Player sexual companion

[Valmy]

I just hope all the romances were written by Josh. I feel like only someone that hates video game romance could write a decent one. The only other candidate in that regard was Avellone, and he seems to have gone insane.

 

To be fair he always was a little nuts. 

[Ryz009]

> You're always quick to start an argument with a strawman then run off when people give you facts to counter your nonsense.

 

When did that happen?  I must have missed it.

 

> I never said a relationship had to be healthy.

 

You did say there needs to be some acknowledgement that the relationships are 'toxic'.  In other words, you're saying that it's ok to portray 'toxic' relationships, but they need to be portrayed as a bad thing.

 

So ok, you didn't say they have to be healthy, but why do they have to be portrayed as a bad thing?  Again, I ask: who gets to decide what is toxic and isn't toxic in a relationship?

 

Maybe the sort of relationship you thing is a good one, I think is toxic.  You see how that works?

 

I'll ask again:

 

1) Who would be doing the admissions or acknowledgements about how 'toxic' these relationships are?

 

2) Who gets to define what is and isn't 'toxic' in a relationship?

"They all look like ass." for one thing.

 

And again acknowledgement that something's toxic doesn't mean moralizing. It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship that'll last forever (let alone the ignoring of the stress those relationships cause) and ever and all your friends are super supportive. It adds depth if anything. There's a great deal of conflict and drama that's being ignored for the yay isn't love grand <3 Hell even in a healthy relationship game relationships are often extremely shallow.

 

You're making an argument that I did not make.

 

As for 1. It could be anyone. Doesn't have to be a certain person because generally speaking in an toxic relationship more than one person notices. Most of the time someone in the relationship realizes it but stays for any matter of reasons. 

 

As for 2. I'd say its crap like the PC acting as the NPCs mother and constantly giving emotional support only for the NPC to turn around and say hilarious things like "Oh I totally forgot your whole family was killed my bad." (assuming it's even brought up which let's face it a lot of the times its not) like the imbalance isn't subtle in games. Or having your boss who holds your life in the palm of their hand maybe acknowledging how kind of iffy consent is in those scenarios instead of having everyone ignore it as though that makes sense.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Ryz009

[Yosharian]

 

> You're always quick to start an argument with a strawman then run off when people give you facts to counter your nonsense.

 

When did that happen?  I must have missed it.

 

> I never said a relationship had to be healthy.

 

You did say there needs to be some acknowledgement that the relationships are 'toxic'.  In other words, you're saying that it's ok to portray 'toxic' relationships, but they need to be portrayed as a bad thing.

 

So ok, you didn't say they have to be healthy, but why do they have to be portrayed as a bad thing?  Again, I ask: who gets to decide what is toxic and isn't toxic in a relationship?

 

Maybe the sort of relationship you thing is a good one, I think is toxic.  You see how that works?

 

I'll ask again:

 

1) Who would be doing the admissions or acknowledgements about how 'toxic' these relationships are?

 

2) Who gets to define what is and isn't 'toxic' in a relationship?

"They all look like ass." for one thing.

 

And again acknowledgement that something's toxic doesn't mean moralizing. It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship that'll last forever (let alone the ignoring of the stress those relationships cause) and ever and all your friends are super supportive. It adds depth if anything. There's a great deal of conflict and drama that's being ignored for the yay isn't love grand <3 Hell even in a healthy relationship game relationships are often extremely shallow.

 

You're making an argument that I did not make.

 

As for 1. It could be anyone. Doesn't have to be a certain person because generally speaking in an toxic relationship more than one person notices. Most of the time someone in the relationship realizes it but stays for any matter of reasons. 

 

As for 2. I'd say its crap like the PC acting as the NPCs mother and constantly giving emotional support only for the NPC to turn around and say hilarious things like "Oh I totally forgot your whole family was killed my bad." (assuming it's even brought up which let's face it a lot of the times its not) like the imbalance isn't subtle in games. Or having your boss who holds your life in the palm of their hand maybe acknowledging how kind of iffy consent is in those scenarios instead of having everyone ignore it as though that makes sense.

 

 

> "They all look like ass." for one thing.

 

They do!

 

> It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship

 

>  even in a healthy relationship game relationships are often extremely shallow.

 

Define what is and isn't 'healthy'.

 

You're making a judgement call on what is a healthy relationship but you're only one person.  Why should you get to decide that?

 

> As for 1. It could be anyone. Doesn't have to be a certain person because generally speaking in an toxic relationship more than one person notices. Most of the time someone in the relationship realizes it but stays for any matter of reasons. 

 

So you're saying an NPC would comment on the relationship or something?  How should the NPC comment?  What if the NPC is evil, and sees a 'toxic' relationship in progress (which you still haven't defined, but whatever, let's roll with it for the sake of argument), and comments positively?  Would that be problematic?

 

> As for 2. I'd say its crap like the PC acting as the NPCs mother and constantly giving emotional support only for the NPC to turn around and say hilarious things like "Oh I totally forgot your whole family was killed my bad." (assuming it's even brought up which let's face it a lot of the times its not) like the imbalance isn't subtle in games. 

 

That makes no sense at all.

 

> Or having your boss who holds your life in the palm of their hand maybe acknowledging how kind of iffy consent is in those scenarios instead of having everyone ignore it as though that makes sense.

 

That sounds hamfisted and unnecessary.

 

What if I get a kick out of being dominated by my boss?  What if I find the concept of a discussion of 'consent' to be really off-putting?  Is that problematic?

Edited May 2, 2018 by Yosharian

[anathanielh]

USING MY MAGICAL POWERS, I SHALL COMMAND THIS THREAD TO BE MOVED TO THE OFF TOPIC SECTION!!!!

