Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

Moving away from specific characters, because I seem to not be able to get across my point well that way, If NPC A likes NPC B because she's a free spirit, then liking the PC because he has expressed free-spiritedness can work.  Liking the PC because he helped free NPC A from slavery also works if you're going for the relationship blooming from that start.

 

It doesn't work as much if the PC is a slaver and NPC A ignores it; it violates the established NPC A liking free-spiritedness and it also violates the idea of the NPC falling for the PC for freeing them from bondage.  At that point NPC A isn't a character anymore because whatever has been established about NPC A is thrown aside in favor of having the player get the relationship dialogue from NPC A simply because the player wants it.

 

That's actually good and I think I can understand this. But now I would like to know in which way does this apply to Fenris?

 

It's been quite a long while since I last played Dragon Age 2. If Hawke is really pro slavery and Fenris falls for him nevertheless, then yes I would see your point.

 

 

It doesn't apply to Fenris, I was trying to make a general example using characters that existed and the analogy went splat like trying to toss pizza dough does when you're trying to toss pizza dough the first time.

 

So to sum up, I was trying to talk in general terms, not about Fenris-Isabela-Hawke specifically as they existed in DA2.  And I'm crap at explaining things.

 

But that's not really how attraction works though? I'm willing to stake my life on you being able to point to 3 people that are pretty different that you're currently attracted to. Most people's types aren't that structured. Now there's deal breakers (If you're a dog person someone who hates dogs is just no) of course but when it comes to who you're attracted to a lot of people have a good selection. Being rigid in who you're attracted to is a good way to end up with few to no options. Of course this doesn't mean you're going to throw yourself at anyone who even smiles at you. And I get your someone who's pro freedom would drop someone who's pro-slavery (of course there's context in which this would work like with Fenris or Anders but for the most part you should get dumped like a hot potato and they should attempt to attack you or leave the party). (Also for this we're ignoring that the PC often has set attributes that all versions of the PC meet. Even a custom character often has a predefined base to work with) and I do support that.

 

Deal breakers I get. Saying someone's not a free spirit therefore someone wouldn't be attracted to them is kind of miss for me though. Just because you like something about a partner doesn't mean you require it on all your partners. For the most part the things they have to have in common are usually solved through things like approval/disapproval. (provided the game doesn't allow you to bribe them with gifts).

 

So my analogy is more about relationships being a two way street.  I may be attracted to A, B, and C.  But A is attracted to 1 and 2, B is attracted to 3 & 4, and C is attracted to 5 and me.  Then the only possible relationship I'm getting at that time at least and maybe if things work out, is with C.

 

But with video games, if the PC is attracted to A, B, and C then A, B, and C rarely have a choice as whether they are attracted to the PC from a character standpoint outside some rather broad gatekeepers (gender and race, sometimes).  They lack definition in that part of their character that can create a rather large disconnect between who they say they are on the page and how they actually act.

 

Let me use this as another example.  PC has begun a romance with NPC42.  NPC42 keeps dying in combat and has to be resurrected (or gets knocked out and awakened after combat depending on your system).  Why is NPC42 still following the PC, much less in a romance with them?  Currently the way romances are handled NPC42 would never break the romance off because the PC kept putting them in vulnerable, unprotected positions in combat.  But shouldn't they?

 

 

Eh the PC usually has attributes that are attractive to them by default though. It's not like the PC is some shapeless blob.

 

I don't see it. For the most part that's solved by an approval system without gifts. You'd have to do things they agree with and see as attractive for them to even want to romance your PC.

