind you, but because I've given all the romance media a shot, and it's all the ****ing same.  If you have seen one, you've seen them all. I skimmed, but above there's a comment by a guy saying he's gonna have to give romance with X character from X game a shot, though it sounds as though it's still the story and character that are more compelling, not the romance aspects. This is the exact train of thought that rings true with me. Romance is just a cliche that's used over and over and over to hook people in, but when it comes to actually being original or thought-provoking in any way? It's not. How can it be? What's thought provoking about two people loving each other? Nothing unless something about one of the characters is thought-provoking, in which case the romance is something entirely different and not neccesary to the quality of that character.

 

   And to re-iterate: Again these guys made New Vegas. Excellent game, excellent story, and my money hands down for best written game of this millenia thusfar. It did not have romance. It didn't need it. The "survival of the fittest"-meets-philosophy story it had going for it was something very original and by no means overdone in media, and I loved every second of it. Had that been traded for "FIND CASS BOOZE SO SHE CAN BECOME YOUR WAIFU" then I think the game would've drastically suffered for it.  I would argue that even IF you have absolutely no interest in New Vegas' plot, an original idea holds far more worth and weight than a "good" idea (by your standards or rather the standards of an example person) just regurgitated back at us again. If Obsidian were to come on these forums right now and say'll make a new Fallout and they can either play it safe and revamp New Vegas' story elements and kinda repeat them in new ways or try a new style with new elements of war entirely, I would opt for the latter.

 

 And that's why yes, people are going to get a little high-horse about romance: it's not some belief that omg my opinion is gold so worship it, it's a desire to see new ideas and a disgust when people are begging and insisting to see the same old elements again and again and again, to the point where it drowns out any new potential stories or ideas.

 

 

Okay, if the thrust of your argument against romances is that they're all the same and there's no original concept left to explore, you shouldn't be consuming any media at all, because all stories have already been told countless times over.  There is no such thing as a new or original story.  What there are, are new and original settings and characters.  The stories have all been told already, but the people they happen to and the how and why of them happening is what makes them interesting.  And this applies to romance as much as it does any other aspect of any other story.

 

And frankly, your self-admitted "high-horsing" is coming across as condescending and, for some people I'm sure, almost offensive, with your implication that anyone who enjoys a romance in a game (which is not terribly different than a romance in any other media) is some kind of emotionally stunted social reject who can only experience intimacy through a virtual "waifu".  Just because you can't think of a good, interesting way to do romance doesn't mean it's not there.

 

 

I'm extremely tired cause my dumbass neighbor conveniently seems to use power tools whenever I'm sleeping and my lack of sleep this morning is suddenly hitting me (and lo and behold he has them back out now and it's 10pm wtf?), so I'm gonna simplify my response down quite a bit, but I might post some more later.

 

 

1) Arguing a hyperbole has never been a productive or objective argument. Saying "WE SHOULD NEVER CONSUME ANY MEDIA EVER THEN CAUSE IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE" is just ridiculous. It's akin to if I say "Hitler has done some terrible things so we probably shouldn't put too much value into claims he made" and the response is "EVERYONE HAS DONE TERRIBLE THINGS AT SOME POINT IN THEIR LIVES SO WE SHOULD NEVER PUT VALUE IN ANYTHING ANYONE SAYS EVER." There IS a degree of truth to it, but it also blatantly fails to see the rather obvious point being made. Yes you are correct, but my intention with my statement cannot be more obvious, and instead you've chosen to look over it and make a meaningless blanket statement that does nothing to further the conversation by either addressing or challenging the claim I've made.

 

 

2) Let me spin it around to really sum this point up: How would you propose doing romance in PoE that would be universally well-received?

 

Just like you're annoyed with what you perceive as elitism or something, I get annoyed with the constant "THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE DONE." I could go to the President right now and say we should go land on one of Jupiter's moons and he might say it's not really conceivable, to which I could correctly respond "JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T IMAGINE IT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE DONE."

 

That's great and all, but if YOU want it done, YOU are expected to help explain how it's plausible and a good idea. You're essentially expecting Obsidian - a team that has expressed disinterest in doing romantic subplots - to wave their magic wands and somehow do romance correctly.