 

A te, de l’essere Principio immenso, Materia e spirito, Ragione e senso;

Te invoco, o Banana Re del convito

[The Sharmat]

But if a romance arc adds a lot to the plot and is restricted by gender/sexuality it tends to put me off the romance personally. Because that's a lot of resources on something I might not be able to use and I'm salty by nature I rather get more friendship content with that character instead if that development is important to the plot. I don't really compare that to a race or class because you're always giving up something in that matter. If I play a human I'm not an elf and vice versa. Meanwhile a plot integral romance often doesn't give up something of a similar value so it's like ehhh for me. (Unless of course there's multiple plot integral romances in which case that again leads to the resource issue). I rather that be put in a friendship route because there always has to be compromises in amounts of content.

 

Ah thanks for the information.

 

Different content is certainly better than less content, as long as it's truly different. To give an example that's somewhat related to this topic: KOTOR 2 didn't handle romance much (which honestly I think is for the best given how games tend to do it), but the player character's gender if male changes the tone of Atris's character and her relationship with the exile in subtle but important ways. Specifically, an implied inappropriate romantic relationship while he was still a student. If the Exile is female, then Darth Sion's interactions change even more markedly, with his pursuit seeming to be more about a twisted attempt at a mercy killing instead of just trying to torture Kreia. So you get content either way.

 

Though I don't think this should take the form of "Male gets 2 romances, female gets 2 romances." It should flow naturally from the characters what the nature of the PC brings out in them. Romance is only one of many possible outcomes. I personally think if no attempts at pandering are going on this would lead to a pretty small number of "romanceable" companions period. Probably 1 or 2 at most. It's an important human drive but not every single story is about everyone making moon eyes at someone.

Edited May 2, 2018 by The Sharmat

[Ryz009]

> "They all look like ass." for one thing.

 

They do!

 

> It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship

 

>  even in a healthy relationship game relationships are often extremely shallow.

 

Define what is and isn't 'healthy'.

 

You're making a judgement call on what is a healthy relationship but you're only one person.  Why should you get to decide that?

 

> As for 1. It could be anyone. Doesn't have to be a certain person because generally speaking in an toxic relationship more than one person notices. Most of the time someone in the relationship realizes it but stays for any matter of reasons. 

 

So you're saying an NPC would comment on the relationship or something?  How should the NPC comment?  What if the NPC is evil, and sees a 'toxic' relationship in progress (which you still haven't defined, but whatever, let's roll with it for the sake of argument), and comments positively?  Would that be problematic?

 

> As for 2. I'd say its crap like the PC acting as the NPCs mother and constantly giving emotional support only for the NPC to turn around and say hilarious things like "Oh I totally forgot your whole family was killed my bad." (assuming it's even brought up which let's face it a lot of the times its not) like the imbalance isn't subtle in games. 

 

That makes no sense at all.

 

> Or having your boss who holds your life in the palm of their hand maybe acknowledging how kind of iffy consent is in those scenarios instead of having everyone ignore it as though that makes sense.

 

That sounds hamfisted and unnecessary.

 

What if I get a kick out of being dominated by my boss?  What if I find the concept of a discussion of 'consent' to be really off-putting?  Is that problematic?

 

No they don't. Unless you're blind.

 

You do realize healthy isn't something I magically made up right? Something that causes you undue amounts of stress is unhealthy. You can argue til the cows come home in the reverse but that doesn't stop it from being unhealthy for you. Whether you find it worth it or not is a completely different matter and is up to the individual. (now if you want to argue those relationships *don't* cause stress then we get into the unrealistic portrayal bit which eh).

 

And again an evil character can acknowledge something without making a value judgement. Hell they could make a positive value judgement on it and again I'd be fine with that. It's acknowledged. It's not something that's swept under the rug or ignored. Also who cares if its problematic. You seem to think I'm making a moral judgement. I'm not. I love villain romances. I actually do like abusive romances when the abusive is acknowledged they paint a very beautiful picture of how flawed people are I actually prefer those kind of romances that have two broken people doing the best they can over some overly clean fairly tell nonsense. But those romances acknowledge both characters flaws, how they negatively and positively effect each other. It's not ignored.

 

As for not making sense. How is giving emotional support and getting none in return not make sense to you? Cause this is a normal issue for a protagonist. (granted choose your own protagonists have this issue *far* more often than predefined protags.)

 

Like you seem to have this weird impression that I don't want anything other than a perfectly healthy relationship and anything else has an asterisk. That's not the case I just want those unhealthy relationships (hell if I'm honest I want this for all relationships it just jars me more when it's something blatantly unhealthy) to have depth Is someone overly codependent? Acknowledge that. Is someone physically aggressive? Acknowledge that. Does someone have severe PTSD that needs to be worked around in the relationship? Don't give them a magical cure and have it ignored in the romance. Has the main PC had his/her soul ripped out? Don't have the entire romance track about the LI's daddy issues or at the least don't do it without acknowledging how the PC is the giving all the emotional support and getting jack all in comparison.

 

BDSM and having your life in someone else's hand are not the same thing. Role play isn't the same as being told to go on the front lines and get shot at. If there's a choice between your LI or leaving someone else to die I'd expect the PC to be called out for bias by the rest of the cast for saving their LI regardless of why the choice was made. (I'd also expect them to get raked over the coals for not choosing their LIs in a non right solution outcome )Also if you find the concept of discussion of consent to be really off-putting well to be frank don't do it then. No one's forcing you to? As for problematic I really don't care? Like why are even discussing problematic? My issue is people pretending issues aren't there which for me is an issue. When I said not okay I was referring to pretending the relationship didn't have issues and that'd actually apply for a healthy relationship too. It's just more overt with something toxic.

