201 réponses à ce sujet

[Basher of Glory]

Let's say, money and time are no issue. Could you briefly describe, how "the ideal" romance should be?

[Lithuasil]

Let's say, money and time are no issue. Could you briefly describe, how "the ideal" romance should be?

Kind of like the Merill romance, but more fleshed out. Something that happens without player action, it only gets faster, and *serious* when actively encouraged by the player. Something that gradually changes how said character talks and acts towards the PC, with, if moving in togehter is an option, regular ambience scenes of living together, and a couple of hug/kiss options executable at any time.

[Loup Blanc]

Yes. We DO need them.

[NedPepper]

Romances give you a personal stake in the story. I can't imagine ME or DA without them. That would be the one thing that would irk me. I can deal with playing the same maps over and over, but don't mess with the romances.

[Darth Krytie]

Baher of Glory wrote...

Let's say, money and time are no issue. Could you briefly describe, how "the ideal" romance should be?

The ability to have an Anders/Hawke/Fenris threesome, because Fenris and Anders need to work out their differences and Hawke would love to be in the middle of it.

Aside from my desire to be able to have a polyamoury situation when I enjoy two romances so much I hate to choose between them, I'd like the return of the ability to get ilicit smoochies whenever I wanted like in DA: O (or even in ME: 2 where you could call Garrus up to your quarters and sit on his lap)

I really liked the Anders romance in this game (Aside from the betrayal and inevitable heartbreak) because Anders is invested in it. He takes initiative, too, and he seems to genuinely care. I felt, of all the romance, his was the most genuine, the most satisfying.

[ejoslin]

I really liked both the male romances in DAO. Why I liked them? There was a gradual buildup where you could get a sense of them falling in love, and both had very unexpected endings (provided you didn't spoil yourself and make decisions earlier in the game to get the ending you wanted). Even their greetings showed genuine affection (especially Zevran's).

I'd like to see a slow build like that again -- and that does NOT mean the relationship sits on hold for 3 years. I also would like there to be an option for some affection. DA2 had the wonderful squee moments, but it was lacking in the other, more mundane but still wonderful moments that were in DAO. Even a kiss in the home would have been a welcome addition.

Modifié par ejoslin, 31 mars 2011 - 04:25 .

[Basher of Glory]

If I understood correctly, many of you dislike the fact to be reduced to initializing a romance and then have no more opportunity to do anything, unless a conversational option allows to do so, right?

[Oneiropolos]

That's what I was about to bring up, actually.

If I could pick my 'ideal' romance, it would basically be Fenris's, but with more opportunities to TALK. Not "Oh, you triggered plot A, you may now speak with Fenris." "Oh, you reached this amount of rivalry/friendship, you may now speak with Fenris.". That drove me -crazy-. I wanted to go be able to turn to Fenris while walking (like we could in DA:O) and give him a kiss. Frankly, I think this would have been endlessly amusing as in Fenris's case, it'd have probably flustered him a bit, but if Anders was standing there, he'd totally kiss back just to be spiteful. Fenris doesn't strike me as huge on public displays of affection, which is what makes his action in the Gallows at the end meaningful. But I'm always in favor of learning more about any character, so for me, -increased- dialog would be where I'd love focus to be. People could skip it if they just didn't care to learn, but those of us who did want to, being able to hold long conversations with our friends and particularly our love interests, and to show that affection in public... it'd be the major change I'd make. After the conversations in DA:O, I felt a little stung at that missing in DAII.

[ejoslin]

Baher of Glory wrote...

If I understood correctly, many of you dislike the fact to be reduced to initializing a romance and then have no more opportunity to do anything, unless a conversational option allows to do so, right?

It's not only a romance-thing for me.  I liked the more in-depth conversations that were in Origins for all companions.  I actually felt like I got to know the characters.  As far as romances go, while I'd rather have what was in DA2 than nothing at all, I'd much prefer that the entire character conversation system be more in depth.

I do get that Origins conversation system may be too much for some (I'm not talking about silent vs voiced protagonist -- I'm talking about actual depth, length, and variance in the conversations), but there really was so much less in DA2 -- both on opposite ends.  Especially since there were fewer companions and far fewer NPCs that actually had a lot to say in DA2, it would have been nice if the companions just had a bit more.  There were major cuts made to the dialog, and it shows.

Character interaction is only one part of a video game, of course, but it's what made DAO, for me, stand out.  Romance was a part of it, yes, as was friendship.  But actually getting to know and care about the characters was the biggest part of immersion in the story of DAO.  Since there was less of it in DA2, for me there was less immersion.

[Rykoth]

After playing the Merrill Rivalmance....

The ideal Bioware romance for me would be a mixture of that, combined with some Talimance elements (actually more like the consoling Shepard paragon interupt on her loyalty mission. Had you been able to do that when merrill was weeping in the cave) plus some of the more realistic vibes the Isabela romance provided (let's face it, despite the initial "let's bang" dialogue, it was handled pretty maturely.)