 

 

This is also part of the reason I'm not afraid to come across as so bold and offensive on this topic: because I firmly believe that if an idea is this simple to criticize (see my posts above about how it's not truly feasible to please everyone with romance) and so difficult to defend (all of your defenses have been inobjective broad statements that could be applied to literally anything), then yes, it is a ****ty idea. Maybe this is my law studies talking, but where I come from, debate is a matter of "put up or shutup." I don't agree with this "that's just like ur opinion man" view of things. Of course these are opinions, but if you've got a popular opinion, then I believe you should be able to defend it. Thusfar, I've yet to see a good defense as to how and why romance should, could and would be included. The answers are all "just do it" or "hire someone that can."

 

 

 

  So yeah, let's switch it around: how would YOU make it happen? What video game do you know of that provides a romantic interest that's universally praised by everyone and does not hit-and-miss with a lot of people showing complete disinterest in the feature? Remember I'm not saying it's not doable to make one some people will like, I'm saying it's not doable to make one that appeases to enough people that it warrants the time and effort spent designing it. Name examples of extremely popular romantic interests that did not have mixed reviews, and explain to me what kind of romantic interests you had in mind that you think everyone would be happy to see.

 

And again that's essentially my problem with the whole pro-romance crowd. A lot of meaningless "IT COULD WORK" statements with absolute ****-all to actually reinforce those claims or shoot down any counter-claims I'm presenting.

 

 

Why should a romance have to be universally praised to justify its existence?

 

If we've established one thing in recent years, it's that people who play video games are a wildly diverse crowd with loads and loads of divergent interests. Making anything that is universally praised is impossible.

 

Your argument could be used to suit basically any aspect of game design. Hobbit-like creatures aren't liked enough, cut the Orlans. Nature-loving types aren't liked enough, cut Druids. Spears aren't popular enough, cut spears. Magical catastrophes aren't liked enough, cut that stuff out. Why should romances need to be superbly written to justify their existence over anything else? Beyond you not liking them?

 

To see such an opinion on the forum of a Kickstarter backed title is utterly baffling to me. ''Infinity Engine RPGs aren't universally praised enough and not worth the ressources, don't make them''. This seems suspiciously similar to the logic you advocate, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

Again you're arguing hyperboles....

 

 

The point is that if you want romance, you have to convince the devs it's a valuable asset to waste time on, AKA that enough people will appreciate it to warrant it's existence and cover sales. It's controversial in the sense that some people find it incredibly cheesy and are put off by it, unfortunately for you. People are not put off by the idea of new races or creativity with races, that's the difference. If someone doesn't like the Orlan race or the like, they can avoid playing as them and actively play a racist character for all they care, and ultimately the race still serves the basic fundamental structure of the game as an RPG. If someone doesn't like a town, they can choose not to visit it and only visit it when it's absolutely neccesary and then get out, but again the town is serving the basic structure of the game by providing a hub for quests, characters etc. Likewise you would not expect these make or break a game. Example, the Altmer are unpopular in the Elder Scrolls series, this does not hinder sales.

 

  The issue is that romance basically falls onto the responsibility of writers. And as stated before, video games are like pie graphs: you can choose to dedicate a certain % of your time and effort on X feature, but there is a deadline, so any time spent on one feature would cut into the slice another feature holds.

 

  Imagine New Vegas if Boone and Cass were romantic interests. Imagine seeing a rehaul where Boone's story was less about him coming to terms with his colored past and more about him learning to find love again after having lost his wife, with you as a female character potentially being that woman, or as a male, you set him up with another girl. Imagine of Cass was less about confronting issues facing you in one of two ways and more about trying to get in bed with her.

  The problem? Well I'm sure the people who have no romantic interest in Boone would be kind of upset his story basically changed into something they don't care about. Setting him up with a girl sounds very boring and dating him just sounds corny, not to mention the reality that female gamers are in the minority for this and again, may show absolutely no interest in a character and personality type like Boone. The result is the companion system is sub-par compared to before. Again with Cass, it just feels weird if you've no interest in her and your reward for helping her with her quest is that she wants to sleep with you. Or maybe you have no interest in her as a character and personality.