 

When I say acknowledge I mean as if you recruited the villain last moment and he's traveling with you. I wouldn't expect that to not be commented on, reacted to in any manner of ways both positive and negative. When a relationship blatantly has issues like one partner being a doormat and that goes unremarked I'm not okay with it because it's extremely immersion breaking for it to be ignored. Do I want someone to run behind the protag screaming about how wrong they are? No unless my PC can have a predictably hilarious reaction to that. But someone commenting on it even secondhand or going off-handily how much they let X get away with things they wouldn't let anyone else do? Sure.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Ryz009

[Elarie]

 

 

> You're always quick to start an argument with a strawman then run off when people give you facts to counter your nonsense.

 

When did that happen?  I must have missed it.

 

> I never said a relationship had to be healthy.

 

You did say there needs to be some acknowledgement that the relationships are 'toxic'.  In other words, you're saying that it's ok to portray 'toxic' relationships, but they need to be portrayed as a bad thing.

 

So ok, you didn't say they have to be healthy, but why do they have to be portrayed as a bad thing?  Again, I ask: who gets to decide what is toxic and isn't toxic in a relationship?

 

Maybe the sort of relationship you thing is a good one, I think is toxic.  You see how that works?

 

I'll ask again:

 

1) Who would be doing the admissions or acknowledgements about how 'toxic' these relationships are?

 

2) Who gets to define what is and isn't 'toxic' in a relationship?

"They all look like ass." for one thing.

 

And again acknowledgement that something's toxic doesn't mean moralizing. It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship that'll last forever (let alone the ignoring of the stress those relationships cause) and ever and all your friends are super supportive. It adds depth if anything. There's a great deal of conflict and drama that's being ignored for the yay isn't love grand <3 Hell even in a healthy relationship game relationships are often extremely shallow.

 

You're making an argument that I did not make.

 

As for 1. It could be anyone. Doesn't have to be a certain person because generally speaking in an toxic relationship more than one person notices. Most of the time someone in the relationship realizes it but stays for any matter of reasons. 

 

As for 2. I'd say its crap like the PC acting as the NPCs mother and constantly giving emotional support only for the NPC to turn around and say hilarious things like "Oh I totally forgot your whole family was killed my bad." (assuming it's even brought up which let's face it a lot of the times its not) like the imbalance isn't subtle in games. Or having your boss who holds your life in the palm of their hand maybe acknowledging how kind of iffy consent is in those scenarios instead of having everyone ignore it as though that makes sense.

 

 

> "They all look like ass." for one thing.

 

They do!

 

> It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship

 

>  even in a healthy relationship game relationships are often extremely shallow.

 

Define what is and isn't 'healthy'.

 

You're making a judgement call on what is a healthy relationship but you're only one person.  Why should you get to decide that?

 

> As for 1. It could be anyone. Doesn't have to be a certain person because generally speaking in an toxic relationship more than one person notices. Most of the time someone in the relationship realizes it but stays for any matter of reasons. 

 

So you're saying an NPC would comment on the relationship or something?  How should the NPC comment?  What if the NPC is evil, and sees a 'toxic' relationship in progress (which you still haven't defined, but whatever, let's roll with it for the sake of argument), and comments positively?  Would that be problematic?

 

> As for 2. I'd say its crap like the PC acting as the NPCs mother and constantly giving emotional support only for the NPC to turn around and say hilarious things like "Oh I totally forgot your whole family was killed my bad." (assuming it's even brought up which let's face it a lot of the times its not) like the imbalance isn't subtle in games. 

 

That makes no sense at all.

 

> Or having your boss who holds your life in the palm of their hand maybe acknowledging how kind of iffy consent is in those scenarios instead of having everyone ignore it as though that makes sense.

 

That sounds hamfisted and unnecessary.

 

What if I get a kick out of being dominated by my boss?  What if I find the concept of a discussion of 'consent' to be really off-putting?  Is that problematic?

 

Why wouldn't companions comment? In most games with romance they comment anyway. Rather than saying something like "oh I saw you two sneak off last night" with this new system of the chars forming friendships with each other maybe they get protective of your LI, like the two of you are having a conversation, you say something cruel and they interject with, "Hey, you need to knock it off" or "Leave x alone, will you?"

 

And yeah if a character is evil and they comment positively then that would make sense, but there isn't really any good/evil system anymore. It would have to make more sense with the character, like a racist, an abuse victim who wants to strike back at the world, etc. Perhaps they might congratulate you on being "firm" with your LI or "putting them in their place."

[Ryz009]

 

But if a romance arc adds a lot to the plot and is restricted by gender/sexuality it tends to put me off the romance personally. Because that's a lot of resources on something I might not be able to use and I'm salty by nature I rather get more friendship content with that character instead if that development is important to the plot. I don't really compare that to a race or class because you're always giving up something in that matter. If I play a human I'm not an elf and vice versa. Meanwhile a plot integral romance often doesn't give up something of a similar value so it's like ehhh for me. (Unless of course there's multiple plot integral romances in which case that again leads to the resource issue). I rather that be put in a friendship route because there always has to be compromises in amounts of content.

 

Ah thanks for the information.

 

Different content is certainly better than less content, as long as it's truly different. To give an example that's somewhat related to this topic: KOTOR 2 didn't handle romance much (which honestly I think is for the best given how games tend to do it), but the player character's gender if male changes the tone of Atris's character and her relationship with the exile in subtle but important ways. Specifically, an implied inappropriate romantic relationship while he was still a student. If the Exile is female, then Darth Sion's interactions change even more markedly, with his pursuit seeming to be more about a twisted attempt at a mercy killing instead of just trying to torture Kreia. So you get content either way.

