Of course, and I wouldn't expect my opinions to be imposed on others as they are my opinions. I don't need them to be validated by anyone so that I can feel somehow justified.
Yes romances are optional, that was never my point. I believe I said I would have preferred it if that time and resource was spent developing the storyline in other ways. As for the options I pencilled in. In fact I would have preferred it if cut content and improved banter would have made it into the default game instead of romances.
I in no way begrudge people enjoying the romance option. I just don't understand the fascination with it and never will and I truly regard it as fluff that could have been exchanged for something more meaningful.
"Not only is BG an older series, it's D&D, a template that doesn't typically require that kind of complex internal interrelationships between party members."
I see where you are coming from with most of your points. This sentence is pretty silly though. An AD&D game should emphasis those internal relationships between party members more than any other game pretty much ever and should be head and shoulders above any sort of relationship scripts in the development priority lists.
I would have preferred it if that time and resource was spent developing the storyline in other ways. As for the options I pencilled in. In fact I would have preferred it if cut content and improved banter would have made it into the default game instead of romances.
Romances are expected by now, so at this point I think they're not optional.
However, I totally agree that more banter is better than more romances.
The hilarious BG2 banter is a big part of what made me love this series in the first place.
Of course, and I wouldn't expect my opinions to be imposed on others as they are my opinions. I don't need them to be validated by anyone so that I can feel somehow justified.
And yet you're advocating the complete removal of romances from the game? I mean, it's one thing to say you dislike that component, that's fine, no one's forcing you to use it - but to say it shouldn't be there at all is to impose precisely that opinion on other players.
Yes romances are optional, that was never my point. I believe I said I would have preferred it if that time and resource was spent developing the storyline in other ways. As for the options I pencilled in. In fact I would have preferred it if cut content and improved banter would have made it into the default game instead of romances.
Here's my problem with that statement: it rests on a false assumption. Namely, that the presence of romances and the fact that content was cut are somehow related. I'll remind you that the original BG1 had neither romances nor banters, so I'm not sure why you seem to think there's a connection between the two or that one exists at the expense of the other. Do you have concrete evidence of this?
I in no way begrudge people enjoying the romance option. I just don't understand the fascination with it and never will and I truly regard it as fluff that could have been exchanged for something more meaningful.
What you fail to grasp is that, for many other players, the romances are meaningful.
I see where you are coming from with most of your points. This sentence is pretty silly though. An AD&D game should emphasis those internal relationships between party members more than any other game pretty much ever and should be head and shoulders above any sort of relationship scripts in the development priority lists.
Really? Did I miss the chapter in the D&D Handbook where GMs are required to integrate friendship/team-bonding sessions into their adventures? Because in my experience, D&D adventure sessions tend to be quest-oriented rather than character-oriented anyway...
I at no point found the romances engaging or interesting. In fact I found them more than cringeworthy at points. I couldn't care less about the gender specificness either. Gay or straight, I wish that they were all revamped to remove the romance element (I don't really understand why so many games have to revolve around coupling up with an NPC) and were instead replaced with a relationships/friendship style format where emphasis is placed on team-bonding and building across all NPCs instead of focusing on having a romance with a single one.
If you think they are so badly written, wouldn't it make more sense to advocate that they be made better?
I'll never understand the fascination people seem to have with romancing NPCs and how important is is to them that they can do this in their favourite game. If you are that attention starved then go out into the real world and meet real people and start a real romance.
The same can be said about the friendship path you advocate - are you that alone and friendless?
@decado If an attractive man travels with an attractive woman for long periods of time, they're bound to find each other attractive and maybe develop a romantic relationship. Same goes for gay/lesbian adventurers, also.
Just check those reality-shows (not the best of examples but whatever) where strangers spend time together and some go into relationships.
The only reason that relationships don't develop in normal DnD sessions is because making out and flirting in front of the DM and other players can be awkward, especially if both characters are played by guys.
You want an example where relationships developed in the party? Cattie-brie and Wulfgar from the Drizzt's party.
And yet you're advocating the complete removal of romances from the game? I mean, it's one thing to say you dislike that component, that's fine, no one's forcing you to use it - but to say it shouldn't be there at all is to impose precisely that opinion on other players.
I sure am, I know it'll never happen but I know I'm not alone in disliking them. They seem to be a staple in all RPG games now and look like they are here to stay. This doesn't mean that I can't wish nor advocate that they didn't exist. I think I've clearly said this is my opinion a couple of times. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it seems like you are saying that I'm not entitled to express this opinion?
Here's my problem with that statement: it rests on a false assumption. Namely, that the presence of romances and the fact that content was cut are somehow related. I'll remind you that the original BG1 had neither romances nor banters, so I'm not sure why you seem to think there's a connection between the two or that one exists at the expense of the other. Do you have concrete evidence of this?
