Player sexual companion

[injurai]

I don't think they grow leafs that big in Eora...

[Gromnir]

So what's the verdict?

cowboy fans are still more annoying than patriots fans or packers fans, but you could starve on the difference.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[HooAmEye]

I don't think they grow leafs that big in Eora...

 

The sail isn't just for the boat

[Dopsim]

Well it will be really nice if my PC unresolved love for Aloth or Pallegina could be acknowledge in game... 
Really romance a fine as long as it is not Dragon Age  style of romance.  As in not "sex-slot machine"

[Oedii]

I think it would be nice if developers simply included an option to "opt out" or "turn off" romance systems altogether within their games..or perhaps certain types of romance within the systems.

 

This would also allow games to be more family-friendly, allowing patrons to screen the content for their children to play.

[Wormerine]

I think it would be nice if developers simply included an option to "opt out" or "turn off" romance systems altogether within their games..or perhaps certain types of romance within the systems.

 

This would also allow games to be more family-friendly, allowing patrons to screen the content for their children to play.

Family-friendly? Dude, it’s Pillars where babies get born without souls, rulers hang their parents for it and you can sacrifice your companion to a bloodpool. There is nothing family friendly about Pillars.

[CottonWolf]

I think it would be nice if developers simply included an option to "opt out" or "turn off" romance systems altogether within their games..or perhaps certain types of romance within the systems.

 

This would also allow games to be more family-friendly, allowing patrons to screen the content for their children to play.

 

I'm not sure this argument makes any sense. It's not porn. And the "sexual content" in games is probably far less problematic to expose children to than the mass murder, rampant swearing and racism.

Edited March 10, 2018 by CottonWolf

[algroth]

I think it would be nice if developers simply included an option to "opt out" or "turn off" romance systems altogether within their games..or perhaps certain types of romance within the systems.

 

This would also allow games to be more family-friendly, allowing patrons to screen the content for their children to play.

 

Well, the "opt out" option is always available by merely telling the romantic option that you're not interested - far as I'm aware the games in this line have always made romance a player choice so I don't know why it'd change now.

 

Secondly though, and what I would say genuinely baffles me about your post, is why you consider a game like this, or any other game for that matter, would be more "family-friendly" without romance, as if it's romance that's the crux of the matter and not violence, swearing, themes and so on. Nevermind that the sheer reading level of the game along with complex RPG machanics already make it a pretty inaccessible game for younger audiences. Now, *sex* I can (kind of) understand, but romance =/= sex, and if this game is to approach romance like the IE games did then nothing at all graphic will be shown. But romance has been the core appeal to many a family-friendly story - heck, hard to find examples of Disney films and franchises that don't include one in some fashion or other.

Edited March 10, 2018 by algroth

[Andraste]

I am also confused about why anyone would dig up a thread that was lasted posted to in August in order to suggest this.

 

Of course, necromancy is just one of the many things that make PoE unsuitable for kids.

[Senenleigh]

From what I understand there will be companions that are exclusive to heterosexual relationships and companions that are interested in homosexual relationships, also some that are interested in both.. Josh Tweeted on a question relating to romances in Deadfire: "Among our companions, we have men who are attracted to men and women who are attracted to women.  Are they the characters you want to have relationships with?  I can’t know that.  Even if every companion we made were pansexual, you might still not find someone you want a relationship with".

Edited March 10, 2018 by Senenleigh

[Salinger]

And the "sexual content" in games is probably far less problematic to expose children to than the mass murder, rampant swearing and racism.

But there is no racism in Pillars: all human subraces are equal, dwarfs and elves are respected too. There is prejudice to godlikes, but it more like aversion to сongenital malformation, not a thing to pride, but absolutely understandable. As for orlans, dislike of animals don't make you a bad person.

[Oedii]

 

I think it would be nice if developers simply included an option to "opt out" or "turn off" romance systems altogether within their games..or perhaps certain types of romance within the systems.

 

This would also allow games to be more family-friendly, allowing patrons to screen the content for their children to play.

 

I'm not sure this argument makes any sense. It's not porn. And the "sexual content" in games is probably far less problematic to expose children to than the mass murder, rampant swearing and racism.

 

 

 

I think it would be nice if developers simply included an option to "opt out" or "turn off" romance systems altogether within their games..or perhaps certain types of romance within the systems.

 

This would also allow games to be more family-friendly, allowing patrons to screen the content for their children to play.

 

Well, the "opt out" option is always available by merely telling the romantic option that you're not interested - far as I'm aware the games in this line have always made romance a player choice so I don't know why it'd change now.

 

Secondly though, and what I would say genuinely baffles me about your post, is why you consider a game like this, or any other game for that matter, would be more "family-friendly" without romance, as if it's romance that's the crux of the matter and not violence, swearing, themes and so on. Nevermind that the sheer reading level of the game along with complex RPG machanics already make it a pretty inaccessible game for younger audiences. Now, *sex* I can (kind of) understand, but romance =/= sex, and if this game is to approach romance like the IE games did then nothing at all graphic will be shown. But romance has been the core appeal to many a family-friendly story - heck, hard to find examples of Disney films and franchises that don't include one in some fashion or other.

 

Hi:)

 

Yes, the player can always opt out of romantic relationships with npcs.  But can you opt out of even the possibility of romantic interaction?  That's what I had in mind. I think it would be a great player option.  It would be a means of turning off sexual situations (even such things as flirting) for both personal and parental considerations--because, honestly, how often in games do we find romance without sexual connotation/innuendo/suggestion?  Now, of course, additional filters (language, gore, for example) would also be nice, but it's the romantic and sexual content that I believe, in general, has the greater potential to be offensive to people.