 

Oh god no. I'd never be able to romance Aloth. Don't do to me.  He keeps dying because he's squishtastic and his AI is dumb that's not my fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, that's just an example.  I don't mind that one specifically  (since you'd have people reloading every battle to protect their character - if it was a breakable moment it'd need to be an extremely high number to cause more than an expression of concern over the situation with a lot of ways to mitigate/reset the counter), but its an example of how the NPC-PC relationship is ironclad unless the PC decides to end it (kicking them out of the party, picking dialogue to end the relationship) or its an element of the plot ("oh noes, my romance was with the villain the entire time!" *choke*).  It - to me - makes the characters less like characters and just an extension of the players will.1
 

And its one, I think, that could address a lot of why people feel dissatisfied with them and see them as mini-games (say the right dialogue, get a sex scene or fade to black).  A well written NPC could have an equally interesting romance/non-romance path and the NPC could be given a lot of logical reasons to start (or accept) a romance and continue or end it.  Not trivial, but I think if romance is going to move from the current mixed perceptions to something that's an interesting design for the character and for the player to deal with from the perception of their PC, its a necessary step to take.
 
 
1And yes I acknowledge that if the PC is given tactical command directly of the NPC, as in PoE games, they are literally an extension of the players will in combat.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, that's just an example.  I don't mind that one specifically  (since you'd have people reloading every battle to protect their character - if it was a breakable moment it'd need to be an extremely high number to cause more than an expression of concern over the situation with a lot of ways to mitigate/reset the counter), but its an example of how the NPC-PC relationship is ironclad unless the PC decides to end it (kicking them out of the party, picking dialogue to end the relationship) or its an element of the plot ("oh noes, my romance was with the villain the entire time!" *choke*).  It - to me - makes the characters less like characters and just an extension of the players will.1

 

And its one, I think, that could address a lot of why people feel dissatisfied with them and see them as mini-games (say the right dialogue, get a sex scene or fade to black).  A well written NPC could have an equally interesting romance/non-romance path and the NPC could be given a lot of logical reasons to start (or accept) a romance and continue or end it.  Not trivial, but I think if romance is going to move from the current mixed perceptions to something that's an interesting design for the character and for the player to deal with from the perception of their PC, its a necessary step to take.

 

 

1And yes I acknowledge that if the PC is given tactical command directly of the NPC, as in PoE games, they are literally an extension of the players will in combat.

 

true but I think Aloth died like 20 times over my playthrough :p he was very delicate. Not to mention how in every group interaction he ended up with an injury.

 

Oh that's true. It's just in my experience you usually end up with that costing resources from somewhere else and I'm not a big fan of that. I rather keep it simple.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's part of the rationale for those who don't like romances, because they figure create one single path for a relationship and put the resources elsewhere and that as they are they're not worth the resource effort.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But with video games, if the PC is attracted to A, B, and C then A, B, and C rarely have a choice as whether they are attracted to the PC from a character standpoint outside some rather broad gatekeepers (gender and race, sometimes).  They lack definition in that part of their character that can create a rather large disconnect between who they say they are on the page and how they actually act.

 

Let me use this as another example.  PC has begun a romance with NPC42.  NPC42 keeps dying in combat and has to be resurrected (or gets knocked out and awakened after combat depending on your system).  Why is NPC42 still following the PC, much less in a romance with them?  Currently the way romances are handled NPC42 would never break the romance off because the PC kept putting them in vulnerable, unprotected positions in combat.  But shouldn't they?

 

Final Fantasy VII actually kept track of this, for the purposes of a single scene in the game. In theory you could get a different character at the Gold Saucer "date" just because you let Aeris/Tifa get knocked out a ton in combat. It rarely worked that way in practice, but interesting idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's part of the rationale for those who don't like romances, because they figure create one single path for a relationship and put the resources elsewhere and that as they are they're not worth the resource effort.

 

Yeah I think they're worth a little effort because they give some bang for their buck as the saying goes. There's several games I wouldn't have looked twice at but bought because it had a romance in it.

 

Of course there's the too much of a good thing saying :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.

 

Removing quality of writing issues, I think people feel the romance content can take resources away from making the character interesting / responsive if the PC doesn't romance them.  So if the character has 1000 lines of dialogue, but 800 are tied to the romance, it means the non-romance player gets a character with only 200 lines.*

 

*I have no clue how many lines of dialogue characters actually have.

