Romance

[Tigranes]

Obsidian clearly isn't particularly into romances, and there are many other, easier ways to make deep character interaction, so the only remaining argument is "I really like romances and I really want them to make it." Fine, that's a perfectly valid argument for an entertainment product, but keep in mind that's just as valid as "I really dislike them and don't want them to put it in."

 

 

 

and you has already got developer input and explanation as they explained during poe development.  you think reasoning has somehow changed? is likely to be less money and resources available this time, so reasoning is gonna be as valid now as were a few years ago, yes?

 

I think so, years have passed since PoE1, devs could have reconsidered about a lot of things since then, not just romances. And today devs are not in such dire straights as they were back then. And furthermore, I don't think writing a bunch of scripted text is as costly as you make it out to be. So yeah, this thread is valid again and one can hope devs will deign to comment somewhere about it. Afterall, they're stabbing at Baldur's Gate 2 glory now, and BG2 had romances, which were quite fine.

 

 

Devs in general are in just as dire straits as they were back then. Kickstarter does not solve the long-term problem in this industry where independent developers have very few realistic paths to actually existing in not-dire straits. This is well documented. 

 

"Writing a bunch of scripted text isn't that expensive" - ask any game developer. By that logic anything that just involves a bit of code or writing should be piss easy to put out, yeah? 

 

---

 

Getting into more subjective territory: MOTB and PST had passable romances from what I remember, but they weren't the best parts of the character interactions and they didn't make or break those specific characters. I don't see a good argument for including romances, I only see an argument that sometimes it's awful, and at rare times it is just passable.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Tigranes

[Eurhetemec]

Obsidian clearly isn't particularly into romances, and there are many other, easier ways to make deep character interaction, so the only remaining argument is "I really like romances and I really want them to make it." Fine, that's a perfectly valid argument for an entertainment product, but keep in mind that's just as valid as "I really dislike them and don't want them to put it in."

 

 

 

and you has already got developer input and explanation as they explained during poe development.  you think reasoning has somehow changed? is likely to be less money and resources available this time, so reasoning is gonna be as valid now as were a few years ago, yes?

 

I think so, years have passed since PoE1, devs could have reconsidered about a lot of things since then, not just romances. And today devs are not in such dire straights as they were back then. And furthermore, I don't think writing a bunch of scripted text is as costly as you make it out to be. So yeah, this thread is valid again and one can hope devs will deign to comment somewhere about it. Afterall, they're stabbing at Baldur's Gate 2 glory now, and BG2 had romances, which were quite fine.

 

 

Devs in general are in just as dire straits as they were back then. Kickstarter does not solve the long-term problem in this industry where independent developers have very few realistic paths to actually existing in not-dire straits. This is well documented. 

 

"Writing a bunch of scripted text isn't that expensive" - ask any game developer. By that logic anything that just involves a bit of code or writing should be piss easy to put out, yeah? 

 

---

 

Getting into more subjective territory: MOTB and PST had passable romances from what I remember, but they weren't the best parts of the character interactions and they didn't make or break those specific characters. I don't see a good argument for including romances, I only see an argument that sometimes it's awful, and at rare times it is just passable.

 

Actually, you're wrong.

 

A more valid argument has been advanced than "I like it". Upthread LordCrash pointed out that to have complex and realistic characters you pretty much have to allow for them to have some kind of sexuality, which depending on the writing, might lead naturally to something that some people would describe as a romance.

 

And I can't see any rational rebuttal to that. Either you have to elaborately and unnaturally write around it - at which point you may be taking more effort to not write romance than to write it, or you acknowledge it's a possibility and don't intentionally avoid it, just see what happens with the writing. Equally it's fine if it doesn't seem right for any of the characters, of course.

 

The only positions which are wholly opinion based are:

 

1) NO ROMANCES EVER!

 

and

 

2) We need multiple romances, or every companion to be romanceable!

 

Those opinions I agree are open to the same criticisms as each other. But there are more positions than just those.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Eurhetemec

[Aramintai]

 

2) We need multiple romances, or every companion to be romanceable!

 

Besides bad writing that's the only thing I don't like in current BioWare games. But then again, Obsidian is not BioWare - they can try doing their own thing with romances.

[Gromnir]

edit:  y'know, as our links shoulda' shown, this is all so pointless repetitive.  read links to previous threads and perhaps get answers you seek, or don't.  not worth our effort.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 29, 2017 by Gromnir

[LordCrash]

and there are many other, easier ways to make deep character interaction

You care to elaborate on that? I'd like to know more about those "easier ways to make deep character interactions", especially when you exclude the one human feeling that is both central to about 99% of all essential storytelling mediums out there and to human life in general... Edited January 29, 2017 by LordCrash

[Aramintai]

am not seeing how/why you think the situation has changed.  largely the same developers will possible be having less money to do poe2 as they did for poe1. 

