Romance

[injurai]

Men are the weaker sex confirmed. Can't stack bonuses worth a damn.

[ThatUndeadLegacy]

Men are the weaker sex confirmed. Can't stack bonuses worth a damn.

Well men are disposable, women... not so much. 

[Leeuwenhart]

 

Men are the weaker sex confirmed. Can't stack bonuses worth a damn.

Well men are disposable, women... not so much.

I dont know how you do it. But you need 2 stones to make a spark.

[ThatUndeadLegacy]

 

 

Men are the weaker sex confirmed. Can't stack bonuses worth a damn.

Well men are disposable, women... not so much.

I dont know how you do it. But you need 2 stones to make a spark.

 

Just look at war and history, men are always more disposed of :D because there will always be men to make more men. 

Edited February 16, 2017 by ThatUndeadLegacy

[Leeuwenhart]

 

 

 

Men are the weaker sex confirmed. Can't stack bonuses worth a damn.

Well men are disposable, women... not so much.

I dont know how you do it. But you need 2 stones to make a spark.

Just look at war and history, men are always more disposed of :D because there will always be men to make more men.

 

As i said.

I dont know how you do it... but you need 2 stones to make a spark.

 

A boy spark or a girl spark.

 

 

2 stones.

 

 

Ps Stones are people

[FlintlockJazz]

Hey guys, you do realise that relationship doesn't necessarily mean romance and...

 

*Realises logic will not stop them*

 

*Turns to the men*

 

Batten down the hatches!  Reef the mainsail!  Secure the rigging!  And get those guns loaded!

 

*Looks off to the horizon*

 

For the Promancers are coming...

[Andraste]

Hey guys, you do realise that relationship doesn't necessarily mean romance and...

 

There definitely are romances, though. A quote from Josh Sawyer's Tumblr:

 

"All companions will have a number of relationships that can form with each other or the Watcher.  Some of those will be romantic in nature, but certainly not all of them.  The form of each relationship will depend on the individual companion."

 

So we don't know for sure if the Watcher can become romantically involved with their companions - it could be that romances are limited to relationships between companions, although I doubt it - but we do know that there are romantic relationships involving companions in the game.

 

 

 

For the Promancers are coming...

 

Some of us have been here since the Black Isle days .

[ThatUndeadLegacy]

Hey guys, you do realise that relationship doesn't necessarily mean romance and...

 

*Realises logic will not stop them*

 

*Turns to the men*

 

Batten down the hatches!  Reef the mainsail!  Secure the rigging!  And get those guns loaded!

 

*Looks off to the horizon*

 

For the Promancers are coming...

I have no problem with that part of animal nature. 

[FlintlockJazz]

 

For the Promancers are coming...

*Says Promancer stuff*

.

 

 

 

 

*Promancer Sighted!*

 

OPEN FIRE!!!  ALL WEAPONS!!  Despatch Dread Pirate Eder!  To KEELHAUL their bodies!

Edited February 16, 2017 by FlintlockJazz

[Amentep]

In my opinion, which I will not elaborate too much so as to avoid side tracking, all games - but especially CRPGs - have a kernel of wish fulfillment. We experience CRPGs vicariously, and it is not an accident that people often emotionally identify with their characters. This is not to say all games should make you feel happy. Aristotle emphasized the importance of pathos and catharsis as functions of drama. Tragic stories can also fulfill emotional needs.

 

But the central reason I bring up wish fulfillment with respect to romances in games, is that I want to warn developers against creating characters that no one wants to vicariously romance. There's that word again. As I mentioned above, romance is fundamentally a function of attraction, mostly physical, but also psychological and spiritual. You can't fake attraction, just as you can't fake excitement about a dramatic situation that ought to be exciting, but isn't because of the way it's presented, the competence of execution, etc. You would never say that the action segments of a game being boring is the fault of the player not being able to put themselves in the character's shoes, so by that same argument, you should never say that romantic characters being unattractive is the fault of the player putting too much of themselves & their own standards into their character.

 

Thus, foremost in a romance designer's mind must be the appeal of the character of interest. Attraction is, unfortunately, a deeply personal experience for which general principles can only serve as guidelines. Nonetheless, I'd say that, unless your purpose is to troll the player base, being too flippant about the nature of attraction is a bad idea. Romances can be experimental. They can involve subversion. They should be original. But they should never take the player's interest as granted. You need to earn that interest, and Obsidian especially should be cautious, because they already have a reputation for being reluctant to introduce romantic relationships, which could become a self-fulfilling destiny should they fail to create compelling interests. That would reflect poorly on the company, and would also reinforce its negative association with romantic themes, to the detriment of all.