 

  The companions as they stand are inoffensive. You may show less interest in Boone's story than Veronica's, or Veronica's than Raul's, but there's not really a character that stands out as offensive in regards to them and their quest feeling annoying. You still feel motivated to partake in all of them and complete their quests a certain way.

  But if some of them have the main functional purpose of being love interests and you're not interested? That's annoying. You feel this awkward sort of obligation to bring them along even though they bore you to tears, or you avoid them entirely and that feature is a wasted effort.

 

 You might be saying that characters already get avoided for roleplay. Yes, but this strengthens the game. It feels more immersive when a character crosses you or you refuse to bring a character along due to their allegiance. A character that falls in love with every male/female character unanimously feels dumb.

 

You might be saying it doesn't have to feel dumb. True, but again, you are now diverting resources away from "vanilla" storylines towards more controversial ones. Controversial in the sense that it's clear not everyone approves of romance in games and hell, the devs themselves do not seem interested.

 

You might say you can have romance alongside basic vanilla companion storylines. You can, anything is possible....but again, that time cuts into something else. Some feature is going to suffer for time spent on romance AND the vanilla companion experience; you'd lose quests or weapons or perks. The time has to come from somewhere. Can you convince Obsidian that time spent on romantic interactions is more valuable than being spent on quests, weapons or perks?

 

 

It is ultimately a question of resource and time management, so your goal is to convince them this is a worthy cause.

 

The people saying "I want this race" have it easy as more races = more diversity = more lore and RPG elements, which serves much of the core substance of the game.

The people saying "I want X town" have it easy as more towns = more stuff = more characters, items, lore....you name it, which again helps the core substance of the game.

 

The people saying "I want romance," you have a minority opinion. It seems to be a decently sized one, mind you, but your desire to see romance also does not tie into the core experience of the game....at all. It's kinda tacked on, and even if you choose to include lore or RPG elements with it, this too poses a problem as people feel OBLIGATED to take part in the romance to experience the full game, which some may groan as they go through it.

 

 

So what happens? When you guys go asking for romance and another group equal in size to you guys asks for more races or classes, guess which one is more universally anticipated and less controversial? Bingo, not you.

 

To answer your question, it needs to be universally acclaimed or the developers are not going to bother. It's that simple. They want to make a game everyone will enjoy, and when only ~30% of the community seems interested in a waifu while another 20% absolutely loathe the concept...well, suddenly more sure-fire features, such as platonic companion quests covering other topics, seems like the better investment of time. It's that simple.

 

 

 

  I'd also like to point out....why the insistence romance must be included? Much of the romantics are arguing "it can be good if done right." ....So what's to say what Obsidian wants to write and is already writing won't be good if done right? You guys haven't even given it a shot. You're sitting here insisting (or rather implying) that a plot cliche that you know and love must have presence in everything you'll play or the experience won't be as good. How can you even know? You can't. For all we know the game might release and you'll love every minute of the story, and even if you catch yourself thinking "it'd be better with all this PLUS romance," that's again not thinking realistically because Obsidian cannot wave a magic wand and include EVERYTHING that's ever wanted. The inoffensive ideas that aren't controversial and that the devs WANT to do get included, the offensive ones that draw a divide between the audience get skipped. It's basic marketing here.

 

 

 

  And again as I've said before, I've yet to hear an argument as to why and how romance should be done. It's just empty claims of "I want romance" with very little details given as to what and how. I see two posts since I last requested this naming games they liked but not even naming or describing why those games got it right, but that's it. I'm sorry but if you realistically want it, you gotta do better than that. I'm simply being realistic here; this is a case where they're gonna want to hear more than "I want it."