I'll give you that as looking back I can see that I had BG2 in mind when I posted. However perhaps there would have been a few less bugs present in BGEE if time hadn't been spent catering to the romance mob. You can't tell me that setting up the scripts, variables and QC for these romances to happen doesn't take a good chunk of resource away from the game development process.
What you fail to grasp is that, for many other players, the romances are meaningful.
Alright fair point. Can you explain to me how or why an imaginary 'romance' is so very important to you in a video game. As I've said I don't get it so feel free to educate me.
Really? Did I miss the chapter in the D&D Handbook where GMs are required to integrate friendship/team-bonding sessions into their adventures? Because in my experience, D&D adventure sessions tend to be quest-oriented rather than character-oriented anyway...
Sounds like your AD&D sessions were pretty boring then. To me D&D has always been a mixture of a series of quests which are linked into a story-arc combined with character relationship development both in party and with NPCs. What party would bother sticking together if there was no character development between them?
If you think they are so badly written, wouldn't it make more sense to advocate that they be made better?
No. I would advocate they were never included. As they are though and not likely to be cut from the game I would then advocate no further time to be spent on them and resource dedicated elsewhere.
The same can be said about the friendship path you advocate - are you that alone and friendless?
Oooo. Cutting. The answer is obviously yes of course.
@Archaos The fact you quote reality shows as a point of reference (and not in a negative way) invalidates most of what you say. I would like to think the the BG party members have slightly more integrity than your usual reality shows participants ;P
In response though I guess my opinion boils down to the fact that ultimately these ingame relationships always have to boil down to sexual attraction which I have no interest in terms of playing a video game. I don't want to play a dating sim, I want to kick ass and save the world.
@decado That's why I said that it's not the best of examples. And my point was that if two people, of compatible sexual orientations, that are not ugly as hell travel or live together for some time, some attraction would develop. Not always but it's very possible.
And you might not want it, but we do. It's more immersive and like a small personal quest where you get to know them some more. It adds flavor. If you want want a dungeon-crawler there's the Icewind Dale games or other games.
To me, normal banter goes hand in hand with romantic banter. Otherwise you're not dealing with characters but a bunch of stats.
I sure am, I know it'll never happen but I know I'm not alone in disliking them. They seem to be a staple in all RPG games now and look like they are here to stay. This doesn't mean that I can't wish nor advocate that they didn't exist. I think I've clearly said this is my opinion a couple of times. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it seems like you are saying that I'm not entitled to express this opinion?
There's a difference between stating an opinion ("I don't like RPG romances") and advocating that action be taken because of that opinion ("RPG romances should be removed even if other people like them"). The former is within your rights, the latter requires a degree of self-centered entitlement that I find rather distasteful.
I'll give you that as looking back I can see that I had BG2 in mind when I posted. However perhaps there would have been a few less bugs present in BGEE if time hadn't been spent catering to the romance mob. You can't tell me that setting up the scripts, variables and QC for these romances to happen doesn't take a good chunk of resource away from the game development process.
Trent Oster disagrees: "The writing and art team are moving ahead, while the rest of us make builds, fix bugs and add features. #BGEE is going to be great. (Twitter, Dec. 14)
Beamdog has separate teams for content and gameplay; in fact, the content team started working on BG2:EE while the gameplay team was still focusing on technical issues in BG:EE. So bugs have nothing to do with romances.
Alright fair point. Can you explain to me how or why an imaginary 'romance' is so very important to you in a video game. As I've said I don't get it so feel free to educate me.
As you wish. In fact, I'll go a step further.
One of the more appealing aspects of contemporary RPGs (and we'll include Baldur's Gate in this category) is the notion of the Ragtag Bunch of Misfits: the idea that your player character has assembled a group of people who, under normal circumstances, might never have met, let alone worked together. It goes without saying that these parties are comprised of very different individuals, and their personalities aren't always compatible. You might have an evil teammate you keep around just for their power, or a conflict with another hero-type who disagrees with your methods, and so on. Eventually, these disparate characters will band together and form meaningful relationships with each other and with your player character.
However, it's fair to assume that if you don't view your party members as interchangeable, you'll respond to characters differently. Some you'll hate, some you'll like, and some will be very compatible with the personality you've ascribed to your PC, even if it doesn't reflect who you are in reality.
The romance mechanism, at its core, is simply a device that further develops the way your PC interrelates with the party - if they're all Friends/Teammates/Loyal then, on some level, they're all the same. But if one character becomes a love interest, that's another layer added to the dynamic: this character is different from the others not only by virtue of their personality, but by the fact that the player feels a stronger bond with that specific individual.
Everyone who wants imaginary romances must be lonely for love!
Everyone who wants imaginary friendships must be lonely for friends!