A smorgasbord of stuff.

[Rob Sabbaggio]

Yes, absolutely.

Its a basic human function that is under-represented in games anyway (its unusual to find a song that doesnt mention love!!). Too often, I play games where I end up doing quests and exploring, saving the world, but for what? Its like you are a mere cypher, with no actual stake in the world. So I find they really help drag you into the game, make it more personal and real. In fact, its always baffled me why more games dont have them.

There one of the things that make Bioware RPGs stand out, and if they removed them I would be sorely disappointed.

[wright1978]

Don't think you could half the number of romances and it work. From my personal point of view i had no desire to romance(merrill/Leilana) whereas i adored (isabela/Morrigan). Offering alternatives to suit people's tastes seem eminently sensible and as far as i'm concerned the current level gives both an economical level of choice.

[Zan Mura]

Baher of Glory wrote...

do you think that romances MUST be in every modern RPG?

Absolutely. Problem is, they're not. BW RPG's are pretty much the exclusive group of RPG's that have romances. So you'll forgive me if the very mention of posts such as this one, make me twitch in that "GTFO and find another game, this is MINE" sort of way.

I cannot begin to analyse why, but whether a movie, a series, or a game, to me romances are absolutely mandatory for there to even be a possibility for the product to be top-grade. I mean I'm with you on those crappy hollywood flicks where the romance feels artificial and tacked on, and the movie woulda been better off without it. But that's not because romance itself sucks, it's because the movie was bad and they clearly didn't have the skill to implement a proper romance let alone make a proper movie to begin with.

ANYTHING that has a story, needs a romance. At least the possibility for it. There are certain parts to being a human being that are natural. A character that has zero interest in a romantic relationship is something I find myself extremely difficult to relate with. Such a character becomes a mindless drone with no purpose other than to hack'n'slash, and blow things up. And I cannot become emotionally invested in a story where the protagonist feels distant and emotionless. In games like Mass Effect, a character with no romance becomes a character with no goal. It seems unbelievable and unrealistic to me that a Shepard like that would even possess such energy to defend a world where there is so little of value to protect in the first place. A person needs a *personal* reason to truly fight at peak performance.

I know from personal experience that too much solitude and lack of love, is pure poison for my soul. An experience I'm sure everyone has had at some point in their lives.

tl;dr; Obviously I'm not asking for some Sims pink love experience and family raising etc. To me your average BG2 / KOTOR / JE / ME romance is enough, though I could easily go with more too. But to have nothing at all? I likely wouldn't even get such a game, because the story would just feel pointlessly boring and unnatural to me.

[Zan Mura]

scyphozoa wrote...

How about, do we really need 4 of them? How about just reduce that to 2? All the people who want romances will surely object, but isn't this a happy medium between having 4-5 romances and having no romances?

I think reducing the number of romances would be a huge step in the right direction.

The current 4 romanceables already IS a "happy medium" as you put it. I think increasing the number of romances would be a positively gargantuan step in the right direction.

So who's right?

[highcastle]

Romances aren't necessary, but they add flavor to the game. They're a way to get the player invested in the story. And if you don't like them, they're not forced upon you. But in a game like Origins or DA2 where the action takes place over long periods of time, it makes sense that love or lust might come into play. For those of us who are role-players, it provides an opportunity to fine-tune and customize our character's personality and desires.

I'll be honest and say the reason I play BioWare games is not because of the combat, but because of the characters and the story (in that order). Their writing is at the top for this industry. I always get a good story out of the game, and I always get to interact with interesting characters. Part of that interaction is the romance system. And unlike many films and even some books, the romance arcs aren't just tacked on. They feel like a meaningful part of the story. Anders' romance, for instance, ties into and affects the main plot in a big way. It adds depth to the story.

I'm interested in character interaction. To me, it's the people populating a story which make it interesting. There are only so many plots out there, but interesting characters mean we can tell those stories in new ways. And romance is part of that. Is it integral? No, but it's interesting.

[Talladarr]

Romances play a large part in gettign the player attached to the characters. At least it does for me. It makes the game more enjoyable.

[Costin_Razvan]

It depends how they are handled.

In DA:O, DA2 and ME1 they were pretty damned solid ways to handle them...

In ME2...well besides Tali I just didn't like any of them.

[Basher of Glory]

As it seems, I'm close to be convinced about the necessity of romances.
The argument "a hero needs an anchor, something to defend, a goal for himself" made me reconsider my original position.
I agree, a hero / heroine appears more authentic, if (s)he shows emotions, if (s)he cares about someone.

Nevertheless, some more points to discuss:

1) Years ago I played the Molyneux-RPG "Fable". The protagonist could buy a home and marry someone, who was not related to the plot at all. Ok, it was a bit like in "The Sims", but this is not about the quality of "Fable".
Would you accept a good written and properly enacted romance with someone outside of the team?
It could be sort of a quest to win the heart, the spouse could be involved later, so that  (s)he must be rescued or whatever. Whenever the hero/ine comes home, we'd have lots of converational options and the chance / risk to improve or even destroy the relationship.