 

I don't see discussing romance and its implementation in games as a side track in the romance thread.

 

Anyhow, I dislike the term 'wish fulfillment' precisely because it has a connotation of lacking in the player actually having to work at or towards a goal.  The player wants it, so they're going to get it; this is true whether the wish is fulfilled in their wildest fashions or in a 'monkey's paw' sort of way to create drama.

 

"You would never say that the action segments of a game being boring is the fault of the player not being able to put themselves in the character's shoes, so by that same argument, you should never say that romantic characters being unattractive is the fault of the player putting too much of themselves & their own standards into their character."  Not finding a romantic character attractive or viable for the player character is inevitable, as its a function of character and no character can appeal to everyone.  

 

If I say I don't like Durance its either because (a) he's non-optimal for my party build from a functional standpoint or (b) I dislike him as a character.  In the case of (b), should games not include a non-player character I don't like?  If your answer is yes, then I disagree with the concept that NPCs have to be universally likeable (I'd also argue that it would be fundamentally impossible to create); if your answer is no, then I disagree that a distinction needs to be made in the subset of character that is romance.

 

To me, if you're building non-player characters with the idea that any one (or all) has to be attractive to the player you're losing sight of the NPC as a character and as such, the NPC has lost any agency they might have had in the narrative.  

 

IMO, YMMV.

[Ninjamestari]

Yeah, you need 2 stones to make a spark. That's all you need though, you don't need 4 stones, 6 stones or any other number. 2 is all that is necessary. All the other stones are more or less expendable. You can throw the stones at bears and wolves as much as you want as long as you can pick up two of them afterwards and you're good to go.

[Bonte]

I'm all for romance and all of that, but hopefully I can finally get a real bromance with Edér. I felt like we were close friends, but it never really showed in the actual game. Except when Edér checked on the Watcher when he/she was having nightmares. 

 

And on romance, no one will want to get close with my Death Watcher   

[stiven]

will there be romance in this game?

This is stupid feature which should be burned in hell, alongside with everyone who like to mix grim RPG settings with sims simulators. Even if this feature present in the game, it should be VERY optional. None killing narrative about of space-robot-squid-gonna-kill-us-all 1-3  more, that occasional "sexual tension"  in the middle of neck-deep mass grave, or forest of impaled people turning into robots. "Romance" in RPG is literally stuff for 15+ years old girls, no offence. Well, to not insult people more, i would say, that maybe, maybe, one day there will be a good RPG with "non-ugly-implemented-sex-themes" which really will organically complement story, but this day, Arthas my son lololoolo, is not today. 

 

To think about it for a second - the only rpg with tolerable "Romance" feature even existed - is KOTOR2, but only because it is essential part of the story, it is never forced on player, and how creepy and unnatural it is displayed, when almost all females is so much into the General, and how instantly quad-creepy it is become the moment when it has reveled WHY all three girls, and to some degree even Kreia, is so into the Exile.

Edited February 17, 2017 by stiven

[Micamo]

Yeah, you need 2 stones to make a spark. That's all you need though, you don't need 4 stones, 6 stones or any other number. 2 is all that is necessary. All the other stones are more or less expendable. You can throw the stones at bears and wolves as much as you want as long as you can pick up two of them afterwards and you're good to go.

 

...What are you people even talking about? Whatever metaphor this was originally it's been stretched so thin it could be an Elder Scrolls questline.

 

Also, psst, if I were on the writing team, the game would def. have polyamory as a possibility. Oh yes. I gain power from alt-right fanboy tears.

 

Fear me.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Micamo

[injurai]

Yeah, you need 2 stones to make a spark. That's all you need though, you don't need 4 stones, 6 stones or any other number. 2 is all that is necessary. All the other stones are more or less expendable. You can throw the stones at bears and wolves as much as you want as long as you can pick up two of them afterwards and you're good to go.

 

Actually you need like 10000 stones. Otherwise you're stone population becomes susceptible to erosion.

[HooAmEye]

 

Yeah, you need 2 stones to make a spark. That's all you need though, you don't need 4 stones, 6 stones or any other number. 2 is all that is necessary. All the other stones are more or less expendable. You can throw the stones at bears and wolves as much as you want as long as you can pick up two of them afterwards and you're good to go.

 

...What are you people even talking about? Whatever metaphor this was originally it's been stretched so thin it could be an Elder Scrolls questline.

