I disagree with the op.
The romances, on top of "friendship"/attachment to the npc's, means they are making good npc characters that the players like (not as in likeable characters).
They are a boon to the game and the franchise...
Let's not make the game for the lowest common denominator on both "sides". People who have no interest in romance and plays a game with romance. People who go completely over the top nuts with virtual characters, with no humour.
Ro-mance Ro-mance Ro-mance Ro-mance!
Why, because those posters either didn't read the OP or didn't comprehend it?
That's one way of putting it, yes. The wording I would choose is "making assumptions about the OP's motives."
Have you responded with any methodology beyond your own anecdotal beliefs?
First question: Methodology for what? Second question: What is an "anecdotal belief?" Third question: What is it you think my, er... "anecdotal beliefs" are?
You claim that Google's auto-fill function measures people's reasons for buying games, then link a study about frequency of searches for a company's product being broadly related to interest in purchasing that company's product. Frequency of Google searches for BioWare products is unrelated to the text auto-fill function's inclusion of the word "romance."
If you don't like romances, then don't initiate a romance with someone.
Problem solved.
I should copy/paste certain phrases into a notepad file:
- Feel free to quote me where I said that I dislike romances
- Feel free to quote me where I said that romances represented a problem for me
At the very least, I should have a macro for "Feel free to quote a post where I said that," or some such.
817 replies in this thread, and I'd guess that maybe half of them are some variation of this post.
It would appear that bringing statistics into this is more controversial than the topic of romances!
And I'm torn, because I strongly disagree with OP, and yet...I almost feel sorry for him.
No need. I am primarily amused, periodically punctuated by mild annoyance. As much as I expected some of what has come of this thread, I have been flabbergasted by the number of people declaring my statements and motivations while refusing (sometimes openly) to read anything that I've actually written.
I'm not surprised by Bethesda's approach to romance in FO4.
Neither am I, but I'm assuming that they aren't investing much in the way of resources to them. If they turn out to be highly involved, and amount to more than Skyrim's "Get an amulet and press 'A' 3 times and BOOM we're married!" that will be very significant.
Also Bethesda never was that good with romances, making them complicated and such but i'm hoping FO4 romances become slightly better than the bad skyrim ones with the "i'm interested in you" - "Me too" = get married.
I'll give Skyrim credit for at least having the spousal relationship play a role in the game, particularly with the concept of a homestead (something Fallout/Elder Scrolls players inevitably develop for storage and convenience.) But the only companion arc that really made much sense as a romance was Serana, who was well-rounded and had a solid arc. Sadly, she was one of the minority of characters in the game unavailable for marriage.
Why, because those posters either didn't read the OP or didn't comprehend it?
I'm half-convinced some managed both!
I disagree with the op.
The romances, on top of "friendship"/attachment to the npc's, means they are making good npc characters that the players like (not as in likeable characters).
They are a boon to the game and the franchise...
Let's not make the game for the lowest common denominator on both "sides". People who have no interest in romance and plays a game with romance. People who go completely over the top nuts with virtual characters, with no humour.
The Opening Post doesn't really address NPCs, whether they are good, or whether they are likable. It also wasn't about "sides," people playing romances who don't like them, or people going over the top nuts with characters that have no humour. But you get points for creativity, because copy/pasting one of my stock answers wouldn't have worked! I'm unsure what you meant, because I did have some trouble following what your post is saying.
Ro-mance Ro-mance Ro-mance Ro-mance!
To-ga! To-ga! To-ga! To-ga!
That's one way of putting it, yes. The wording I would choose is "making assumptions about the OP's motives."
I think you're both correct. I am going to stop posting briefly, though, because five in a row is officially talking to myself.
The Opening Post doesn't really address NPCs, whether they are good, or whether they are likable. It also wasn't about "sides," people playing romances who don't like them, or people going over the top nuts with characters that have no humour. But you get points for creativity, because copy/pasting one of my stock answers wouldn't have worked! I'm unsure what you meant, because I did have some trouble following what your post is saying.
It was a non sensical OP... Free means free to include romance... And might as well have said... No space, no guns, no powers, no graphics, no sound, return to text based adventures or any other.... subjective preference... 
As I said tho... I find romances a boon to the me franchise... It's a hint that the characters ingame appeal to people that they are so popular, that people argue about em.
Internets response to a Bioware game without romances:
Tbh i'm sick of them beeing there just because. Do them well or don't do them at all. They should play a part in the story not just some obligatory fanservice/****** inspiration.
Thank you Thank you Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really remove them as the OP said or do them right... I am fine with both.
Thank you Thank you Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really remove them as the OP said or do them right... I am fine with both.
Yes, it's a revolutionary concept. In all this time, it's really amazing that it never occurred to the Bioware Devs to try to do romances "right."
The only teensy problem with that suggestion is how nonspecific it is about what writing high quality or well integrated romance stories would entail. Not to state the obvious, but it's going to mean something different to different people.