 

 

 

I think that's part of the rationale for those who don't like romances, because they figure create one single path for a relationship and put the resources elsewhere and that as they are they're not worth the resource effort.

 

Yeah I think they're worth a little effort because they give some bang for their buck as the saying goes. There's several games I wouldn't have looked twice at but bought because it had a romance in it.

 

Of course there's the too much of a good thing saying :p

 

 

Since I like characters, I enjoy exploring the relationships between the party (PC-NPC, NPC-NPC, whatever). 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.

 

 

 

What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.

 

Removing quality of writing issues, I think people feel the romance content can take resources away from making the character interesting / responsive if the PC doesn't romance them.  So if the character has 1000 lines of dialogue, but 800 are tied to the romance, it means the non-romance player gets a character with only 200 lines.*

 

*I have no clue how many lines of dialogue characters actually have.

 

 

 

I think that's part of the rationale for those who don't like romances, because they figure create one single path for a relationship and put the resources elsewhere and that as they are they're not worth the resource effort.

 

Yeah I think they're worth a little effort because they give some bang for their buck as the saying goes. There's several games I wouldn't have looked twice at but bought because it had a romance in it.

 

Of course there's the too much of a good thing saying :p

 

 

Since I like characters, I enjoy exploring the relationships between the party (PC-NPC, NPC-NPC, whatever). 

 

Also some games have romances that were pretty in your face. Not mandatory, but very hard to avoid. Which is fair enough, sometimes unwanted come-ons happen in real life, except the way it was written was like some fat nerd walking up to me, shoving an anime body pillow in my face and saying "NOW KISS".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.

 

Removing quality of writing issues, I think people feel the romance content can take resources away from making the character interesting / responsive if the PC doesn't romance them.  So if the character has 1000 lines of dialogue, but 800 are tied to the romance, it means the non-romance player gets a character with only 200 lines.*

 

*I have no clue how many lines of dialogue characters actually have.

 

 

 

I think that's part of the rationale for those who don't like romances, because they figure create one single path for a relationship and put the resources elsewhere and that as they are they're not worth the resource effort.

 

Yeah I think they're worth a little effort because they give some bang for their buck as the saying goes. There's several games I wouldn't have looked twice at but bought because it had a romance in it.

 

Of course there's the too much of a good thing saying :p

 

 

Since I like characters, I enjoy exploring the relationships between the party (PC-NPC, NPC-NPC, whatever). 

 

 

Same. I'm a character focused person. I can suffer through terrible combat and a so so story if I like the character relationships and how they interact with the player.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example where BG2 rules: NPCs can form bonds with other characters irrespective of the PC's actions, or display interests/attractions of their own. (For example, Korgan hitting on Mazzy)

 

The Tiefling guy, Haer'Dalis, becomes interested in Aerie, and if you're romancing her, it tears him up and he ends up leaving, or fighting you or something like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.

 

What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.

Removing quality of writing issues, I think people feel the romance content can take resources away from making the character interesting / responsive if the PC doesn't romance them. So if the character has 1000 lines of dialogue, but 800 are tied to the romance, it means the non-romance player gets a character with only 200 lines.*

 

*I have no clue how many lines of dialogue characters actually have.

 

 

I think that's part of the rationale for those who don't like romances, because they figure create one single path for a relationship and put the resources elsewhere and that as they are they're not worth the resource effort.

Yeah I think they're worth a little effort because they give some bang for their buck as the saying goes. There's several games I wouldn't have looked twice at but bought because it had a romance in it.

 

Of course there's the too much of a good thing saying :p

Since I like characters, I enjoy exploring the relationships between the party (PC-NPC, NPC-NPC, whatever).

Also some games have romances that were pretty in your face. Not mandatory, but very hard to avoid. Which is fair enough, sometimes unwanted come-ons happen in real life, except the way it was written was like some fat nerd walking up to me, shoving an anime body pillow in my face and saying "NOW KISS".