 

Though I don't think this should take the form of "Male gets 2 romances, female gets 2 romances." It should flow naturally from the characters what the nature of the PC brings out in them. Romance is only one of many possible outcomes. I personally think if no attempts at pandering are going on this would lead to a pretty small number of "romanceable" companions period. Probably 1 or 2 at most. It's an important human drive but not every single story is about everyone making moon eyes at someone.

 

 

Oh yes agreed. That said I wasn't that fond of the Sion thing it skeeved me out but yes it was balanced for both male and female players that way.

 

To be honest I actually only prefer 1 or 2 romances because more than that almost always negatively effects friendship routes. And to be honest I like friendship routes way more than any romance. A good friendship route can give an astonishing amount of depth to a character. Most of my favorite character relationships are friendships because they almost always feel less forced than a romance does even with romancable NPCs. That said the even amount of options yeah I'm only really for that if there's a plot important LI. Otherwise I don't really care how the scale shakes out. (Well as long as I'm not in another BG2 scenario where I'm stuck with Amojerk.) I'll take one well crafted option over several poorly crafted ones.

[The Sharmat]

I'm pretty sure Sion was supposed to skeeve you out. He's a sick puppy. But understandable, not everyone wants to be skeeved out by fiction.

 

I want rivalries and intra-party conflict more than anything from the relationship system, personally.

[Yosharian]

 

> "They all look like ass." for one thing.

 

They do!

 

> It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship

 

>  even in a healthy relationship game relationships are often extremely shallow.

 

Define what is and isn't 'healthy'.

 

You're making a judgement call on what is a healthy relationship but you're only one person.  Why should you get to decide that?

 

> As for 1. It could be anyone. Doesn't have to be a certain person because generally speaking in an toxic relationship more than one person notices. Most of the time someone in the relationship realizes it but stays for any matter of reasons. 

 

So you're saying an NPC would comment on the relationship or something?  How should the NPC comment?  What if the NPC is evil, and sees a 'toxic' relationship in progress (which you still haven't defined, but whatever, let's roll with it for the sake of argument), and comments positively?  Would that be problematic?

 

> As for 2. I'd say its crap like the PC acting as the NPCs mother and constantly giving emotional support only for the NPC to turn around and say hilarious things like "Oh I totally forgot your whole family was killed my bad." (assuming it's even brought up which let's face it a lot of the times its not) like the imbalance isn't subtle in games. 

 

That makes no sense at all.

 

> Or having your boss who holds your life in the palm of their hand maybe acknowledging how kind of iffy consent is in those scenarios instead of having everyone ignore it as though that makes sense.

 

That sounds hamfisted and unnecessary.

 

What if I get a kick out of being dominated by my boss?  What if I find the concept of a discussion of 'consent' to be really off-putting?  Is that problematic?

 

No they don't. Unless you're blind.

You do realize healthy isn't something I magically made up right? Something that causes you undue amounts of stress is unhealthy. You can argue til the cows come home in the reverse but that doesn't stop it from being unhealthy for you. Whether you find it worth it or not is a completely different matter and is up to the individual. (now if you want to argue those relationships *don't* cause stress then we get into the unrealistic portrayal bit which eh).

 

And again an evil character can acknowledge something without making a value judgement. Hell they could make a positive value judgement on it and again I'd be fine with that. It's acknowledged. It's not something that's swept under the rug or ignored. Also who cares if its problematic. You seem to think I'm making a moral judgement. I'm not. I love villain romances. I actually do like abusive romances when the abusive is acknowledged they paint a very beautiful picture of how flawed people are I actually prefer those kind of romances that have two broken people doing the best they can over some overly clean fairly tell nonsense. But those romances acknowledge both characters flaws, how they negatively and positively effect each other. It's not ignored.

 

Like you seem to have this weird impression that I don't want anything other than a perfectly healthy relationship and anything else has an asterisk. That's not the case I just want those unhealthy relationships to have depth Is someone overly codependent? Acknowledge that. Is someone physically aggressive? Acknowledge that. Does someone have severe PTSD that needs to be worked around in the relationship? Don't give them a magical cure and have it ignored in the romance. Has the main PC had his/her soul ripped out? Don't have the entire romance track about the LI's daddy issues or at the least don't do it without acknowledging how the PC is the giving all the emotional support and getting jack all in comparison.

 

BDSM and having your life in someone else's hand are not the same thing. Role play isn't the same as being told to go on the front lines and get shot at. If there's a choice between your LI or leaving someone else to die I'd expect the PC to be called out for bias by the rest of the cast for saving their LI regardless of why the choice was made. (I'd also expect them to get raked over the coals for not choosing their LIs in a non right solution outcome )Also if you find the concept of discussion of consent to be really off-putting well to be frank don't do it then. No one's forcing you to? As for problematic I really don't care? Like why are even discussing problematic? My issue is people pretending issues aren't there which for me is an issue. When did I say something was problematic? When I said not okay I was referring to pretending the relationship didn't have issues and that'd actually a healthy relationship too. It's just more overt with something toxic.

 

 

> No they don't. Unless you're blind.

 

I'm not blind.  And I'm not the only one that thinks this.

 

> Something that causes you undue amounts of stress is unhealthy. 

 

I see.

 

Should we have less stories like Wuthering Heights then?  The relationships portrayed in that book are extremely stressful.

 

> Hell they could make a positive value judgement on it and again I'd be fine with that.

 

But you're contradicting yourself now.  You said:

 

> It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship

 

But now you're saying that it's ok for an NPC to say that this unhealthy relationship is fine.

 

So which is it: should games be allowed to pretend that unhealthy relationships are healthy, or should they stop pretending that unhealthy relationships are healthy?

