24 réponses à ce sujet

[shaneho78]

This thread is inspired by : http://social.biowar...index/6963335/8

I'm only into my 3rd Bioware game and the romance aspect of the game is already seeming tiresome and cliched. 
Firstly, it's always your companion. Two: Getting them to like you boils down to 

1) listening to their sob stories and giving the appropriate response (for friendship or rivalry)

2) taking them to one (or two) of their quests and resolving/eradicating an issue in their past that has been haunting them

3) giving gifts (optional)

Would it be better to work romance into the main plot? Or make it less predictable? Perhaps have a whole bunch of companions/NPCs you can flirt with but only a select few is truly romance-able. Romance options are closed off based on choices made and it is possible to fail in all relationships.

Some lame examples (based on specific choices made)

1) A Romeo & Juliet plotline involving mage Hawke and a Templar? The templar can be killed by Orsino depending on choices made leading Hawke to question his allegiance to the mages.

2) Romance based on deceit: In a subquest, Male Hawke has the chance to save Donnic from a demon but chooses not to. He subsequently and unscrupulously exploits Aveline's grief and starts a relationship based on deception and lies with her. To Hawke's surprise, Donnic survived the demon rape and comes back as an Abomination. Hawke and Aveline's role can also be switched (maybe Hawke can get married to an NPC early on)

3) Romance based on prophecy: Fem Hawke meets a fortune teller (seer) who tells her in the form of riddles her 3 great lovers in her lifetime: the Oak (strength) , the Moon (melancholy) and the Storm (tempestuous) as well as the possible fates that await her based on the choices she makes. She then meets several NPCs or companions who vaguely fits the descriptions. Her choices will lead indirectly to game-changing events such as Anders blowing up the Chantry. 

Personally, I don't care about romances in video games in terms of role-play. I just wish it can be more impactful and involving storywise and feels less like a pointless achievement. Granted there are more romantic options to explore in DA2 (such as rivalry-based romances) but still I wish it could be better. 

I do however understand this is an unrealistic expectation for a video game, even for one as well written as the DA-series. 

Modifié par shaneho78, 07 avril 2011 - 08:13 .

[Makeshift Riot]

Whats\\'s wrong with just meeting someone and liking them? :s Why does it have to be part of the plot? I mean it is already since they talk about you, but it doesn't need to be a huge silly deal. It's realistic this way.

You meet them, you flirt, you do things for them (because you like them/want to do naughty things to them) and you give them gifts like you would a friend or what ever. Also, they don't have to like you. Rivalmaces are great.

[sphinxess]

Some people have said that Bioware intended to have some romances that weren't companions at one time - I really haven't tried to dig up anything about it cause it seems to have been dropped

[fluorine7]

If Bioware make Romance part of the main plot line, people will complain the game "force" them to romance a certain NPC.

Personally, I think DA series romance is pretty good. I mean, what else would you want to do to romance people? you talk to them, listen to their personal issue, give them gifts, and when they need you for a personal matter, you be there for them and support them. I don't know about others, but this seems to be the logical and normal approach if you want to date someone.

DA2 manage to tie some of the Romance/companion issue with the plot (people stay or leave based on your decision). I would like to see more of these, that your decision make more impact on team members. however, judging from the reaction to current game, I doubt people will be happy with being forced to make this kind of decision.

[hoorayforicecream]

You can't really work something too deeply into the main storyline because the romances are always intended to be optional. If it's an optional sidequest, that's much more doable. The main issue I'd see with it is that the player spends a lot of time with the companions, so it feels more natural to build up a rapport with them. In order to have a romance with an NPC, you'd need to have a reason for the player to spend a lot of time with said NPC to build that same rapport. It isn't impossible, but just more difficult.

[Caja]

@ shaneho78:
While I agree with you that the romances in general have room for improvement, I disagree that they should be worked into the main plot. Why? Because as it is today, the romances are optional.

What you could do, however, is that the main plot affects the romance, such as an arranged marriage of Alistair and Anora had impact on the warden's relationship with Alistair if the warden had romanced him. But the main plot has to stand on its own.