 

> the way it was written was like some fat nerd walking up to me, shoving an anime body pillow in my face and saying "NOW KISS"

 

Cough*MERRILL*cough

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgvCvXunF5E&t=115

Edited by Yosharian
Link to post
Share on other sites

Liara is a pretty good character...in the second game and onwards. She is functionally a completely different person in the first game and, yes, kind of awful nerd bait in how she's written.

 

OH SHEPARD WON'T YOU TEACH ME HOW TO LOVE??? I AM SO NAIVE AND NERDY.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.

 

What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.

Removing quality of writing issues, I think people feel the romance content can take resources away from making the character interesting / responsive if the PC doesn't romance them. So if the character has 1000 lines of dialogue, but 800 are tied to the romance, it means the non-romance player gets a character with only 200 lines.*

 

*I have no clue how many lines of dialogue characters actually have.

 

 

I think that's part of the rationale for those who don't like romances, because they figure create one single path for a relationship and put the resources elsewhere and that as they are they're not worth the resource effort.

Yeah I think they're worth a little effort because they give some bang for their buck as the saying goes. There's several games I wouldn't have looked twice at but bought because it had a romance in it.

 

Of course there's the too much of a good thing saying :p

Since I like characters, I enjoy exploring the relationships between the party (PC-NPC, NPC-NPC, whatever).

Also some games have romances that were pretty in your face. Not mandatory, but very hard to avoid. Which is fair enough, sometimes unwanted come-ons happen in real life, except the way it was written was like some fat nerd walking up to me, shoving an anime body pillow in my face and saying "NOW KISS".

 

> the way it was written was like some fat nerd walking up to me, shoving an anime body pillow in my face and saying "NOW KISS"

 

Cough*MERRILL*cough

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgvCvXunF5E&t=115

 

 

You literally can not trigger Merrill's romance without hitting the obvious flirt option so you brought that on yourself.

 

As in she will not flirt with you whatsoever without that trigger. (Some LIs hit on you without it like Anders and Isabela) Merill however will not flirt with you without a heart trigger. So yeah calling Merrill forced when you hit the obvious romance starter?

 

Unless you mean its just awkward in which case yeah but you brought it on yourself so :p

Edited by Ryz009
Link to post
Share on other sites

Liara is a pretty good character...in the second game and onwards. She is functionally a completely different person in the first game and, yes, kind of awful nerd bait in how she's written.

 

OH SHEPARD WON'T YOU TEACH ME HOW TO LOVE??? I AM SO NAIVE AND NERDY.

 

It really was pure fantasy material wasn't it. But If the ladies got their sparkly emo vampires, then the guys can get their pan-sexual space nymphs amiright?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.

 

What confuses me about the people who dislike companion romances in their games is this, it's optional content. If you don't like romances then you don't have to do them. It doesn't make sense that people feel the need to enforce their ideas of what is fun on everyone else. If you happen to like romances in your games then that is perfectly okay.

Removing quality of writing issues, I think people feel the romance content can take resources away from making the character interesting / responsive if the PC doesn't romance them. So if the character has 1000 lines of dialogue, but 800 are tied to the romance, it means the non-romance player gets a character with only 200 lines.*

 

*I have no clue how many lines of dialogue characters actually have.

 

 

I think that's part of the rationale for those who don't like romances, because they figure create one single path for a relationship and put the resources elsewhere and that as they are they're not worth the resource effort.

Yeah I think they're worth a little effort because they give some bang for their buck as the saying goes. There's several games I wouldn't have looked twice at but bought because it had a romance in it.

 

Of course there's the too much of a good thing saying :p

Since I like characters, I enjoy exploring the relationships between the party (PC-NPC, NPC-NPC, whatever).