 

And I'm not seeing how it hasn't. Devs said themselves they're now living off of their PoE1 success and it was successful (and probably off of Stick of Truth and Tyranny as well), judging by their video PoE2 is well into production and  what they're asking for is not for just making the game but for expanding it (besides, who wouldn't want extra cash and free PR).

 

And I'm sorry, but I just can't take anything seriously from a person who talks in third person.

[Strange_Trees]

Hmm, the same argument as for PoE. Well well.

 

I agree with the point that there should not be romances if the developers really aren't into it.

How good could such romances be if the devs aren't into it themselves?

 

On the other hand I do not necessarily understand this very strong opposition to romances in general.

I think many people think of the EA games right? And what they dislike about the romances in

Mass Effect and Dragon Age? Maybe other games, too?

 

Well, what makes you think - if Obsidian agreed to romances - that they would handle them

the very same way as EA?

 

I think the assumption mainly comes from Bioware being tossed around as an example of "romances in video games". Which makes me shudder cause I find Bioware romances, well, awful. Other examples like The Witcher are kind of apples and oranges. Writing a relationship between Geralt and Yennefer isn't going to be the same as writing a relationship between a player character of variable sex/race/height/age and an companion with a set background.

 

Plus there aren't really a lot of other examples of romances in recent games with custom protagonists. Skyrim's marriages were rightfully butt of many jokes, and Fallout 4's protagonist wasn't very customizable personality wise in the end on top of the romances being fairly shallow.

 

I imagine there's also some residual saltiness from how often these arguments come up in forums. Sure happened with Tyranny. Generally you can expect these to devolve into one side accusing the other of being "Lonely bitter people who hate love and want no one to be happy" with retorts of "You just want to f**k pixels because no one wants you irl" eventually maybe.

 

I don't mind romance personally, but I feel a proper, well done romance in a game would need a lot of resources. Probably in the stretch of thousands of extra lines of dialog per romancable NPC, with all the fun dialog tree juggling that would entail, to make it seem believable. Just seems like there are better places to put resources into, especially when it comes to smaller budgets and timelines.

[Aramintai]

 

and there are many other, easier ways to make deep character interaction

You care to elaborate on that? I'd like to know more about those "easier ways to make deep character interactions", especially when you exclude the one human feeling that is both central to about 99% of all essential storytelling mediums out there and to human life in general...

 

Agreed, purposefully avoiding normal human feelings between companions with whom you've been through thick and thin says something about writers' confidence in their work. PoE1 didn't even touch friendship properly.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Aramintai

[Gromnir]

 

 

And I'm sorry, but I just can't take anything seriously from a person who talks in third person.

 

y'know, am suspecting more than a few folks who have been on these boards for decades will expect us to chastise you for your foolishness. ain't worth it.  you want romances and are gonna ignore the reality that game development is a zero sum game which means for everything added, something else needs be lost.  you didn't seem to believe romances would take much effort in spite o' the fact the obsidians already claimed the opposite during the last poe development.  etc. am seeing you don't genuine wanna discuss.  you want romances.  we won't get very far. 

 

only saving grace is we know the mods will eventual need merge the promancer threads and they will eventual die as has all the rest. 

 

but again, crowdfunded romance dlc gets everybody what they want.  huzzah.  you can thank us later.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[LordCrash]

Ironically almost every groundbreaking work of literature is about various aspects of love at its core. Telling a really good story without even tackling love is not only extremely hard, it's almost a certain recipe to tell a story that is cold and heartless and ultimately one-dimensional in its impact on the player. That way you can speak to the mind, being overly rational and explore "big concepts", but wihout tackling aspects of love you can never truly speak to the heart.

This is by the way one of THE core elements in which PoE was severly lacking. For all its clever writing and deep and complex character design the characters never enabled the player to bond with them in a positive way, to feel with and about them. Sure, you could feel pity for them or you could even hate them but it was very hard to like or even love them. And how so if feelings of affection are deliberately excluded from the writing from the very start? Such a limited narrative is bound to fail to speak both to the hearts and minds, sorry. And why would one want to only speak to one? It just makes no sense at all.