 

> Like you seem to have this weird impression that I don't want anything other than a perfectly healthy relationship and anything else has an asterisk. 

 

If you want relationships to be more nuanced that's one thing, I can agree with that.

 

> BDSM and having your life in someone else's hand are not the same thing. 

 

That's exactly what a lot of BDSM relationships are about, putting your life in someone's hands...

 

> If there's a choice between your LI or leaving someone else to die I'd expect the PC to be called out for bias by the rest of the cast for saving their LI regardless of why the choice was made

 

I don't see what this has to do with the discussion.  Called out or not called out, what difference does it make?  Maybe the other NPCs just don't care?  Maybe they understand the decision?

 

What game are you thinking of specifically where this fails to happen and it seems odd?

 

> Also if you find the concept of discussion of consent to be really off-putting well to be frank don't do it then. No one's forcing you to? 

 

But I can't avoid it if you have what you want, because you're asking for all relationships to feature discussion about consent.

 

Not that I care either way, I find most discussions about consent to be extremely banal but they don't bother me that much.  It would seem odd to me if the person I was romancing suddenly went off on a tangent to discuss the moralities of consent, but I wouldn't get upset over it.

 

> As for problematic I really don't care? Like why are even discussing problematic? 

 

Because you began this discussion by talking about 'toxic' relationships in videogames.

[Yosharian]

Why wouldn't companions comment? In most games with romance they comment anyway. Rather than saying something like "oh I saw you two sneak off last night" with this new system of the chars forming friendships with each other maybe they get protective of your LI, like the two of you are having a conversation, you say something cruel and they interject with, "Hey, you need to knock it off" or "Leave x alone, will you?"

 

 

 

And yeah if a character is evil and they comment positively then that would make sense, but there isn't really any good/evil system anymore. It would have to make more sense with the character, like a racist, an abuse victim who wants to strike back at the world, etc. Perhaps they might congratulate you on being "firm" with your LI or "putting them in their place."

 

 

> Why wouldn't companions comment?

 

That wasn't my point.

 

> Perhaps they might congratulate you on being "firm" with your LI or "putting them in their place."

 

Ryz isn't ok with that.  They already stated that the only time such toxic relationships are ok is if the game acknowledges or admits it in some way.

 

Example:

 

> It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship

Edited May 3, 2018 by Yosharian

[The Sharmat]

I think Ryz explicitly said they were ok with that actually. That would count as an acknowledgement.

[Yosharian]

I think Ryz explicitly said they were ok with that actually. That would count as an acknowledgement.

 

Where have they said that?

[Ryz009]

> No they don't. Unless you're blind.

 

I'm not blind.  And I'm not the only one that thinks this.

 

> Something that causes you undue amounts of stress is unhealthy. 

 

I see.

 

Should we have less stories like Wuthering Heights then?  The relationships portrayed in that book are extremely stressful.

 

> Hell they could make a positive value judgement on it and again I'd be fine with that.

 

But you're contradicting yourself now.  You said:

 

> It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship

 

But now you're saying that it's ok for an NPC to say that this unhealthy relationship is fine.

 

So which is it: should games be allowed to pretend that unhealthy relationships are healthy, or should they stop pretending that unhealthy relationships are healthy?

 

> Like you seem to have this weird impression that I don't want anything other than a perfectly healthy relationship and anything else has an asterisk. 

 

If you want relationships to be more nuanced that's one thing, I can agree with that.

 

> BDSM and having your life in someone else's hand are not the same thing. 

 

That's exactly what a lot of BDSM relationships are about, putting your life in someone's hands...

 

> If there's a choice between your LI or leaving someone else to die I'd expect the PC to be called out for bias by the rest of the cast for saving their LI regardless of why the choice was made

 

I don't see what this has to do with the discussion.  Called out or not called out, what difference does it make?  Maybe the other NPCs just don't care?  Maybe they understand the decision?

 

What game are you thinking of specifically where this fails to happen and it seems odd?

 

> Also if you find the concept of discussion of consent to be really off-putting well to be frank don't do it then. No one's forcing you to? 

 

But I can't avoid it if you have what you want, because you're asking for all relationships to feature discussion about consent.

 

Not that I care either way, I find most discussions about consent to be extremely banal but they don't bother me that much.  It would seem odd to me if the person I was romancing suddenly went off on a tangent to discuss the moralities of consent, but I wouldn't get upset over it.

 

> As for problematic I really don't care? Like why are even discussing problematic? 

 

Because you began this discussion by talking about 'toxic' relationships in videogames.

 

More than one person thinks the earth is flat. Saying someone else thinks something doesn't make it accurate.

 

Again you seem to be equalizing me wanting acknowledgement with me wanting something not to exist. They're not same thing. Also you think Wuthering Heights portrayed its relationships as though nothing were wrong with them? LOL

 

Again you seem to be equalizing acknowledgement with not wanting something to exist. An antagonist making a positive moral judgement on something isn't portraying it in a positive light. Or ignoring its flaws. That's why an antagonist would be supportive of it. Meanwhile if a protagonist supports something negative it's treated as a character flaw. Also a character can be positive towards something that's not positive. Plenty of people support things that they shouldn't. That's not a contradiction there's a difference in what an NPC does/says with how the game portrays an action. And for the most part most of those games don't even portray those flaws as positives they're just ignored completely.

 

I.E. if a protagonist is usually pretty good but is sexist and has a very go back to the kitchen attitude. Someone acknowledging he's pretty sexist is just that. Doesn't mean he has to magically change his ways or get punished for it. It's just acknowledged that he's sexist. From there you can have him interact with certain characters in a certain way and so on. The same treatment isn't often given to romances however. Say he's still sexist the romance will ignore this and go on as though he's not. That's my main issue. Even if his female LI approves of such behaviors they won't be remarked upon they cause no conflict and essentially are completely glossed over.