Personally, to have four romanceable characters and in addition NPCs you could have a one night stand with works for me. I don't think it would be really necessary to have a whole bunch of romanceable characters. I'm afraid the game would feel more like "The Sims" then. Maybe there could be just one or two romanceable NPCs in the game, in addition to the companions. I believe in DA 2 there were a few players who had the hots for Cullen (including me, ahem) .

That being said, I would love to see more development in terms of romances and characters. I wasn't happy with the pacing and was under the impression that at a certain point the romance developed too fast. And then stood still somehow. But that's not the topic here .

What would work could be something like this:

Lame example:
1) Hawke and Anders are seeing each other and Hawke notices that Anders is losing himself more and more. Hawke wants to get Justice out of him; he says it can't be done. They fight. Anders gets angry and leaves. Hawke on the other hand decides to take things into her/his own hand. Quest starts: How to free Anders from Justice. We follow Hawke as she/he goes and checks books in the library, talks with Orsino and kills a dragon to get the ingredient for a secret ritual. In the end, it can't be done. Hawke talks with Anders and looks at the situation differently now. They make up.


Finally, I must say that I like the idea that there is a connection between a romance and the main plot, but it has to be in a way that the main plot would still work without the romance.

Edited to add

Modifié par Caja, 07 avril 2011 - 11:31 .

[Twofold Black]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You can't really work something too deeply into the main storyline because the romances are always intended to be optional. If it's an optional sidequest, that's much more doable. The main issue I'd see with it is that the player spends a lot of time with the companions, so it feels more natural to build up a rapport with them. In order to have a romance with an NPC, you'd need to have a reason for the player to spend a lot of time with said NPC to build that same rapport. It isn't impossible, but just more difficult.

QFT. From a practical standpoint, it's much better to offer love interests whose issues plug very directly into the central themes of the story (as with Anders, Merrill and Fenris) but whose romances are subplots, because embedding a romance too deeply in the main plot thread locks players who aren't interested in romances or aren't interested in romancing that particular character out of critical content. The most you'll see is something like the Anders romance, which happens to involve a character who features heavily in the endgame in a way that isn't particularly contingent on whether he's involved with Hawke.

[UltiPup]

Funny. You ask for non cliches and your first idea is one of the oldest cliches.

Modifié par UltiPup, 07 avril 2011 - 09:22 .

[ReallyRue]

Romances are optional, and should stay that way. It's fairer. It is also the same of Bioware's other games. Romance is the same as building up relationships with the other characters.

Also, Romeo and Juliet is one of the most overdone cliches there is. And a 'romance of deceit' is already done somewhat with Anders, who decieves Hawke quite obviously in Act 3.

[shaneho78]

The replies have been good so far and some very good points have been made. Let me address some of the points

 

hoorayforicecream wrote: You can't really work something too deeply into the main storyline
because the romances are always intended to be optional.

 True. An option would be to work one of the romances into the main plot but yet make it optional. Mage Hawke can invoke a tempestuous relationship with a female templar that adds a layer of complexity into the mage/templar conflict OR he can simply go the easy route and romance Merrill who is easily enamored with him

fluorine7 wrote:
If Bioware make Romance part of the main plot line, people will complain the game "force" them to romance a certain NPC.

 I can certainly see that. Even if the romance that is well-woven into the story is optional (as elaborated above), people will still feel compelled to pursue it because it just seems so much more canon.People who play the game for the first time and pursued an easier romance may feel cheated when the other romance is so much more epic. I understand the 1st playthrough is always most canon/important to an RPG gamer. 

Caja wrote: Finally, I must say that I like the idea that there is a connection between a romance and the main plot, but it has to be in a way that the main plot would still work without the romance.

hoorayforicecream wrote: If it's an optional sidequest, that's much more doable.

 Good points again. In fact, I think the romance doesn’t even have to involve Hawke (Bethany and Cullen?) if it is woven but not integral to the main plot.  