Edit:
Acually a setting like the one in PoE (and every other Infinity Engine type game with a party) is MADE for any kind of strong feelings, relationships and conflicts between party members. It's not a secret that it really brings people together (in both good and bad ways) if they share extremely stressful life-threatening situations. Men fighting alongside others usually tend to bond in a way that resembles a relationship of trust and deep friendship. You need that kind of deep relationship when you need one another in constant fights about life and death. Sexuality is another big topic in these situations (much more so than "soft romance"). For the old Greek mutual sex and sex with outsiders was a part of the way as a warrior - and not much has changed ever since. Killing and hard violence is extremely stressful and sex is a perfect way to let of some steam. There is a reason why rape usually goes alongside wars and why brothels and prostitutes followed armies and warriors everywhere they went. If you face death on a daily basis sex isn't something that you wait for until marriage.

I only tell you this stuff because it's so incredibly counter-intuitive to seperate violence and themes of affection, love and sexuality. In the world of human experiences they're strongly interwoven and trying to seperate them in such absolute ways can't make any believable deep and complex narrative. What I especially liked about older RPGs is that characters were not that "one-dimensionally soft" in certain topics and that they at least covered a wider array of possible human feelings and evolutions. But in today's pop culture we're kind of used to politically correct characters that use extreme violence in various forms - but without ever bearing the consequences or acting accordingly. It's like we only took the apparently heroic things out of war, never caring much if there is anything left that still makes our heroes human...

Edited January 30, 2017 by LordCrash

[Aramintai]

 

but again, crowdfunded romance dlc gets everybody what they want.  huzzah.  you can thank us later.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well, I won't cry in the corner if there will be no romances in PoE2 as well. But it's worth asking with every new game announced anyway. Because I believe that one day, some game will finally become the true Baldur's Gate 2 successor in every way.

[Ganrich]

A late campaign Romance stretch goal would be a pretty good idea. I'm neither here nor there on it. Most romances in these games are pretty meh, but it's popular and you can't argue with that. If they have the resources and desire to do them... then more power to them. I'd rather it be used for other aspects of the game, but it's Obsidian's call.

 

With a late campaign stretch goal... they could get more on this campaign than the previous. I can easily see that.

 

Edit: I expect only one per sex. So, Eder and? Xoti? Is there racial interbreeding in this setting? These are things that have to be squared away prior to any decision on the topic.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Ganrich

[Aramintai]

Is there racial interbreeding in this setting?

There isn't.

[Ganrich]

 

Is there racial interbreeding in this setting?

 

There isn't.

I didn't think so, and that throws a wrench in the works as far as I'm concerned.

[Fluffle]

Should romance be a matter of stretch goals?

 

As far as I can see there are two strongly opposed groups, one for and one against romances, with few people taking neither side, or taking a different position altogether instead.

 

So you might win "promancers" with such a stretch goal but at the same time you lose the ones who are against it.

 

Stretch goals should appeal to as many people as possible in my opinion.

I can't see how the campaign would benefit from a stretch goal of such a disputed matter.

 

The dispute would overshadow the entire crowdfunding campaign.

[Aramintai]

 

 

Is there racial interbreeding in this setting?

There isn't.

I didn't think so, and that throws a wrench in the works as far as I'm concerned.

 

Not really. In BG2 there were restrictions such as gender and race for each romanceable companion. Was done before, can be again.

[Aramintai]

Should romance be a matter of stretch goals?

 

As far as I can see there are two strongly opposed groups, one for and one against romances, with few people taking neither side, or taking a different position altogether instead.

 

So you might win "promancers" with such a stretch goal but at the same time you lose the ones who are against it.

 

Stretch goals should appeal to as many people as possible in my opinion.

I can't see how the campaign would benefit from a stretch goal of such a disputed matter.

 

The dispute would overshadow the entire crowdfunding campaign.

Agreed, but it's a popular request at the campaign, so there's a possibility it will be added. But of course, only if devs are up to it. They're silent on the matter currently. Personally, I'd rather have a firm No again than see some unachievable last stretch goal.

[Ganrich]

 

 

 

Is there racial interbreeding in this setting?

 

There isn't.

I didn't think so, and that throws a wrench in the works as far as I'm concerned.

Not really. In BG2 there were restrictions such as gender and race for each romanceable companion. Was done before, can be again.

7 plus romance options is a steep cost financially. It's better to have a couple incredibly well done "catch alls" vs every companion being romanceable but mediocre.

[Strange_Trees]

Should romance be a matter of stretch goals?

 

As far as I can see there are two strongly opposed groups, one for and one against romances, with few people taking neither side, or taking a different position altogether instead.

 

So you might win "promancers" with such a stretch goal but at the same time you lose the ones who are against it.

 

Stretch goals should appeal to as many people as possible in my opinion.

I can't see how the campaign would benefit from a stretch goal of such a disputed matter.

 

The dispute would overshadow the entire crowdfunding campaign.