 

BDSMs are consensual relationships that revolve around you giving someone control yes. In controlled settings. They don't revolve around you literally allowing someone to put you in actual danger as in on a battlefield.

 

Why would they not care about their commander making decisions based off who he/she is sleeping with in matters of life or death? If someone didn't care they'd be the minority at best.

 

When did I say that? Why do you *constantly* put words in my mouth I did not say. I said nothing about all relationships feature discussions about consent. I said sometimes in the scenario of a boss sleeping with an employee who's life they hold in their hands it could be brought up. That's a very specific scenario and is nowhere near all relationships.

 

Why are assuming this would be some tangent and not a discussion that the player is involved in?

 

I began the discussion talking about toxic relationships in videogames being unacknowledged as such. You seem not to get that difference.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Ryz009

[Ryz009]

 

I think Ryz explicitly said they were ok with that actually. That would count as an acknowledgement.

 

Where have they said that?

 

 

Several times actually. But you insist on fighting this argument that I don't want any relationship that's not healthy for some reason unless you get some moralizing "this is bad and this is why" tangent apparently.

[Yosharian]

 

 

I think Ryz explicitly said they were ok with that actually. That would count as an acknowledgement.

 

Where have they said that?

 

 

Several times actually. But you insist on fighting this argument that I don't want any relationship that's not healthy for some reason unless you get some moralizing "this is bad and this is why" tangent apparently.

 

 

Provide the quote.  It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself.

[Ryz009]

I'm pretty sure Sion was supposed to skeeve you out. He's a sick puppy. But understandable, not everyone wants to be skeeved out by fiction.

 

I want rivalries and intra-party conflict more than anything from the relationship system, personally.

 

Actually I was more skeeved out by his looks lol. That face is only something a mother could love. Atton is pretty cray cray too but I'm fine with him

 

Oh god yes.

 

 

 

 

I think Ryz explicitly said they were ok with that actually. That would count as an acknowledgement.

 

Where have they said that?

 

 

Several times actually. But you insist on fighting this argument that I don't want any relationship that's not healthy for some reason unless you get some moralizing "this is bad and this is why" tangent apparently.

 

 

Provide the quote.  It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself.

 

 

You're kidding right? I wrote that same thing in pretty much every post. Do you know what acknowledgement means?

 

Meanwhile you say I feel characters should go on tangents about consent in every relationship (which doesn't even begin to make any sense).

Edited May 3, 2018 by Ryz009

[Yosharian]

 

> No they don't. Unless you're blind.

 

I'm not blind.  And I'm not the only one that thinks this.

 

> Something that causes you undue amounts of stress is unhealthy. 

 

I see.

 

Should we have less stories like Wuthering Heights then?  The relationships portrayed in that book are extremely stressful.

 

> Hell they could make a positive value judgement on it and again I'd be fine with that.

 

But you're contradicting yourself now.  You said:

 

> It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship

 

But now you're saying that it's ok for an NPC to say that this unhealthy relationship is fine.

 

So which is it: should games be allowed to pretend that unhealthy relationships are healthy, or should they stop pretending that unhealthy relationships are healthy?

 

> Like you seem to have this weird impression that I don't want anything other than a perfectly healthy relationship and anything else has an asterisk. 

 

If you want relationships to be more nuanced that's one thing, I can agree with that.

 

> BDSM and having your life in someone else's hand are not the same thing. 

 

That's exactly what a lot of BDSM relationships are about, putting your life in someone's hands...

 

> If there's a choice between your LI or leaving someone else to die I'd expect the PC to be called out for bias by the rest of the cast for saving their LI regardless of why the choice was made

 

I don't see what this has to do with the discussion.  Called out or not called out, what difference does it make?  Maybe the other NPCs just don't care?  Maybe they understand the decision?

 

What game are you thinking of specifically where this fails to happen and it seems odd?

 

> Also if you find the concept of discussion of consent to be really off-putting well to be frank don't do it then. No one's forcing you to? 

 

But I can't avoid it if you have what you want, because you're asking for all relationships to feature discussion about consent.

 

Not that I care either way, I find most discussions about consent to be extremely banal but they don't bother me that much.  It would seem odd to me if the person I was romancing suddenly went off on a tangent to discuss the moralities of consent, but I wouldn't get upset over it.

 

> As for problematic I really don't care? Like why are even discussing problematic? 

 

Because you began this discussion by talking about 'toxic' relationships in videogames.

 

More than one person thinks the earth is flat. Saying someone else thinks something doesn't make it accurate.

 

Again you seem to be equalizing me wanting acknowledgement with me wanting something not to exist. They're not same thing. Also you think Wuthering Heights portrayed its relationships as though nothing were wrong with them? LOL

 

Again you seem to be equalizing acknowledgement with not wanting something to exist. An antagonist making a positive moral judgement on something isn't portraying it in a positive light. Or ignoring its flaws. That's why an antagonist would be supportive of it. Meanwhile if a protagonist supports something negative it's treated as a character flaw. Also a character can be positive towards something that's not positive. Plenty of people support things that they shouldn't. That's not a contradiction there's a difference in what an NPC does/says with how the game portrays an action. And for the most part most of those games don't even portray those flaws as positives they're just ignored completely.

 

I.E. if a protagonist is usually pretty good but is sexist and has a very go back to the kitchen attitude. Someone acknowledging he's pretty sexist is just that. Doesn't mean he has to magically change his ways or get punished for it. It's just acknowledged that he's sexist. From there you can have him interact with certain characters in a certain way and so on. The same treatment isn't often given to romances however. Say he's still sexist the romance will ignore this and go on as though he's not. That's my main issue. Even if his female LI approves of such behaviors they won't be remarked upon they cause no conflict and essentially are completely glossed over.