 

 

I keep saying Obsidian doesn't seem to want to make this and people should accept that. I don't see why that's such a controversial thought because I'm speaking realistically. I'm not even speaking about "could/should," I'm talking about will they realistically do it, to which the answer is no. I don't see the reason to demand this game be just like some other game that had romance that you liked. Go play that game when you want your romance kick then. I certainly don't go to forums like the Mass Effect ones and complain they included romance. There the devs wanted to, so sad day for me. Here the devs do not want to, so sad day for you. And no, this isn't some concept where games with romance > games without, so convincing is not that simple.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Longknife

[Sable Phoenix]

Longknife, I've already mentioned in my previous posts why and how romance should be done.  Go read them.  Especially read the one where I discuss the relationship of Dak'kon with TNO in Planescape:Torment.  It's not romantic, obviously, but I use it to illustrate a point that you've missed.  Or perhaps just avoided.

 

Also, pro-romance attitudes are not a minority among the community of any RPG I've ever played.  If the option for romance is there, most players will take it.

 

I wish you'd stop trotting out the "Obsidian devs hate romance!" bromide, since they already have mentioned they have nothing against romance per se, it was simply a question of time allocation during development.

 

As far as hyperbole... you might want to check yourself on that one.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Sable Phoenix

[Fiaryn]

I'm generally not very fond of romance in videogames. Rarely does it feel anything approaching believable. Usually it just feels like cheap, pandering, emotional porn. The IE games are no exception. The Aerie relationship is downright unhealthy codependency, Jaheira's romance moves implausibly fast for someone who literally just lost their husband and is somewhat busy chasing down the killer of said husband and, well Viconia...

 

 

She's a typical bad girl archetype who "needs" emotional healing via the protagonist's ****.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Fiaryn

[armorb]

 

 

On the wider topic: romance is simply a type of relationship.

 

Doesn't seem to be, according to the endless discussions over it.

Although if romance is just a relationship like another, why would a game developper claim his game doesn't feature any ? Does that even make sense ?

 

 

 

Of course it does. They are simply excluding "romantic relationships" from their writing, and probably including many "platonic relationships", "adversarial relationships", etc.

 

 

[Voss]

Longknife, I've already mentioned in my previous posts why and how romance should be done.  Go read them.  Especially read the one where I discuss the relationship of Dak'kon with TNO in Planescape:Torment.  It's not romantic, obviously, but I use it to illustrate a point that you've missed.  Or perhaps just avoided.

 

Also, pro-romance attitudes are not a minority among the community of any RPG I've ever played.  If the option for romance is there, most players will take it.

 

e.

Wait, that isn't an argument that the communities are pro-romance. That is just an argument that if you stick a big red button in front of anyone, they're going to push it. It might even be an argument for Skinner box style quest rewards, that the players expect xp or a fancy item out of the virtual sexing.

[armorb]

 

Yeah. Pass.

 

 

And you are so afforded that option. So what's the problem?

 

[Fiaryn]

 

Longknife, I've already mentioned in my previous posts why and how romance should be done.  Go read them.  Especially read the one where I discuss the relationship of Dak'kon with TNO in Planescape:Torment.  It's not romantic, obviously, but I use it to illustrate a point that you've missed.  Or perhaps just avoided.

 

Also, pro-romance attitudes are not a minority among the community of any RPG I've ever played.  If the option for romance is there, most players will take it.

 

e.

Wait, that isn't an argument that the communities are pro-romance. That is just an argument that if you stick a big red button in front of anyone, they're going to push it. It might even be an argument for Skinner box style quest rewards, that the players expect xp or a fancy item out of the virtual sexing.

 

 

This is essentially correct. That people take the option, when it is offered, is not in and of itself indicative of being an ardent supporter of romances in RPGs. It can indicate as little as a propensity for completionism.

 

What would be more informative is the number of people who are upset/glad at the lack/inclusion of romances in a given RPG. I would guess the vast majority don't care one way or the other.

[Jerik321]

I am new to the forums, and am thinking of getting Pillars of Eternity. I honestly do not care that much about romance in general (except for Bioware games' romances). For me, romances are more engaging when you can imagine it happening. like in new vegas, I can imagine my lesbian couriers and Veronica getting together and making love without the need for sounds.

 

romance is good for RP, but I do not need to see it for it to happen.