 

I'd say stretch goals need to be something the developers themselves want, and would look forward to implementing. If romances were added and reached as a stretch goal, even if the developers still weren't thrilled about the idea, I'm sure that lack of enthusiasm would be apparent in the final product.

[Rorschach]

I didn't think so, and that throws a wrench in the works as far as I'm concerned.

Au contraire, that means one less thing to worry about if you do not share race, if you get me.

 

I wouldn't mind (never minded) romances as long as they are not the priority. I think someone mentioned DOS:2 stretch goal, but it was not about romance, was about love/hate relationships. That stretch goal could be acceptable: deeper relationships, in general, and maybe, just maybe, one or two could end up in romance. That's what, in my opinion, PST did right: love relationship was not more special than a good friendship.

[Aramintai]

 

 

 

 

Is there racial interbreeding in this setting?

There isn't.

I didn't think so, and that throws a wrench in the works as far as I'm concerned.

Not really. In BG2 there were restrictions such as gender and race for each romanceable companion. Was done before, can be again.

7 plus romance options is a steep cost financially. It's better to have a couple incredibly well done "catch alls" vs every companion being romanceable but mediocre.

 

They can do 2 or 3, like in PS:T. In BG2 there were only 4 among how many? 17? So definitely no need to go "current gen BioWare" style in this.

[Faerunner]

I KNEW someone would make this thread eventually!

 

I know for a fact lots of people want to romance Eder, and Aloth has his share of fans. (Thank you, Matthew Mercer.)

 

I want to smooch Aloth. I know lots of people will probably scoff, roll their eyes, or retch at this request (haven't read the comments, but I'm sure there's lots of backlash), but I don't care. I want to romance Aloth so badly!

Edited January 29, 2017 by Faerunner

[Faerunner]

 

 

 

Is there racial interbreeding in this setting?

There isn't.

I didn't think so, and that throws a wrench in the works as far as I'm concerned.

 

Not really. In BG2 there were restrictions such as gender and race for each romanceable companion. Was done before, can be again.

 

 

Kind of an insulting one, too. Only humans and elves could romance the human or elf love interests.

 

No short, tall, fat stout, or "ugly" races like halflings, gnomes, dwarves, or whatever else. (Can't remember if half-orcs were a thing back then.)

 

Since almost all dialogue is text-based anyway (no conflicting animations or voice acting), I'd be happy if they DIDN'T include such insulting race-restrictions this time around. (Since it implies that short and/or fat stout people aren't attractive enough to be considered "desirable.")

Edited January 29, 2017 by Faerunner

[Leferd]

To be fair, fat and short people generally shouldn't be out adventuring and battling dangerous things that are bigger, stronger, and in better shape than them.

[LordCrash]

 

plus romance options is a steep cost financially. It's better to have a couple incredibly well done "catch alls" vs every companion being romanceable but mediocre.

They can do 2 or 3, like in PS:T. In BG2 there were only 4 among how many? 17? So definitely no need to go "current gen BioWare" style in this.

 

Actually the whole problem with "romances" in the current Bioware implementation is THAT they need so much work. But that doesn't need to be the case to implement human emotions concerning mutual affection.

 

There are indefine ways of implementing aspects of love and affection between two persons Apparently many people think that a full-blown "romance" with a certain "start point" and "end goal" in having sex and/or some kind of marriage-like-relationship, going through different states along the way, is the only way of tackling apsects of love, romance and affection in a video game. That's of course not the case.

 

Small example: There could be a certain stressing situation in which one companion had a "weak moment" in which s/he addresses the PC, looking for help, or counsel or just propinqity. In the following dialogue there could be a point in which the PC had the possibility to engage in a "quick'n'dirty" sexual activity, kind of abusing the situation. Or the PC could try different ways of dealing with the PC, maybe by deepening the friendship by just listening, by soft and polite rejection or by openly and aggressively rejecting the advances. Either way, it's just a single moment in a life full of danger and death and that's it. The next morning, almost everything is the way it was before - maybe with a sightly different tone between the companion and the PC, only affecting some single lines of codes in future dialogues, expressing their evolved relationships. No ever-ongoing romance, no need for writing thousands of lines of dialogue.

 

Nobody can tell me that something like that would require a ton of extra work or would be bad in general in terms of exploring narrative themes. On the opposite, bits like that can change the way we look at characters, make them likeable, loveable. It's much easier to bond with them if we get the chance to see that they behave like humans and that they're not some cold-hearted intellectual robots who stand above such things like desires, personal weaknesses, affection or pure, old lust.

 

If anything that's the kind of "romance" and affection I want to see, embedded in whole lot of other scenarios that explore different aspects of human relationships on all different layers...

Edited January 29, 2017 by LordCrash