I have both a girlfriend and a group of friends I am very close with, yet I love my fictional romances and companionship in video games. I have a strong distaste for these stereotypes you have just mentioned @typo_tilly
@typo_tilly I don't need real life relationships! I am already in relationships with many characters in video games, TV Shows and Books. Oh, wait... did I really say that out loud?
@Jalily I wasn't too sure if she was being sarcastic or not, but I said what I said anyway, mainly directed at the people who would believe those stereotypes. (I probably should have specified that, but I got next to no sleep last night, silly me)
You travel with a group, kill, survive and see the next day. You do this day after day, in the road, without fixing yourself anywhere, neither those that travel with you. So, is that soo surprising that a romance start between 2 traveles togheter for that long time without chance of satisfying themselfs mostly of the times?
The surprise is the romances being happening only between main char and an eligible romance. Romance =/= marriage, just to let it clear.
Ok, i give that BG romances apparently appear as an endless relation discussion to few sex (you don't even get it with Jaheira, which is frustating taking in fact she had an husband and was doing this kind of stuff all the time).
We have 2 minor romances in fact between NPCs, Haer'Dalis and Aerie, also Imoen and Keldorn (what is in fact an joke of 1 or 2 banters, she try to pickpocket Keldorn, he caught her in the attempt and she goes sweet to Keldor what disarm him of answers to her).
Edit: By the way, i have to state that this soon will become another battlefied soon, as all the threads that touched this nest of wasps, aka gay romances.
It's an done feature so no reason to complain against, the devs will continue to pursue this (apparently there are rumors that the evil female thief that will be added in BG2 will be lesbian or bi), make all NPCs bi is stupid, an already tested feature in fact (dragon age 2), among another ton of facts and arguments...
I think it shouldn't end up as 'all non-heterosexual candidates are evil and all evil candidates are non-heterosexual', though, as seems to be implied here. There are some problems with that.
I think it shouldn't end up as 'all non-heterosexual candidates are evil and all evil candidates are non-heterosexual', though, as seems to be implied here. There are some problems with that.
On the one hand, I agree that the implications are somewhat problematic, but for Beamdog it comes down to simple economy of NPCs.
BG:EE established Dorn as the m/m romance, which I will never not give them credit for because he was literally the last character I would have predicted and I can't wait to see how that story unfolds. Going into BG2:EE, they knew they'd only be adding one more NPC, and this NPC had to fill specific gaps in the existing character pool (I'm taking Phillip Daigle's Twitter hints as facts here, but a grain of salt may be necessary): she had to be evil because there are only three evil NPCs in BG2 (four counting Dorn, still one short of a full party), she had to be a thief class because that's something an evil party sorely needed, and she had to be the f/f romance option for the simple reason that Beamdog can't change existing NPCs (so, for example, they couldn't have it be Nalia or Mazzy, or make Viconia bisexual).
Mind you, it's still within the realm of possibility that it'll turn out to be Neera, in which case there'd be no problem... but two evil same-sex romances are still better than none at all, IMO.
No plans to make Viconia bisexual at this time, no. She does have gender tokens in a lot of her dialogue, but to my knowledge it's not all the way through, so that would take some combing of the strings.
Comments
Yes romances are optional, that was never my point. I believe I said I would have preferred it if that time and resource was spent developing the storyline in other ways. As for the options I pencilled in. In fact I would have preferred it if cut content and improved banter would have made it into the default game instead of romances.
I in no way begrudge people enjoying the romance option. I just don't understand the fascination with it and never will and I truly regard it as fluff that could have been exchanged for something more meaningful.
"Not only is BG an older series, it's D&D, a template that doesn't typically require that kind of complex internal interrelationships between party members."
I see where you are coming from with most of your points. This sentence is pretty silly though. An AD&D game should emphasis those internal relationships between party members more than any other game pretty much ever and should be head and shoulders above any sort of relationship scripts in the development priority lists.
However, I totally agree that more banter is better than more romances.
The hilarious BG2 banter is a big part of what made me love this series in the first place.
If an attractive man travels with an attractive woman for long periods of time, they're bound to find each other attractive and maybe develop a romantic relationship.
Same goes for gay/lesbian adventurers, also.
Just check those reality-shows (not the best of examples but whatever) where strangers spend time together and some go into relationships.
The only reason that relationships don't develop in normal DnD sessions is because making out and flirting in front of the DM and other players can be awkward, especially if both characters are played by guys.
You want an example where relationships developed in the party? Cattie-brie and Wulfgar from the Drizzt's party.
@Archaos
The fact you quote reality shows as a point of reference (and not in a negative way) invalidates most of what you say. I would like to think the the BG party members have slightly more integrity than your usual reality shows participants ;P
In response though I guess my opinion boils down to the fact that ultimately these ingame relationships always have to boil down to sexual attraction which I have no interest in terms of playing a video game. I don't want to play a dating sim, I want to kick ass and save the world.
