125 réponses à ce sujet

[Shepard Lives]

Liable****sman wrote...

I guess the ego-stroking makes sense, I didn't give that much thought... But those romances are much of the reason that they feel extremely forced and unrealistic. Romances aren't anything like that in real life - so why prefer such things in digital medium? That is one of my major questions.

They prefer it exactly because they can't have it in real life. Wish fulfillment, escapism.

Liable****sman wrote...
Character development? Sure. But how important is romance to you, in games? Is it a deal-breaker if it isn't there?
The question may seem trivial, but it is just the massive obsession over it in the forums, that has me thinking.

Would you consider romance-options to be so much of a plus, that you wouldn't care if a game had less companion-options due to allocating resources to romances instead?

I think romance is an extremely nice optional part of the game, and arguably the most important optional part. But I don't see lack of romance as a deal-breaker. Lack of interesting characters and/or inability to form interesting relationships (of the player character and of the player themselves) with them, including friendship, rivalry, burning hatred or what have you, would be a dealbreaker.

[AnnaV]

Snoteye wrote...
To varying degrees, this has been a problem with romances in video games since there were romances in video games, and continually improving graphics is only making it worse. I do not think BGII's romances feel contrived because that game can last several hundred in-game days (and don't conclude until ToB), but with most games they seem to progress too quickly and artificially, and then you boink and nothing further happens. It will be interesting to see how artificially prolonging DA2 will affect romances.

I can't think of a game that has handled romances as well as PS:T.

I agree completely. I wish we could have a game again where the romance didn't end after you've achieved the "goal" of bedding your loved one.
PS:T was exactly the game I had in mind when I said I would like romances to be implied. Both Annah and Grace's "romances" felt much more significant and real because they were so subtle (Grace's almost to the point of being non-existant and Annah's because she always tried to hide her emotions).

Modifié par AnnaV, 12 janvier 2011 - 03:04 .

[abaris]

Andrastee wrote...

I like BioWare's romances because they add depth to the NPCs and give me an opportunity to add depth to my character as well. This isn't to say that platonic relationships between the PC and companions don't also add depth - personally I enjoy both. I want my character to have an emotional life and not just spend her days cutting the heads of darkspawn.

Lets say I like them starting with Origins.

In the Neverwinter series they seemed forced - why in the seven hells would my evil wizard romance a good paladin - and I skipped on that option.

But as has been said, romance options make the character seem more real, fleshed out, not just some cardboard hero or heroine. The option adds to immersion. Without human interaction the game would be stripped to hack and slash just like any give First person shooter.

And funnily enough its all too often left out because of some overconcerned lobby, busying themselves with grieving over sexuality whilst being perfectly OK with graphic violence.

[Cyberfrog81]

I'll play romances if a game has them. Usually it's fun. But it would seem things are almost getting out of hand. Maybe BioWare should (while preparing for the inevitable s***storm) make a game without romances of any kind.

[Nemorem]

AnnaV wrote...
The point of roleplaying is to create a personality for Hawke/the Warden and if that personality happens to match that of an LI, playing the romance it might add to your gaming experience. If you try to play the game with YOU as Hawke/the Warden, you're bound to be disappointed. The game is not made to replace your real life.
 

This is true, but I think a lot of people enjoy roleplaying because it gives them a chance to be an idealized version of themselves, or at least someone very different from who they are in real life. In other words, you don't choose a personality for your PC at random, or because you enjoy the challenge of acting a part or whatever, but because it fits with the image of somebody you want to *be* for awhile. For a lot of people, a big part of that image also lies in who their PC sleeps with.

Of course, no one is going to get exactly what they desire. It's a bit weird that people are obsessing over superficial traits when the LIs' dialogue (and voice actors!) is going to be the major thing that separates them from other characters. But then, there's not much else to talk about, I guess.