I agree with the OP. Just give me a Krogan squadmate as a Garrus tier best bro and I'm golden.
It was a non sensical OP... Free means free to include romance... And might as well have said... No space, no guns, no powers, no graphics, no sound, return to text based adventures or any other.... subjective preference...
For some reason, I don't trust your assertion of what a nonsensical... I'm sorry, "non sensical" post is.
Yes, it's a revolutionary concept. In all this time, it's really amazing that it never occurred to the Bioware Devs to try to do romances "right."
The only teensy problem with that suggestion is how nonspecific it is about what writing high quality or well integrated romance stories would entail. Not to state the obvious, but it's going to mean something different to different people.
I would define doing it "right" as having meaningful content and having the romance arc have some relevance to the main plot.
For example, the only romances in Dragon Age I ever enjoyed were Morrigan, Anders, and Solas for the reasons stated above. The other romances mostly just felt like window dressing and an excuse to show t_ts and a$$.
Obviously, most people have a greater capacity for human emotion than I do, so, YMMV.
For some reason, I don't trust your assertion of what a nonsensical... I'm sorry, "non sensical" post is.
But for future reference... Puzzle bubble is a great game with no romance.
Oh my god why can't everyone in the Bioware forum just shut up and kiss!
It's war on both the Mass-Effect and Dragon-Age fanbase, two of my favourite games series...
I blame Obama.
Neither am I, but I'm assuming that they aren't investing much in the way of resources to them. If they turn out to be highly involved, and amount to more than Skyrim's "Get an amulet and press 'A' 3 times and BOOM we're married!" that will be very significant.
I believe that's exactly where Bethesda wants to go, I think they are trying to get rid of their "huge exploration but bland characters" reputation, and have more subsantial charatcers and relationships (relationship in the broad sense).
I believe that a developper that adds romance actually wants to add them, it might look like a selling point, but for actually be a selling point, it should actually have effort put in it, hamfisted attemps like Bound by flame certainly don't make people buy a game they wouldn't want in the first place.
I would define doing it "right" as having meaningful content and having the romance arc have some relevance to the main plot.
For example, the only romances in Dragon Age I ever enjoyed were Morrigan, Anders, and Solas for the reasons stated above. The other romances mostly just felt like window dressing and an excuse to show t_ts and a$$.
Obviously, most people have a greater capacity for human emotion than I do, so, YMMV.
That's fair. I want more integrated romance arcs as well, but at the same time, I think there's something to be said for certain interactions between characters just for the sake of that interaction itself.
I'll go with some of the Mordin scenes in ME2 as an example. His musical performance, and his possible assumption that a Shepard not in a romance is into him. Nonessential scenes, but I still think they added much more to the game and the character than they detracted from it. You could have nonessential scenes with an essential character of course, but my only point is that this is so deep in YMMV territory, that expecting the Devs to navigate their way to doing romances "right" through the various competing requests and demands of a fan base this splintered might be overly optimistic.
I wish there wont be romances like thinly veiled endorsement i.e. Jessica Chobot or waste of space like Sebastian.
or SWTOR-like romances : flirt > sex > "Let's get married" > the end
That's fair. I want more integrated romance arcs as well, but at the same time, I think there's something to be said for certain interactions between characters just for the sake of that interaction itself.
I'll go with some of the Mordin scenes in ME2 as an example. His musical performance, and his possible assumption that a Shepard not in a romance is into him. Nonessential scenes, but I still think they added much more to the game and the character than they detracted from it. You could have nonessential scenes with an essential character of course, but my only point is that this is so deep in YMMV territory, that expecting the Devs to navigate their way to doing romances "right" through the various competing requests and demands of a fan base this splintered might be overly optimistic.
It's pretty darned difficult to give every potential LI some sort of plot relevance (integration?) while still maintaining the various species / orientation quotas they might want to support.
Unfortunately, if you bring this up in with a preference for the former, you get called a homophobe or some such thing. Giving plot relevance to relationships would likely result in fewer, but deeper, options.
That's part of Mass Effect's charm
Unfortunately, if you bring this up in with a preference for the former, you get called a homophobe or some such thing.
I would have been against it in the past, as generally I am usually against taking away options, but over time I feel less and less supportive of romances in games in general. When I first played the Baldur's Gate games back when they released, I never even knew the possibility existed, and on one playthrough I found out about it and thought it was pretty neat, novel even.
But now, it seems like it's being seen as something mandatory, that HAS to be in a Bioware title at all costs, and even has people demanding it in other RPGs, even those that would not significantly benefit from it. It just feels to me like it attracts an audience with skewed priorites. People will claim it can make a game seem more mature, and maybe I felt that way in the past, when it was little more than a fade to black with meaningful exchanges between the characters. But now, with the advances in technology, to me it just feels voyeuristic, insincere, and sometimes cringeworthy even.
Retour en haut