Lame example again: Romance with Sister Petrice. Hawke meets Sister Petrice early on in Act 1. Optional early flirting ensues. Her role in subsequent quests (sherpherding wolves, resucing seamus, Ser Varnell fight etc.) are fully expanded upon. Along the way, Hawke can question her motives,Petrice can beg for Hawke’s understanding etc. Cue more deceit and lies akin to Anders’ own. Romance develops. Finally, instead of Seamus and Petrice both dying by default, Hawke can choose between the 2. If Hawke allows Petrice to kill Seamus and kills the Qunari archer sent to assassinate her (in turn harboring her in Hawke mansion), this gives the Arishok even more reason to unleash hell in Kirkwall. He still does regardless due to Isabela of course but an optional romance with Petrice will strengthen the plot (I think).

UltiPup wrote:
Funny. You ask for non cliches and your first idea is one of the oldest cliches.

ReallRue wrote:
Also, Romeo and Juliet is one of the most overdone cliches there is.

I know my ideas are clichés (hence lame) but you have to agree it can be done with an original romantic plotline. I'm usually bored with romantic comedies or any story that is almost fully focused on romance. However, if romance can be woven into an epic story without detracting too much from the main plotlines, It can make the story even more epic imo. Example: Avatar, The Dark Knight, Dances with Wolves etc. 

Modifié par shaneho78, 08 avril 2011 - 07:11 .

[hoorayforicecream]

I've been thinking about it, and I can only ask "What would this add to the game?" I mean... let's say they worked a templar romance into this somehow. I have no problems with that, it would make for some interesting story. What I don't get is why it would have to be an NPC. I mean... what does having the romance be with an NPC gain over having it be with a companion? As I stated earlier, there are several good reasons for it to be with companions, efficiency being a key factor. What sort of benefit would it be to having it with an NPC?

[shaneho78]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I've been thinking about it, and I can only ask "What would this add to the game?" I mean... let's say they worked a templar romance into this somehow. I have no problems with that, it would make for some interesting story. What I don't get is why it would have to be an NPC. I mean... what does having the romance be with an NPC gain over having it be with a companion? As I stated earlier, there are several good reasons for it to be with companions, efficiency being a key factor. What sort of benefit would it be to having it with an NPC?

More options I guess, which adds to replayability? In another thread, someone pointed out that for a straight male, the only options are a promiscuous pirate (with STDs?) and an elf who looks way too young to be romanceable. I think the more important question from a developer's viewpoint would be, does additional romance options or more epic romance plotlines add sufficiently to the game to warrant the extra effort put into it (extra dialogue, more divergent plotlines to account for etc.)? Based on the responses so far, I can only guess not.

Modifié par shaneho78, 08 avril 2011 - 07:26 .

[hoorayforicecream]

shaneho78 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I've been thinking about it, and I can only ask "What would this add to the game?" I mean... let's say they worked a templar romance into this somehow. I have no problems with that, it would make for some interesting story. What I don't get is why it would have to be an NPC. I mean... what does having the romance be with an NPC gain over having it be with a companion? As I stated earlier, there are several good reasons for it to be with companions, efficiency being a key factor. What sort of benefit would it be to having it with an NPC?

More options I guess, which adds to replayability? In another thread, someone pointed out that for a straight male, the only options are a promiscuous pirate (with STDs?) and an elf who looks way too young to be romanceable. I think the more important question from a developer's viewpoint would be, does additional romance options or more epic romance plotlines add sufficiently to the game to warrant the extra effort put into it (extra dialogue, more divergent plotlines to account for etc.)? Based on the responses so far, I can only guess not.

You didn't answer the question though. Why does it add more replayability to have an NPC romance, as opposed to a companion? It's one thing to say that some folks didn't find any of the romance options appealing. It's another to say that it is something that could be done only through NPC interaction and not companions. So let's perform a little thought experiment.

From a development standpoint, hypothetically speaking, let's say that you have the budget and time to implement four total romances for the next game. This is all the room you have, because any more would require cuts on other content, and you don't want that. You may choose whether to have them be companions or NPCs. How do you break it down, and why?

[shaneho78]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

shaneho78 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I've been thinking about it, and I can only ask "What would this add to the game?" I mean... let's say they worked a templar romance into this somehow. I have no problems with that, it would make for some interesting story. What I don't get is why it would have to be an NPC. I mean... what does having the romance be with an NPC gain over having it be with a companion? As I stated earlier, there are several good reasons for it to be with companions, efficiency being a key factor. What sort of benefit would it be to having it with an NPC?