[syllogi]

I enjoyed the friendship paths in DA:O every bit as much as the love interests, and in a few cases even more. I personally love that we have both in Bioware games, and it really does add depth to the characters we're spending time with.



I can't say that I *only* like one type of romance either -- I have a few characters who are perfect for Alistair, another who is right for Zevran, and one for Leliana. So I'm very interested in seeing what kind of characters we'll meet this time around.

[Beerfish]

Liable****sman wrote...

Snoteye wrote...

[Edit]
Incidentally, I think the way all romances have to revolve around the PC can severely detract from the game overall.

Excuse me for ignoring the rest of your post in the quote, but what is written in what's left is really my main gripe with the whole ordeal.

I find myself amazed and baffled, sometimes, on how quickly NPCs(In this case the companion characters) display genuine affection towards my PC. It reminds me of some kind of teenage romance, where the girl forces you to hell her you love her within the first three days of the relationship. It is extremely forced and unneeded, not to mention not making any sense.

1)  Lack of time in a video game setting.  If you want to try and let a romance evolve you have to start it early, it's as simple as that.
2) They skip out a TON of actual time in a game where the two romancers would be spending time together.  In DA you travel all over Ferelden a time or two so for every on screen in game moment you have hours of travelling together, eating together, sleeping in the same camp etc.
3) Many of these stories are life and death 'We could all die tommorrow and the land will be lost!" Urgency of that sort tends to move romances along faster than otherwise.  Think of people going on vacation, you meet what seems like a very nice attractive man or woman, you have 10 days on your vacation and then you go back home.  That potential romance is either going to move fast or not at all.

[Liablecocksman]

Russalka wrote...

The passing of time was not so obvious in Origins and people who just rushed into pleasing or displeasing companions got too quickly into certain relationships.

Dragon Age 2 will rectify that, I imagine.

I hope so. I just don't think implying anything, will make it believable by itself. You need to go through more phases than "I don't know you enough to have a relationship with you" and "I am totally and incredibly in love with you now" if you're going to depict an actual relationship.
To me, it often seems like a cheap and poorly done way of making the character automatically more invested in the story and its consequences.

It is certainly interesting to explore human emotions like love and have romances in video-games, but I'm looking for it to be done properly, then.

Irkalla wrote...

I think people who don't want
relationships, friendships are weird. Why the hell would I risk my life
to save and protect a bunch of people that I don't even care about and
vice-versa. Why would I bother slaying the archdemon with so little
chance of survival..I could just let someone else do it and await my
end in some brothel. I need a reason to do ****, I'm not interested in
being a hero just for the sake of it. Same thing with rl life, what
would be our life and our purpose without friends who care about us or
lovers, everything would feel empty and depressing. If you want this
game only for fighting and kicking ass, buy a game in that genre. This
is a fantasy rpg, and I expect good story telling and people you can
grow to care about so I'll have a reason to actually play it.

That is a very interesting point of view.
While I don't normally place much importance on realism in a videogame, I want parts of it (characters, for instance) who are meant to be believable, to act realistically.

That being said, I take offense from you inferring I am looking for things not present in an RPG. Judging from your spelling, I have been playing RPGs a fair amount of time before you took interest in the genre. Please don't take offense to that, I am simply making a point. I have always loved RPGs more than any other genre, and none of that love stemmed from me being able to act as how I acting in real life. Quite the opposite, in fact - the whole "escapism" thing, you know?

Beerfish wrote...

1)  Lack of time in a video game
setting.  If you want to try and let a romance evolve you have to start
it early, it's as simple as that.
2) They skip out a TON of actual
time in a game where the two romancers would be spending time
together.  In DA you travel all over Ferelden a time or two so for
every on screen in game moment you have hours of travelling together,
eating together, sleeping in the same camp etc.
3) Many of these
stories are life and death 'We could all die tommorrow and the land
will be lost!" Urgency of that sort tends to move romances along faster
than otherwise.  Think of people going on vacation, you meet what seems
like a very nice attractive man or woman, you have 10 days on your
vacation and then you go back home.  That potential romance is either
going to move fast or not at all.