 

Personally, I do not have a problem with genuine romance.  I think it's a wonderful thing in the real world...but, I have rarely, if ever, seen romance in games done well.  I honestly find it shocking sometimes what developers implement into their games and call "romance."  I'm not here to bash, though.  I'm only here to offer a suggestion that I think might make a good game even better.

[the_dog_days]

I am also confused about why anyone would dig up a thread that was lasted posted to in August in order to suggest this.

 

Of course, necromancy is just one of the many things that make PoE unsuitable for kids.

 

First ten seconds sums up this thread.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxiMX7nxr3Y

[SonicMage117]

Lmao Strange how the most hated threads on this forum are always the ones that live on most. The undying thread is never the OP's fault for making but it's still funny as heck!

[huang]

dislike of animals don't make you a bad person.

 

 

Debatable. :D

[Yosharian]

sorry if I am starting a controversial topic. my idea is not to get a flame war started, but I am interested in knowing what is obsidian position to companion sexuality. I would personally like if it was independent of. the player's choice in character. that is a companion will be attracted to a given gender and race regardless of who the player choose as a main character.

 

also I've notice that many of the female companions are not really conventionally atractive. pallegina being the exception, but with a very unattractive personality. perhaps a more conventionally attractive female character would be aappropriate for our mostly male player base.

 

[Chairchucker]

dislike of animals don't make you a bad person.

You have lost reputation with Eder: Major.

[ShadySands]

dislike of animals don't make you a bad person.

Yes, yes it does.

[Salinger]

You have lost reputation with Eder: Major.

Why? Not all animals equally good. Some are cute, some are tasty. But also there is snakes, frogs, rats, hyenas and possums. And as far I remember, Eder himself not a big fan of orlans.

[algroth]

 

You have lost reputation with Eder: Major.

Why? Not all animals equally good. Some are cute, some are tasty. But also there is snakes, frogs, rats, hyenas and possums. And as far I remember, Eder himself not a big fan of orlans.

 

What? He's okay with orlans. He wanted to pet Hiravias! :D

[Salinger]

What? He's okay with orlans. He wanted to pet Hiravias! :D

My bad, that was Durance. Well, in that case, I'll let Eder have one or two as pets and we'll be ok. I only ask keep that wild nasty monkeys in distance from me.

[Beyond The Sea]

From what I understand there will be companions that are exclusive to heterosexual relationships and companions that are interested in homosexual relationships, also some that are interested in both.. Josh Tweeted on a question relating to romances in Deadfire: "Among our companions, we have men who are attracted to men and women who are attracted to women.  Are they the characters you want to have relationships with?  I can’t know that.  Even if every companion we made were pansexual, you might still not find someone you want a relationship with".[/size]

All he wrote is that there will be companions interested in same-sex romantic relationships.

 

Everything else Sawyer talks about is ideal situations. Previously he wrote about how there should be multiple gay characters so the burden of representation doesn't rest on one individual. A single character cannot represent all gay men. Presumably this is why New Vegas had a few different gay characters.

He explicitly states that he didn't make any calls but let the character writers themselves decide.

 

Beyond the confirmation of same-sex romance everything is speculation. There may be bisexual and heterosexual but no homosexual companions. There still may be no heterosexual or homosexual companions with all of them being bisexual.

[Alexandra Moon]

 

You have lost reputation with Eder: Major.

Why? Not all animals equally good. Some are cute, some are tasty. But also there is snakes, frogs, rats, hyenas and possums. And as far I remember, Eder himself not a big fan of orlans.

 

 

Who are you to say Rats and Hyenas aren't cute?

[Tarlonniel]

I dislike player-sexual companions for many reasons, but, since I'm a freak who creates each new protagonist with a definite idea of how I want their story to go, there's one major advantage to the system I can't ignore: all options are open. I'm not restricted to creating X if I want them to romance Y. On the other hand, such restrictions usually serve to make the story/characters better, not worse, so... arrgh.

[SonicMage117]

Obsidian the new Bioware with modern sjw/liberal inserts?

 

Say it aint so!

 

 

 

Either way I really don't care as long as it's not half-arsed like Obsidian's (meaning the writers from Obsidian) past romance work which was *if we're being honest* kinda worse than Bioware's. I have faith that they'll do well but only time will tell. Anyone can say "It will be good because Obsidian has better writers than most of today's writers in the industry" but the proof will be in the pudding... so let's not get ahead of ourselves.

 

What I take away from it is that they want to please every type of demographic instead of working against them. This will likely open up the game's playability for all types of people. However, to contradict that, it WILL anger some people so it's not really to appeal for all types of people, is it?

 

What would be nice is to have an option to turn off same-sex attraction for those of us who are not so fond of it - but the defensive will argue "One can not simply turn off people from being attracted to the same sex in real life so why have that unrealism?" to which the thoughtful person replies "It's a game and as a game should respect people of all demographics equally". since one cannot simply avoid running into a same sex attracted npc if they are an integral part of the story.

 

Simply, it's good to be mature and reasonable about what resources fo where and where attention to detail is most crucial.

 

 

 

Very nice and interesting thread. I can see why it's so popular and why it has struck so many nerves - the title alone was enough to anger people as this is an Obsidian forum and romances were never one of Obsidian's strong suits.