That's why I said that it's not the best of examples. And my point was that if two people, of compatible sexual orientations, that are not ugly as hell travel or live together for some time, some attraction would develop. Not always but it's very possible.
And you might not want it, but we do.
If you want want a dungeon-crawler there's the Icewind Dale games or other games.
To me, normal banter goes hand in hand with romantic banter. Otherwise you're not dealing with characters but a bunch of stats.
obviously the voiced lines will still remain but the rest is a simple matter of changing he/she and some odd lady/lord here and there.
someone more ambitious could make separate cloned same-sex romance track with little modifications to originals.
anybody?
Beamdog has separate teams for content and gameplay; in fact, the content team started working on BG2:EE while the gameplay team was still focusing on technical issues in BG:EE. So bugs have nothing to do with romances. As you wish. In fact, I'll go a step further.
One of the more appealing aspects of contemporary RPGs (and we'll include Baldur's Gate in this category) is the notion of the Ragtag Bunch of Misfits: the idea that your player character has assembled a group of people who, under normal circumstances, might never have met, let alone worked together. It goes without saying that these parties are comprised of very different individuals, and their personalities aren't always compatible. You might have an evil teammate you keep around just for their power, or a conflict with another hero-type who disagrees with your methods, and so on. Eventually, these disparate characters will band together and form meaningful relationships with each other and with your player character.
However, it's fair to assume that if you don't view your party members as interchangeable, you'll respond to characters differently. Some you'll hate, some you'll like, and some will be very compatible with the personality you've ascribed to your PC, even if it doesn't reflect who you are in reality.
It follows, then, that a particular character might be singled out by your PC as having a unique bond that goes beyond the friendship/loyalty you exhibit with every other NPC. Hence, the possibility of a romance emerges. It's not as if romance is a foreign concept to RPGs: Jaheira and Khalid are married, after all. Haer'Dalis is interested in Aerie. Garrus and Tali can end up having a fling before the final battle under certain circumstances.
The romance mechanism, at its core, is simply a device that further develops the way your PC interrelates with the party - if they're all Friends/Teammates/Loyal then, on some level, they're all the same. But if one character becomes a love interest, that's another layer added to the dynamic: this character is different from the others not only by virtue of their personality, but by the fact that the player feels a stronger bond with that specific individual.
I hope that explanation suffices.
The surprise is the romances being happening only between main char and an eligible romance. Romance =/= marriage, just to let it clear.
Ok, i give that BG romances apparently appear as an endless relation discussion to few sex (you don't even get it with Jaheira, which is frustating taking in fact she had an husband and was doing this kind of stuff all the time).
We have 2 minor romances in fact between NPCs, Haer'Dalis and Aerie, also Imoen and Keldorn (what is in fact an joke of 1 or 2 banters, she try to pickpocket Keldorn, he caught her in the attempt and she goes sweet to Keldor what disarm him of answers to her).
Edit: By the way, i have to state that this soon will become another battlefied soon, as all the threads that touched this nest of wasps, aka gay romances.
It's an done feature so no reason to complain against, the devs will continue to pursue this (apparently there are rumors that the evil female thief that will be added in BG2 will be lesbian or bi), make all NPCs bi is stupid, an already tested feature in fact (dragon age 2), among another ton of facts and arguments...
2° - This is the stupid of what radicalism can do.
Dorn is homo not because he's evil, but because he's the best NPC to fit that role between the 3 news.
If Neera was the bi ppl would say "See! they're sexists, only a girl as bissexual!"
If Rasaad was bi ppl would say "Why the moron character is bi and not the cool one like Dorn!"
In the end, it became only a justify to complain and the objective is put in second plane in favor of the means, complain for the complain sake.
BG:EE established Dorn as the m/m romance, which I will never not give them credit for because he was literally the last character I would have predicted and I can't wait to see how that story unfolds. Going into BG2:EE, they knew they'd only be adding one more NPC, and this NPC had to fill specific gaps in the existing character pool (I'm taking Phillip Daigle's Twitter hints as facts here, but a grain of salt may be necessary): she had to be evil because there are only three evil NPCs in BG2 (four counting Dorn, still one short of a full party), she had to be a thief class because that's something an evil party sorely needed, and she had to be the f/f romance option for the simple reason that Beamdog can't change existing NPCs (so, for example, they couldn't have it be Nalia or Mazzy, or make Viconia bisexual).
Mind you, it's still within the realm of possibility that it'll turn out to be Neera, in which case there'd be no problem... but two evil same-sex romances are still better than none at all, IMO.
"Why 2 female + female romance and only 1 for males? Sexists!!!"
It's the complain for the sake of complain.