But you shouldn't equate "romance" with "casual sex".
While I may have sex on vacation, with some stranger, it is not because I love them, or care for them deeply - it is, as you say, because they are "nice and attractive".

By your own logic, the scenerio of "the world is ending" would make everyone have casual sex, while not necessarily falling in love. That is exactly what I'm thinking, too.

Maybe after it all "Phew, we made it through, that was amazing" they could actually fall in love with eachother.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 12 janvier 2011 - 03:13 .

[Snoteye]

Liable****sman wrote...

Excuse me for ignoring the rest of your post in the quote, but what is written in what's left is really my main gripe with the whole ordeal.

It was a tangent's tangent, I believe I can find it in my heart to forgive you.

I wouldn't disregard a game based on number and type of romances, nor will I buy a game because it has kissy-kissy or hanky-panky. I will play through romances (typically juggling as many as possible) if they're there because I paid for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to miss anything. The inclusion of companions and/or recurring NPCs is much more important to me than my ability to hook up with them. A story-driven game that doesn't need recurring NPCs can't be very story-driven. That's not to say I wouldn't play no-party games, but I will generally enjoy them less.

Liable****sman wrote...

It reminds me of some kind of teenage romance, where the girl forces you to hell her you love her within the first three days of the relationship. It is extremely forced and unneeded, not to mention not making any sense.

The time taken to advance romances is one issue that can be mitigated but probably not completely eliminated, by the nature of the medium. I would say the typical aggressiveness of romances is a much bigger problem, and that is why I appreciated PS:T's approach (the conclusion being a single kiss near the end of the game, without any of the sap).

abaris wrote...

In the Neverwinter series they seemed forced - why in the seven hells would my evil wizard romance a good paladin

Good looks?

[Beerfish]

But you shouldn't equate "romance" with "casual sex".
While I may
have sex on vacation, with some stranger, it is not because I love them,
or care for them deeply - it is, as you say, because they are "nice and
attractive".

By your own logic, the scenerio of "the world is
ending" would make everyone have casual sex, while not necessarily
falling in love. That is exactly what I'm thinking, too.

Maybe after it all "Phew, we made it through, that was amazing" they could actually fall in love with eachother.


Who said I was equating romance with casual sex?  You just made an assumption there.  Example, a friend of mine met a gal on 2 week vacation in Hawaii, they have now been married for 20 years or so.

2nd paragraph, you are again putting words in posters mouths to suit your argument.  They are not mutually exclusive.  You can have casual sex, you can have love with no sex and you can have love and sex all in short periods of time.

You totally ignored the other parts of my post regarding the fact that these companions are in fact together for very very lengthy periods of time, you just don't see it in game.  You can say, my god the player and Morrigan fell in love by hour 27 of a 40 hour game, that's phoney!  In reality you are only seeing the 'high-lites' of their time together because they have travelled together from witches wilds to lothering to redcliffe to brecialin forest to denerim back to redcliffe to Orzammar back to denerim to the deep roads back to orzamar......etc etc.

Most of these romances do indeed take place over long periods of time, you just don't see it in game.

[obsessedwjpn]

I agree having realistic romanceable characters is important but why are we so focused on having it EXTREMELY realistic. This is a game not real-life and no matter how much you try and make a medium of art expression real it will never be real-life itself because it is controlled by a computer engine and therefore not realistic. I think just enjoying the game's characters and their relationships for how they are and not expecting the world out of it is the best way to enjoy something pleasantly. It might sound ignorant but I personally play games to escape real-life, not have real-life clock me on the head every time I try and form relationships.