Also some games have romances that were pretty in your face. Not mandatory, but very hard to avoid. Which is fair enough, sometimes unwanted come-ons happen in real life, except the way it was written was like some fat nerd walking up to me, shoving an anime body pillow in my face and saying "NOW KISS".

 

> the way it was written was like some fat nerd walking up to me, shoving an anime body pillow in my face and saying "NOW KISS"

 

Cough*MERRILL*cough

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgvCvXunF5E&t=115

 

 

You literally can not trigger Merrill's romance without hitting the obvious flirt option so you brought that on yourself.

 

As in she will not flirt with you whatsoever without that trigger. (Some LIs hit on you without it like Anders and Isabela) Merill however will not flirt with you without a heart trigger. So yeah calling Merrill forced when you hit the obvious romance starter?

 

Unless you mean its just awkward in which case yeah but you brought it on yourself so :p

 

 

I know Sharmat was talking about romance initiations specifically but my comment was more about the quality of the romance writing in general, and especially that scene

 

But yeah, you're right, I brought it on myself, sadly

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Liara is a pretty good character...in the second game and onwards. She is functionally a completely different person in the first game and, yes, kind of awful nerd bait in how she's written.

 

OH SHEPARD WON'T YOU TEACH ME HOW TO LOVE??? I AM SO NAIVE AND NERDY.

 

Oh that's complete nonsense.  Some of the dialogue is a little hammy, but compared to Hawke/Merrill, for example, it's bloody Shakespeare.  And she barely even features in ME2...

 

If anything, Liara leads Shepard on how to 'do' it.  He even says 'just tell me what to do'.  She's not the naive, timid waifu you make her out to be.

 

There's a moment where you can say 'I'll keep you safe' and she slaps Shepard down, saying 'I'm not looking for a protector'.

 

But whatever, it's cool to hate on Liara I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Sharmat was talking about romance initiations specifically but my comment was more about the quality of the romance writing in general, and especially that scene

 

But yeah, you're right, I brought it on myself, sadly

 

 

Ah yeah that scene (elf necks were...something) is a horror show.

 

^_^ see should've romanced Isabela her scene at least is decent :p

 

 

 

 

Liara is a pretty good character...in the second game and onwards. She is functionally a completely different person in the first game and, yes, kind of awful nerd bait in how she's written.

 

OH SHEPARD WON'T YOU TEACH ME HOW TO LOVE??? I AM SO NAIVE AND NERDY.

 

Oh that's complete nonsense.  Some of the dialogue is a little hammy, but compared to Hawke/Merrill, for example, it's bloody Shakespeare.  And she barely even features in ME2...

 

If anything, Liara leads Shepard on how to 'do' it.  He even says 'just tell me what to do'.  She's not the naive, timid waifu you make her out to be.

 

There's a moment where you can say 'I'll keep you safe' and she slaps Shepard down, saying 'I'm not looking for a protector'.

 

But whatever, it's cool to hate on Liara I guess.

 

 

Liara is a super naive waifu in ME1. It's only in ME2 that changes :p

 

Also don't tempt me to air my many grievances about Liara and her revolving personalities through the game. (Not to mention keeping Shep's busted armor in a display case. WTF)

Edited by Ryz009
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know Sharmat was talking about romance initiations specifically but my comment was more about the quality of the romance writing in general, and especially that scene

 

But yeah, you're right, I brought it on myself, sadly

 

 

Ah yeah that scene (elf necks were...something) is a horror show.

 

^_^ see should've romanced Isabela her scene at least is decent :p

 

 

 

 

Liara is a pretty good character...in the second game and onwards. She is functionally a completely different person in the first game and, yes, kind of awful nerd bait in how she's written.

 

OH SHEPARD WON'T YOU TEACH ME HOW TO LOVE??? I AM SO NAIVE AND NERDY.

 

Oh that's complete nonsense.  Some of the dialogue is a little hammy, but compared to Hawke/Merrill, for example, it's bloody Shakespeare.  And she barely even features in ME2...