 

BDSMs are consensual relationships that revolve around you giving someone control yes. In controlled settings. They don't revolve around you literally allowing someone to put you in actual danger as in on a battlefield.

 

Why would they not care about their commander making decisions based off who he/she is sleeping with in matters of life or death? If someone didn't care they'd be the minority at best.

 

When did I say that? Why do you *constantly* put words in my mouth I did not say. I said nothing about all relationships feature discussions about consent. I said sometimes in the scenario of a boss sleeping with an employee who's life they hold in their hands it could be brought up. That's a very specific scenario and is nowhere near all relationships.

 

Why are assuming this would be some tangent and not a discussion that the player is involved in?

 

I began the discussion talking about toxic relationships in videogames being unacknowledged as such. You seem not to get that difference.

 

 

> More than one person thinks the earth is flat.

 

This isn't a good comparison.

 

> Saying someone else thinks something doesn't make it accurate.

 

True, but there are standards of beauty that exist because most people find them attractive.  Look at supermodels, for example.

 

No way in hell could Josephine be a model.

 

> An antagonist making a positive moral judgement on something isn't portraying it in a positive light

 

If something 'toxic' is occurring within a game, and all the other characters say it's a good thing, then of course that portrays it in a positive light.

 

You're demanding that other characters make moral judgements on negative things that are occurring within a game.  Otherwise, for example, the game risks portraying toxic relationships without acknowledging that they are toxic.  I'm saying that artists should be free to create whatever they want within a game, without these arbitrary demands being placed on them.

 

> Someone acknowledging he's pretty sexist is just that.

 

No such acknowledgement needs to take place.  That's my point.  You're demanding that it should take place.  I'm saying F that.

 

Not least because one's definition of what is 'sexist' can differ greatly when compared to another's.

 

> Say he's still sexist the romance will ignore this and go on as though he's not. That's my main issue. Even if his female LI approves of such behaviors they won't be remarked upon they cause no conflict and essentially are completely glossed over.

 

But what if nobody else thinks its sexist except you?  What if you're the minority?  Why should all games cater to your specific views?

 

> Why would they not care about their commander making decisions based off who he/she is sleeping with in matters of life or death?

 

That wasn't my point, but most games don't fail to address this at all.

 

>  I said sometimes in the scenario of a boss sleeping with an employee who's life they hold in their hands it could be brought up.

 

Ah 'it could be brought up'.

 

But originally you said:

 

> That said I'm fine with romances as long as they feel like an actual partnership and not the PC bribing the LI into boning them. Those relationships end up feeling toxic as hell but no one admitting how toxic they are (which again I have no issue with toxic relationships but there needs to be some acknowledgement and those romances just pretend that's health and okay when it's really not) which skives me out.

 

I.E. you're not OK with relationships where consent isn't brought up.  There needs to be some acknowledgement, you're not fine with them.

 

'it could be brought up' isn't the same as 'I'm not ok with relationships where consent isn't brought up'.

 

> I began the discussion talking about toxic relationships in videogames being unacknowledged as such. 

 

And I'm saying that there is no such need for them to be acknowledged.

 

The massive problem with videogames these days is this absurd need to lecture players on what is and isn't acceptable.  Oh let's discuss consent in our latest videogame romance!  That'll be fun!

[Ryz009]

I have to stop at the Josephine bit.

 

There's a is a wide wide wide wide wide wide field of attractiveness between Super model and as you said "car crash victim." Someone not looking like a super model does not make them ugly. Hell it doesn't even mean they're not really attractive!

 

Like that's not a discussion.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Ryz009

[Yosharian]

I have to stop at the Josephine bit.

 

There's a is a wide wide wide wide wide wide field of attractiveness between Super model and as you said "car crash victim." Someone not looking like a super model does not make them ugly. Hell it doesn't even mean they're not really attractive!

 

Like that's not a discussion.

 

Yeah and Josephine is on the far side of the spectrum along with people who have to wear paper bags over their heads in public

[Ryz009]

> More than one person thinks the earth is flat.

 

This isn't a good comparison.

 

> Saying someone else thinks something doesn't make it accurate.

 

True, but there are standards of beauty that exist because most people find them attractive.  Look at supermodels, for example.

 

No way in hell could Josephine be a model.

 

> An antagonist making a positive moral judgement on something isn't portraying it in a positive light

 

If something 'toxic' is occurring within a game, and all the other characters say it's a good thing, then of course that portrays it in a positive light.

 

You're demanding that other characters make moral judgements on negative things that are occurring within a game.  Otherwise, for example, the game risks portraying toxic relationships without acknowledging that they are toxic.  I'm saying that artists should be free to create whatever they want within a game, without these arbitrary demands being placed on them.

 

> Someone acknowledging he's pretty sexist is just that.

 

No such acknowledgement needs to take place.  That's my point.  You're demanding that it should take place.  I'm saying F that.

 

Not least because one's definition of what is 'sexist' can differ greatly when compared to another's.

 

> Say he's still sexist the romance will ignore this and go on as though he's not. That's my main issue. Even if his female LI approves of such behaviors they won't be remarked upon they cause no conflict and essentially are completely glossed over.

 

But what if nobody else thinks its sexist except you?  What if you're the minority?  Why should all games cater to your specific views?

 

> Why would they not care about their commander making decisions based off who he/she is sleeping with in matters of life or death?

 

That wasn't my point, but most games don't fail to address this at all.

 

>  I said sometimes in the scenario of a boss sleeping with an employee who's life they hold in their hands it could be brought up.