[PrinceOfFallout13]

i like happy endings and like for my characters to have a life that i don't have



now i didn't know romance existed in kotor(to some extent) and jade empire and i didn't cry about it i knew about the romances back when mass effect came out i never get obsesive about it there's no reason to that's why i never understood fan art and the whole obsesion about LI's imo bioware created a monster and is 50/50 in the grey area it can be good or bad depending on how the person treats it

[Snoteye]

Beerfish wrote...

Most of these romances do indeed take place over long periods of time, you just don't see it in game.

Is simply knowing this enough for you? It isn't for me. My Blight lasted for years and I still cringed everytime I spoke to Morrigan.

[Nemorem]

I think the BG2 romances seemed more reasonable because it was a longer game with a higher level of abstraction - you didn't expect that the dialogue that popped up every few hours was the *only* thing you ever said to your LI (just as you didn't expect the other, rare bits of party banter were the only words spoken by your companions). You filled in the details in between with your own imagination.



Games like DA aren't as long or as abstract. You get the impression that everything that happens between you and the LI is supposed to happen on screen, and of course it isn't going to be realistic.

[Liablecocksman]

Snoteye wrote...
It was a tangent's tangent, I believe I can find it in my heart to forgive you.

I wouldn't disregard a game based on number and type of romances, nor will I buy a game because it has kissy-kissy or hanky-panky. I will play through romances (typically juggling as many as possible) if they're there because I paid for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to miss anything. The inclusion of companions and/or recurring NPCs is much more important to me than my ability to hook up with them. A story-driven game that doesn't need recurring NPCs can't be very story-driven. That's not to say I wouldn't play no-party games, but I will generally enjoy them less.

I know what you mean. I feel much the same way.

The time taken to advance romances is one issue that can be mitigated but probably not completely eliminated, by the nature of the medium. I would say the typical aggressiveness of romances is a much bigger problem, and that is why I appreciated PS:T's approach (the conclusion being a single kiss near the end of the game, without any of the sap).

I agree completely.
The impromptu romances(The "I now love you"-kind), which are sadly nearly all of them, I find to be the worst kind of them. I also liked PS:T's take on romance, but then again everything about PS:T was awesome.

Beerfish wrote...
Who said I was equating romance with casual
sex?  You just made an assumption there.  Example, a friend of mine met
a gal on 2 week vacation in Hawaii, they have now been married for 20
years or so.

Good on your friend, then...

2nd
paragraph, you are again putting words in posters mouths to suit your
argument.  They are not mutually exclusive.  You can have casual sex,
you can have love with no sex and you can have love and sex all in
short periods of time.

Yes. How is this relevant?

You totally ignored the other parts of my post

Okay, let's take them, then:

1)  Lack of time in a video game

setting.  If you want to try and let a romance evolve you have to start

it early, it's as simple as that.
2) They skip out a TON of actual

time in a game where the two romancers would be spending time

together.  In DA you travel all over Ferelden a time or two so for

every on screen in game moment you have hours of travelling together,

eating together, sleeping in the same camp etc.

Yeees... Only the romances do not evolve, they simply go from "I am only interested in you as a friend" to "I am now very much in love with you, and am devoted to you without question".
If the relationship between the PC and the NPC actually went through different phases, and level of affection, your argument would make sense. However, they don't, and it therefore doesn't.
What you're talking about is an integral part of it all, though, but that is mostly because it's being handled so poorly.

In DA:O, for instance, there are unnuanced states of each relationship. All the going from "Liked" to "Warm", or  whatever it is, but there are nothing rooted in it, except being able to go from "Friendship(Warm)" to "Lovers" or however you want to put it. Then that is the relationship. "Lovers". You cannot progress from it, as you are, apparently, already at the top.

Nemorem wrote...

I think the BG2 romances seemed more
reasonable because it was a longer game with a higher level of
abstraction - you didn't expect that the dialogue that popped up every
few hours was the *only* thing you ever said to your LI (just as you
didn't expect the other, rare bits of party banter were the only words
spoken by your companions). You filled in the details in between with
your own imagination.