2) Instead of the opportunity to flirt and <use your favourite 4-letter-word> with any respectively most of the companions, there is just one really good developed romance-option, be it like in 1) or be it something else. This possible romance won't be sooo obvious like it was in former games, it must be found, it develops parallel to the plot and the protagonist could even fail.

Opinions?

[Arppis]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

It depends how they are handled.

In DA:O, DA2 and ME1 they were pretty damned solid ways to handle them...

In ME2...well besides Tali I just didn't like any of them.

Tali has been only romance I have enjoyed in these games to be honest. Samara would have been great too, but too bad you can't. Sucks...

Most of the time I'll just perform and then say: "Well that was fun, see ya! I'm off!"

Modifié par Arppis, 31 mars 2011 - 01:54 .

[Zan Mura]

Baher of Glory wrote...

Opinions?

The risk with one is that being such a personal thing in nature, it would be hard to make it work. Already as it is, many character types and many player types find it very difficult to find more than one romanceable they actually like. Most humans aren't compatible with the majority of others, after all, where something as deep as romance is concerned.

The idea of making even one or two *very* well developed romance stories does sound appealing though. It's just that one way or another, this will always be a compromise. I honestly don't know where the ideal compromise lies.

As far as having the LI (love-interest) be someone outside of the party, I've agreed for years. But of course from a dev point of view, it's easier to include one of the existing companions in it. Since a lot of the discussion and banter can be shared from a simple "friendly" side even if it's not romance-exclusive, which serves to give more depth at less cost. Also, undoubtedly many people find it more easy or even comfortable knowing that your LI is with you, even if there aren't any special romance lines for most of the time.

As for all those risks and difficulties, I have to say no thank you. I've done that route back with BG2, especially with its high-quality community mods etc. A romance - as said - is a very personal investment. NOTHING is as infuriating as making an entire character concept and personality whose story very much depends on the romance, only to have some bug, oversight, or some stupid nuance that you weren't even aware of steal the progression from you. I heartily support a very obvious progression where honestly if you just want to do it right, then you really *can't* go wrong.

I think real life has enough of that BS where a single wrong word can screw everything up after you've used weeks worth of time, money, emotional stress and effort into it. I don't want heartbreaks in my games.

[highcastle]

Baher of Glory wrote...


1) Years ago I played the Molyneux-RPG "Fable". The protagonist could buy a home and marry someone, who was not related to the plot at all. Ok, it was a bit like in "The Sims", but this is not about the quality of "Fable".
Would you accept a good written and properly enacted romance with someone outside of the team?
It could be sort of a quest to win the heart, the spouse could be involved later, so that  (s)he must be rescued or whatever. Whenever the hero/ine comes home, we'd have lots of converational options and the chance / risk to improve or even destroy the relationship.

I suppose if anyone could pull it off, it would be this team of writers. But I still don't think it would work. Part of the fun of romaning a companion is your ability to adventure with them and hear their reactions to what you do. It allows for the relationship to grow organically. If they're outside of the party, you probably won't get as much dialogue with them. Romancing them could easily become a chore, and I doubt they would feel as fully developed.

Fable's not a great example to use because there's 0 characterization in those games. You can marry virtually anyone you meet, but they have no personality. They aren't any kind of emotional anchor because you have no incentive to feel anything for them. That's the difference with BioWare games. By the time the romance rolls around, you already know who this character is, what they stand for, etc. NPCs have less development usually.

2) Instead of the opportunity to flirt and <use your favourite 4-letter-word> with any respectively most of the companions, there is just one really good developed romance-option, be it like in 1) or be it something else. This possible romance won't be sooo obvious like it was in former games, it must be found, it develops parallel to the plot and the protagonist could even fail.

1 option is a bad idea because it disregards the player character's orientation. If that one option is a woman, straight male gamers will be happy. What about gay males? Straight females? Other people play this game, and they want to see thier orientations reflected. Being inclusive is a good thing.

Also, you can fail the romances. You can break them off at various points. And I think the only reason the romances are "obvious" in DA2 are because of the designated flirt lines. But I like these. They let you know the intent of what you're saying, so there's no accidently stumbling into romance. *cough*Leliana*cough*

All of the romances in DA2 were well-developed, in my opinion. The Anders arc, for instance, is given quite a bit of weight in light of his eventual actions. And the romance affects this. You get different dialogue here if he's romanced. And his actions seem more personal if he's romanced. I cared more on my playthroughs where Hawke loved him than when he was just a pal or a rival.

[Grymgris]

How about they remove all character interaction while they`re at it, so they can focus on making uniqe 10h long dungeons for every little quest, cuuzzz dungeon crawling is a lot more fun than roleplaying....ehhrrr.....right?

[Grymgris]

Ohh, and they can remove character creation to, we REALLY don`t NEED that, just put a closed helmet on the main character and everyone will be happy, kind of like a medieval Master Chief ^^