 

If anything, Liara leads Shepard on how to 'do' it.  He even says 'just tell me what to do'.  She's not the naive, timid waifu you make her out to be.

 

There's a moment where you can say 'I'll keep you safe' and she slaps Shepard down, saying 'I'm not looking for a protector'.

 

But whatever, it's cool to hate on Liara I guess.

 

 

Liara is a super naive waifu in ME1. It's only in ME2 that changes :p

 

Also don't tempt me to air my many grievances about Liara and her revolving personalities through the game. (Not to mention keeping Shep's busted armor in a display case. WTF)

 

 

Yeah I quite liked the Isabela romance.

 

Liara is not that naive.

 

Her change in ME2 is reasonable, given the context.  ME3... who cares about that game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I know Sharmat was talking about romance initiations specifically but my comment was more about the quality of the romance writing in general, and especially that scene

 

But yeah, you're right, I brought it on myself, sadly

 

 

Ah yeah that scene (elf necks were...something) is a horror show.

 

^_^ see should've romanced Isabela her scene at least is decent :p

 

 

 

 

Liara is a pretty good character...in the second game and onwards. She is functionally a completely different person in the first game and, yes, kind of awful nerd bait in how she's written.

 

OH SHEPARD WON'T YOU TEACH ME HOW TO LOVE??? I AM SO NAIVE AND NERDY.

 

Oh that's complete nonsense.  Some of the dialogue is a little hammy, but compared to Hawke/Merrill, for example, it's bloody Shakespeare.  And she barely even features in ME2...

 

If anything, Liara leads Shepard on how to 'do' it.  He even says 'just tell me what to do'.  She's not the naive, timid waifu you make her out to be.

 

There's a moment where you can say 'I'll keep you safe' and she slaps Shepard down, saying 'I'm not looking for a protector'.

 

But whatever, it's cool to hate on Liara I guess.

 

 

Liara is a super naive waifu in ME1. It's only in ME2 that changes :p

 

Also don't tempt me to air my many grievances about Liara and her revolving personalities through the game. (Not to mention keeping Shep's busted armor in a display case. WTF)

 

 

Yeah I quite liked the Isabela romance.

 

Liara is not that naive.

 

Her change in ME2 is reasonable, given the context.  ME3... who cares about that game.

 

 

She's not Merril level no. But Merrill's ditzy enough to need strings to get around :p

 

She's naive enough.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. As for ME3 I care D:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

 

Hilarious.

 

 

I think you mean <king cailan>GLORIOUS!</king 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.

 

 

I think there is plenty of value to the traditional Bioware "model" but I also think Bioware demonstrated the incredible value of stepping away from that model and following an alternative path like the one that you described. 

 

*Spoiler Warning*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DA:I Solas romance is set for up for failure and it makes the game significantly better. I played as a guy so the Solas romance was not on the table and I thought the character was fairly annoying. Years later I played through the game again with all of the DLC. I had read that the Trespasser DLC was way better if you romanced Solas so I tried that route. The confrontation with Solas at the end possessed, by far, the most emotional "umph" of any experience I've ever had with a Bioware game to date (though admittedly the scene was aided by a superior background score, the music was excellent in that game). There was no sex, no fade to black, or staring off into the sunset. Just two character that clearly cared for each other but whose diametrically opposed points of view doomed them to tragedy. It wasn't happy it was ****ing sad. Each retained their agency and their characterization but the romance between them is what created the power of the scene. I see nothing wrong with giving the player an option to marry Cullen and settle down with a puppy. It's great that players have that option. The scene with Bull and your advisers? Comedy gold. There is great entertainment to be had with the traditional Bioware model. But I'll admit I was left very underwhelmed by the ending of the base game. The conclusion to Trespasser is right up there in the HoF of endings along with games like The Last of Us. And breaking away from the traditional model is the only way that became possible. 

Edited by PatrioticChief
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...