Games like DA aren't as long or as
abstract. You get the impression that everything that happens between
you and the LI is supposed to happen on screen, and of course it isn't
going to be realistic.

Eeeeexactly.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 12 janvier 2011 - 03:38 .

[the_one_54321]

But everything is always so well written that having a lack of proper abstraction, or even finding some aspects of the available characters lacking, should be something that you can play past and enjoy anyway.

[Irkalla]

Liable****sman wrote...
That is a very interesting point of view.
While I don't normally place much importance on realism in a videogame, I want parts of it (characters, for instance) who are meant to be believable, to act realistically.

That being said, I take offense from you inferring I am looking for things not present in an RPG. Judging from your spelling, I have been playing RPGs a fair amount of time before you took interest in the genre. Please don't take offense to that, I am simply making a point. I have always loved RPGs more than any other genre, and none of that love stemmed from me being able to act as how I acting in real life. Quite the opposite, in fact - the whole "escapism" thing, you know?

Well,  I think things like people's emotions can transcend the pixel barrier. Same as when you read a good book, you know it's not real, you are not there, but you can still find a connection with good written characters. Maybe it is escapism, but that sounds too much like you are not satisfied with your real life and  seek compensation in fiction. I don't think it's like that for all. It's more along the lines of experiencing something you couldn't in real life, not from the lack of real socialisation, but from the lack of experiencing bonding in a special kinda environment. I'd rather call it curiosity and the need to experience new things, even if  they are made up. If that makes any sense. If you have ever read Tolkien's essay on fairy stories, you know what I'm talking about. I won't deny that I'm pretty new to the rpg genre, at least to the kind that bioware makes. I'm used to playing generic characters, tho. It's just my opinion and why I like the things bioware games offer us. Honestly, if they took  the romances and friendships out of Origins, I wouldn't even have the patience to finish it once. The story in itself is not entertaining enough, no offense.

Modifié par Irkalla, 12 janvier 2011 - 04:02 .

[AlexXIV]

I really only find LIs interesting if they are connected with the plot. Like Morrigan's. Otherwise they are fun/interesting but neglectable.

[Beerfish]

Snoteye wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Most of these romances do indeed take place over long periods of time, you just don't see it in game.

Is simply knowing this enough for you? It isn't for me. My Blight lasted for years and I still cringed everytime I spoke to Morrigan.

Yes it is in the context that I'm justifying why these romances though they appear to happen in 3 hours actually happen over weeks and months.  There is no other way to do it in a short video game. 

The only way you can make it more top the players liking is if you get lucky with a particularly and sometimes suprisingly loved character that you can develop over a number of games.  classic example being Tali.  She was not a romanceable character in ME1, many people loved her character and the idea of her being romanced and in ME2 she became a romanceable character.  Because she was with you in ME it seemed like a more natural, long term relationship. 

From a single game perspective though there is no way at all to make a romance seem slow and real if the person playing the romance is not going to think about times that are not 'in game'.

[Liablecocksman]

Irkalla wrote...
Well,  I think things like people's emotions can transcend the pixel barrier. Same as when you read a good book, you know it's not real, you are not there, but you can still find a connection with good written characters. Maybe it is escapism, but that sounds too much like you are not satisfied with your real life and  seek compensation in fiction. I don't think it's like that for all. It's more along the lines of experiencing something you couldn't in real life, not from the lack of real socialisatiom, but from the lack of experiencing bonding in a special kinda enviroment. I'd rather call it curiosity and the need to experience new things, even if  they are made up. If that makes any sense. If you have ever read Tolkien's essay on fairy stories, you know what I'm talking about. I won't deny that I'm pretty new to the rpg genre, at least to the kind that bioware makes. I'm used to playing generic characters, tho. It's just my opinion and why I like the things bioware games offer us. Honestly, if they took  the romances and friendships out of Origins, I wouldn't even have the patience to finish it once. The story in itself is not entertaining enough, no offense.