 

Ah 'it could be brought up'.

 

But originally you said:

 

> That said I'm fine with romances as long as they feel like an actual partnership and not the PC bribing the LI into boning them. Those relationships end up feeling toxic as hell but no one admitting how toxic they are (which again I have no issue with toxic relationships but there needs to be some acknowledgement and those romances just pretend that's health and okay when it's really not) which skives me out.

 

I.E. you're not OK with relationships where consent isn't brought up.  There needs to be some acknowledgement, you're not fine with them.

 

'it could be brought up' isn't the same as 'I'm not ok with relationships where consent isn't brought up'.

 

> I began the discussion talking about toxic relationships in videogames being unacknowledged as such. 

 

And I'm saying that there is no such need for them to be acknowledged.

 

The massive problem with videogames these days is this absurd need to lecture players on what is and isn't acceptable.  Oh let's discuss consent in our latest videogame romance!  That'll be fun!

 

 

It is though. Just because one person says something doesn't mean its true I could say the color blue is red that also isn't true. There are very few people that are actually ugly and most of them have deformities or hygiene issues.

 

If your argument is that you don't agree that it needs to be acknowledged then that's it. There's nothing to discuss because we're not even remotely on the same page. And you seeing acknowledging something as a lecture is *shrug*

 

The quote you tried to use as proof of my consent thing had *nothing* to do with consent anyway. The one that did have to do with consent is regarding the boss scenario full stop. That's where my consent even came into play.  Otherwise I wanted acknowledgement that something was toxic instead of trying to pretend what caused the toxicity was non existent. That has nothing to do with me wanting a tangent as you say about consent in every relationship. Like you're putting words in my mouth again. Pretending its healthy and everything was referring to actual issues being brushed under the rug and ignored. I.E giving all the emotional support in a relationship but not once is this even acknowledged in the slightest bit. It instead pretends the relationship is of equal give and take which is laughable because its not.

 

No well written relationship ignores its flaws. Does that mean it screams that its flaws are bad and the characters should feel bad? And overly moralizes like the Mockingjay (still irritated at that third book) No. It gives you a flawed relationship, with flawed people, who know they're flawed and doesn't brush it under the rug and ignore them.

 

 

I have to stop at the Josephine bit.

 

There's a is a wide wide wide wide wide wide field of attractiveness between Super model and as you said "car crash victim." Someone not looking like a super model does not make them ugly. Hell it doesn't even mean they're not really attractive!

 

Like that's not a discussion.

 

Yeah and Josephine is on the far side of the spectrum along with people who have to wear paper bags over their heads in public

 

 

lmao You really need to get your eyes examined. Cause they clearly aren't working.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Ryz009

[Amentep]

 

Cassandra isn't funny? She is probably one of the funniest character in the entire game. 

 

 

Hilarious.

 

 

I think you mean GLORIOUS!cailan>

 

 

 

I'm fine with a defined sexuality or player-sexual. My main concern is the relationship itself not being shallow.

 

I personally prefer 2 bi companions because romances can be resource intensive and I'd rather get more quests and such than 6 different LIs but that's a take it or leave it scenario.

 

My problem with player sexual companions is that it means the character has no real character of their own; their personality and interests are sublimated to those of the PC. I'd rather a bisexual companion be bisexual because that's who they are, not because the player wants to sexxor them and happens to be one gender or another. That to my mind is treating the relationship as a reward to the player rather than a character based story arc that the player and the NPC are both a part of. YMMV, but I think it should be okay for the NPC to reject the player, and for the player to pursue a romantic relationship that is ill-advised (and will end badly).  The reward is the alternate character based content, not sex at the end of a dialogue string.

[evilcat]

@playersexualcompanions

On the other side i could imagine horror game, where in prologue player is asked about fears, and then game change itself to be more scarry for that player. So we dont discover already defined game world but we focus on experiencing the story.

Other example is that in prologue we are asked about friend from the pass, and can decide some details about him. Changing him (or her).

 

We can change perspective that we it is not about world, but player story.

[tinysalamander]

My problem with player sexual companions is that it means the character has no real character of their own…

Well… http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SingleTargetSexuality

[Amentep]

@playersexualcompanions

On the other side i could imagine horror game, where in prologue player is asked about fears, and then game change itself to be more scarry for that player. So we dont discover already defined game world but we focus on experiencing the story.

Other example is that in prologue we are asked about friend from the pass, and can decide some details about him. Changing him (or her).

 

We can change perspective that we it is not about world, but player story.

 

That might be fine for a game where the player - not necessarily the character - is intended to be scared (say a 1st person VR game).  If the intention of the game narrative is to scare the character in the game, then the game should address the fears of the character (like in Silent Hill 2 where Pyramid Head is a specific reaction IIRC to the main character, not the player).

 

 

 

My problem with player sexual companions is that it means the character has no real character of their own…

Well… http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SingleTargetSexuality

 

 

The problem with that as a comparison, IMO - and its a good point to make - is that isn't how its payed out in games (ie a soulmate kind of thing where the attraction is between to people regardless of anything else).  For example if NPC A and B were Single-Target Sexuality (thus appearing to the player to be player sexual), they should either come into conflict (because they both want the same thing) or they should agree to share a relationship (which, kind of happens I guess in the Jade Empire threesome, sorta).  But generally the game treats the players choice as an on-off switch for the NPC - ie they love the player if the Player wants them to and if the Player doesn't then they express no real romantic interest in the player beyond the first flirting to relationship decision point.  They can even express interest / pursue romances with other NPCs if they're not picked by the player, violating the single-target sexuality idea.

 

But I guess if a player sexual character was to work, it'd be as a single-target sexuality.