More options I guess, which adds to replayability? In another thread, someone pointed out that for a straight male, the only options are a promiscuous pirate (with STDs?) and an elf who looks way too young to be romanceable. I think the more important question from a developer's viewpoint would be, does additional romance options or more epic romance plotlines add sufficiently to the game to warrant the extra effort put into it (extra dialogue, more divergent plotlines to account for etc.)? Based on the responses so far, I can only guess not.

You didn't answer the question though. Why does it add more replayability to have an NPC romance, as opposed to a companion? It's one thing to say that some folks didn't find any of the romance options appealing. It's another to say that it is something that could be done only through NPC interaction and not companions. So let's perform a little thought experiment.

From a development standpoint, hypothetically speaking, let's say that you have the budget and time to implement four total romances for the next game. This is all the room you have, because any more would require cuts on other content, and you don't want that. You may choose whether to have them be companions or NPCs. How do you break it down, and why?

If only 4 romances can be implemented, then the current setup is pretty fair. 2 romance options regardless of Hawke's gender or orientation albeit 4 if he's bisexual. Also I agree with you ( i never claimed otherwise) that companion is preferable to NPC romance wise because of the greater character depth etc. I'll be happier if 1 or 2 of those romance options can be deepy woven into the plot (side or main) --> my main proposition all along.

However, having additional NPC romance (on top of the 4 budgeted) would be even better imo as it adds unpredictability to the gaming experience as opposed to knowing from the start exactly which 4 characters can be romanced. It'll also make Kirkwall seem more alive with NPCs that can be flirted with, romanced (leading to new quests) or simply chatted up as aquaintances. It'll also be great to have NPCs (like Sister Petrice) who are integral to the story as romance options. There is no easy answer to what is best however. Like I suggested, one of the romances can even be between NPCs as long it is well woven into the story.

[Caja]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You didn't answer the question though. Why does it add more replayability to have an NPC romance, as opposed to a companion?

I believe this could give you a greater insight into an NPCs thoughts and feelings. I'm not sure if the replayability would really increase, but it could make the interaction between the main character and the NPC more interesting. Let's say you could have started a real romance with Anora in Origins instead of just marrying her out of political reasons. While romancing her you could get to know her better. A romance could add more depth to her character and therefore create a deeper understanding for her. Also, it would add to the gaming experience.

The difficulty I see here is that it would cost time and money to add NPCs romances.

Modifié par Caja, 08 avril 2011 - 10:24 .

[Torax]

Having it be an NPC wouldn't some how make it a great insight. You have much more of an idea about your companions. Their banters, reactions to npcs and each other. These all give the player far more a feel about who they would want to romance. A random npc you maybe talk to 3-4 times to sleep with you? That is what the Blooming Rose or the Pearl are for. Trying to add a npc and special content for them to just be a character to sleep with and nothing more? That adds nothing to the game really. I actually think it would take more than it gives.

They are actually getting better about it. The total conversations between romancing and not romancing a companion are far closer. Used to be that the difference between a romance and not was maybe 3-4 conversations tops. Now with how they tweaked the conversations for DA2, it's not a punishment compared to not romance npcs. As in missing frienship/rivalry for it and so on.

[Caja]

^ It's not (just) about sex . It's about learning something new about the character via dialogs. What I tried to point out was, that romancing an NPC could reveal something new about this character. So, said dialogs would only show up when you romance the NPC and not otherwise.

Of course,it's pretty lame if you only speak 3 or 4 times with an NPCs in order to build up a proper romance (though to be honest, there were hardly more conversations with your companions in DA 2, before the relationship got intimate).

And I don't think that romancing an NPC would be as 'fulfilling' as romancing a companion. So it certainly shouldn't replace the companions romances but should be added to them.