Maybe I should have defined what I meant by "escapism" when I used it - I didn't mean in a sense that I was unhappy with my life, but more that I view gaming as a whole as recreational. You "escape" the banalities of every-day life. I relieve stress a lot, for example, when playing a game.
You don't shoot guns in CoD because you miss being able to kill people in real life. It's escapism because it's fun in a manner that wholely detracts from real-life.
This is all going beside the point, though, and we should leave that out of this discussion.

But you're hitting the nail on the head, otherwise, in that RPGs revolve around the characters and the story.
I found the characters to be well-written and well-developed in a general sense, too, in Origins. I just found the romances(You know, what the topic is about) to not be.

You're talking about "experiencing something you couldn't experience in real life", and "Special environment". What do you mean?
Given that the romances themselves are not really affected(Just like almost all dialogue) by the fact that the Blight might in the world end a week, I don't see where you're going with that.

scyphozoa wrote...

I think there is too great of an emphasis being put on romances. I want Bioware to take a step back from romances and consider making a future game from the ground up without any romances.

I play video games to do things I can't do in real life, like swashbuckle and shoot assault rifles. I have a girlfriend, I'm not interested in romancing elves. Sure, its just my opinion, but its frustrating to see one of my favorite developers increasingly emphasize content I don't value.

That is entirely what fuelled my topic on this subject as well. I don't play Dragon Age to romance characters, and find much too much significance is being placed on the subject of romance and romance-able characters.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 12 janvier 2011 - 04:12 .

[the_one_54321]

But having romance in a story can make the story that much more enjoyable?

[Beerfish]

Liable****sman wrote...

 How is this relevant?

It's relevant to rebut your comment about any short term involvement between two people beiong casual sex.


Yeees... Only the romances do not evolve, they simply go from "I am only interested in you as a friend" to "I am now very much in love with you, and am devoted to you without question".
If the relationship between the PC and the NPC actually went through different phases, and level of affection, your argument would make sense. However, they don't, and it therefore doesn't.
What you're talking about is an integral part of it all, though, but that is mostly because it's being handled so poorly.

Sure they do evolve, if you toss all sorts of gifts on your companion and jack up the approval rating and have several conversations with them over time you can add the love part.  Morrigan will jump in the sack with you much earlier than she will actually show romantic feelings.  And you just made my point for me.  You are again totally focusing on 'In game' time.  This is where the roleplaying comes in, you have to think about the month of travelling time together between actual camp fire conversations and think how things might progress.  I made it pretty clear that if you are taking into account only 'in game' moments you will never ever have a romance that does not seem rushed.

Now they could realkly improve the whole romance thing I suppose but at the cost of other things in the game such as combat time, quests and banter with other companions.  Within the frame work the writers give you the nuggets to suggest you are creating a love interest situation, it is up to the player to fill in the blanks.

[Liablecocksman]

the_one_54321 wrote...

But having romance in a story can make the story that much more enjoyable?

If a romance has significance to the plot, is well-thought-out and develop in a realistical manner, I'm not going to be complaining. So far, though, that isn't often (if ever) the case.

Beerfish wrote...
Bolded text

I realise what you're saying is true, but that doesn't cut it for me, at all.
The romances are entirely unbelievable even if I try to act as if they grow over time, on their own.

You may be satisfied, but I am not, and I am debating whether or not romances should even be included as I really don't see what they're good for except a cheap way to invest players more in the story.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 12 janvier 2011 - 04:12 .

[the_one_54321]

Liable****sman wrote...
If a romance has significance to the plot, be well-thought-out, develop in a realistical manner, I'm not going to be complaining. So far, though, that isn't often (if ever) the case.

I disagree. Though it is often possible to subvert the pacing, I think that romance pacing in video games is often even better than in movies. There's much much more time for development. And books naturally have even more room for this than either, as a comparison.