 

Also, psst, if I were on the writing team, the game would def. have polyamory as a possibility. Oh yes. I gain power from alt-right fanboy tears.

 

Fear me.

 

 

All hail the new dark empress!

[HooAmEye]

 

Yeah, you need 2 stones to make a spark. That's all you need though, you don't need 4 stones, 6 stones or any other number. 2 is all that is necessary. All the other stones are more or less expendable. You can throw the stones at bears and wolves as much as you want as long as you can pick up two of them afterwards and you're good to go.

 

Actually you need like 10000 stones. Otherwise you're stone population becomes susceptible to erosion.

 

Well, really you could make do with maybe 4400 stones, if you were careful and kept them polished

[Sonntam]

So... do we want to discuss what romances everyone is looking forward to? Or hoping that they will be implemented?

 

I think Eder is pretty much a sure thing. At the very least judging by his short story and characterization he's very much a casual sex guy, so at least that is a given.

 

 

I myself am hoping for Pallegina, but I would be okay with just doing heart eyes at her and crying myself to sleep. It would be just like first PoE only this time I get to be rejected by Pallegina properly. 

[Nicze]

So... do we want to discuss what romances everyone is looking forward to? Or hoping that they will be implemented?

Iselmyr's romance path obviously.

[Bonte]

So... do we want to discuss what romances everyone is looking forward to? Or hoping that they will be implemented?

 

I think Eder is pretty much a sure thing. At the very least judging by his short story and characterization he's very much a casual sex guy, so at least that is a given.

 

 

I myself am hoping for Pallegina, but I would be okay with just doing heart eyes at her and crying myself to sleep. It would be just like first PoE only this time I get to be rejected by Pallegina properly. 

 

I think the romance options are going to be the four characters that was in the happy Valentine's post in the update # 13.

 

I wouldn't mind Pallegina. We're both Paladins and Godlikes. Plus, I've always liked her character just as much as Eder. Hiravias was third 

[Nicze]

 

So... do we want to discuss what romances everyone is looking forward to? Or hoping that they will be implemented?

 

I think Eder is pretty much a sure thing. At the very least judging by his short story and characterization he's very much a casual sex guy, so at least that is a given.

 

 

I myself am hoping for Pallegina, but I would be okay with just doing heart eyes at her and crying myself to sleep. It would be just like first PoE only this time I get to be rejected by Pallegina properly. 

 

I think the romance options are going to be the four characters that was in the happy Valentine's post in the update # 13.

3 men and one woman? That's a reverse BG2!

[Ninjamestari]

 

 

Yeah, you need 2 stones to make a spark. That's all you need though, you don't need 4 stones, 6 stones or any other number. 2 is all that is necessary. All the other stones are more or less expendable. You can throw the stones at bears and wolves as much as you want as long as you can pick up two of them afterwards and you're good to go.

 

Actually you need like 10000 stones. Otherwise you're stone population becomes susceptible to erosion.

 

Well, really you could make do with maybe 4400 stones, if you were careful and kept them polished

 

 

Priceless ^^

 

Now perhaps we should shut up before we get into talking about the color of those stones and completely derail this whole thread :D

 

EDIT: on a second thought now that I think of it, considering how easily the retarded gender-politics get into games and derail the whole thing these days, I'm beginning to think that it might just be better if there were no romances at all.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[Bonte]

 

 

So... do we want to discuss what romances everyone is looking forward to? Or hoping that they will be implemented?

 

I think Eder is pretty much a sure thing. At the very least judging by his short story and characterization he's very much a casual sex guy, so at least that is a given.

 

 

I myself am hoping for Pallegina, but I would be okay with just doing heart eyes at her and crying myself to sleep. It would be just like first PoE only this time I get to be rejected by Pallegina properly. 

 

I think the romance options are going to be the four characters that was in the happy Valentine's post in the update # 13.

3 men and one woman? That's a reverse BG2!

 

 

Never know. Aloth could be into men only lol. But Xoti could also be a romance option. Plus, we will probably get a brothel. 

[Lord_Mord]

I just realized, that in my current playthrough I chose a woman, which I intended to import to PoE2, which has romances. Great choice. I totally want to romance Aloth or Eder.

 

Suddenly the LGBT-discussion becomes somehow relevant to me.

[Nicze]

Never know. Aloth could be into men only lol.

That'd be funny (even though it'd break my rogue's heart) because Iselmyr keeps hitting on ladies in party bander. The general idea of Aloth's romance sounds interesting, what with his Awakenedness.