[hoorayforicecream]

I'm still not seeing it. I understand the desire for more depth, but for the amount of work a romance with Cullen or Petrice in DA2 would really require, why not just merge them with existing characters for cleaner narrative and just turn them into companions? The only reason I'd see to make an NPC-only romance is because that NPC can't be part of the group. But the amount of work necessary to create such a thing and do it right is difficult to justify from a production standpoint.

As for companion-NPC romances (e.g. Bethany falls for Cullen), they actually did that with Aveline and Donnic. And it was glorious.

[Caja]

I'm still not seeing it. I understand the desire for more depth, but for the amount of work a romance with Cullen or Petrice in DA2 would really require, why not just merge them with existing characters for cleaner narrative and just turn them into companions? The only reason I'd see to make an NPC-only romance is because that NPC can't be part of the group.

Well, the idea was to give players more options and to make the world more interesting. Hey, I never said that it was a great idea , even though I'm quite fond of it.

But the amount of work necessary to create such a thing and do it right is difficult to justify from a production standpoint.

Yes, I agree. And that's exactly the reason why I don't believe that it will be done in Dragon Age.

As for companion-NPC romances (e.g. Bethany falls for Cullen), they actually did that with Aveline and Donnic. And it was glorious.

And I agree again. The Aveline-Donnic-quest was one of the best quests in the game. I had a good laugh.

[frustratemyself]

shaneho78 wrote...

I'm only into my 3rd Bioware game and the romance aspect of the game is already seeming tiresome and cliched. 
Firstly, it's always your companion. Two: Getting them to like you boils down to 

1) listening to their sob stories and giving the appropriate response (for friendship or rivalry)

2) taking them to one (or two) of their quests and resolving/eradicating an issue in their past that has been haunting them

3) giving gifts (optional)

Obviously Bioware are playing true to life since this is how relationships go in real life especially point 1. Unless you pick up at Oktoberfest like a friend of mine did.....

[ipgd]

Optional romances with characters that have enough plot relevance (i.e. Morrigan, Alistair, Anders, Isabela) to make the game feel a little more personal are good enough for me. I do vastly prefer that to the "side character" romance options with little or no plot involvement, but making the romance itself have a huge impact on the plot is steering out of "optional" territory.

[shaneho78]

Would there be a way to make romances feel more well-earned (or epic) and less formulaic without reducing role-playing options?

Modifié par shaneho78, 09 avril 2011 - 03:11 .

[hoorayforicecream]

shaneho78 wrote...

Would there be a way to make romances feel more well-earned (or epic) and less formulaic without reducing role-playing options?

It comes down to needing more interaction. Humans develop relationships with each other through prolonged interaction. It's The problem is that the amount of interaction needed to foster a meaningful relationship means that you need to have more conversations, more interactions, more time spent. The problem with this is that you need to do this for every romance in the game, and you also need to remember that there are going to be some number of people who just won't want to participate in it. That means that there's a limit to what can and can't be affected by a romance, because it absolutely must remain optional.

I don't think the romances will ever get that much deeper or epic than they were in DA:O. They might get tuned to be more efficient, but given the amount of interaction required to foster such a thing, I think that the amount of interaction will probably be the same.

[mesmerizedish]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

It comes down to needing more interaction. Humans develop relationships with each other through prolonged interaction. It's The problem is that the amount of interaction needed to foster a meaningful relationship means that you need to have more conversations, more interactions, more time spent. The problem with this is that you need to do this for every romance in the game, and you also need to remember that there are going to be some number of people who just won't want to participate in it. That means that there's a limit to what can and can't be affected by a romance, because it absolutely must remain optional.

I don't think the romances will ever get that much deeper or epic than they were in DA:O. They might get tuned to be more efficient, but given the amount of interaction required to foster such a thing, I think that the amount of interaction will probably be the same.

Any time you post anything, little fireworks go off in my head, and I think "hooray hooray hooray!"

It's really quite incredible.

[underyourspell]

On the point of 'more interaction needed,' I would have loved to see more small scenes like when you first take Fenris to the Gallows. All they had to do was write a few lines of dialogue and it made the character seem not only deeper, but more aware of what he's actually running around doing all the time.

Stick in a flirt option, and tada! You have deeper romances as well as deeper companionships for those who aren't romancing.