On romances in general: Please, make them only trigger if I flirt with the npc. I don't know if this will be a problem for bg(2)ee but as an example it was in mass effect(which is not your game I know) were it was enough to be nice to someone to make them assume you two were in an relationship, pretty annoying if you just like to talk to people... And personally(just my own opinion) in bgee I don't like when my evil orcish death-knight-like-tank makes advances on my male pc when I try to make him a little nicer just so he won't leave the party when I do not kill every kitten I see.
On romances in general: Please, make them only trigger if I flirt with the npc. I don't know if this will be a problem for bg(2)ee but as an example it was in mass effect(which is not your game I know) were it was enough to be nice to someone to make them assume you two were in an relationship, pretty annoying if you just like to talk to people... And personally(just my own opinion) in bgee I don't like when my evil orcish death-knight-like-tank makes advances on my male pc when I try to make him a little nicer just so he won't leave the party when I do not kill every kitten I see.
Maybe make it a choice in the menu?
Choice in the menu will infuriate the radicals (would be the best, not only for the gay content but for put a on-off button for romances in general).
Make the romances be started by the player, all of them, is atm the best neutral approach of this subject.
On romances in general: Please, make them only trigger if I flirt with the npc. I don't know if this will be a problem for bg(2)ee but as an example it was in mass effect(which is not your game I know) where it was enough to be nice to someone to make them assume you two were in an relationship, pretty annoying if you just like to talk to people... And personally(just my own opinion) in bgee I don't like when my evil orcish death-knight-like-tank makes advances on my male pc when I try to make him a little nicer just so he won't leave the party when I do not kill every kitten I see.
Maybe make it a choice in the menu?
Choice in the menu will infuriate the radicals (would be the best, not only for the gay content but for put a on-off button for romances in general).
Make the romances be started by the player, all of them, is atm the best neutral approach of this subject.
Yes, that is a way better solution but it could possibly kill some of the immersion and depth of the characters (Aka. every initiative in the game is now made by the player). That's why I loved the Velen mod from bg2 because she f*cked up my trying to be good playthrough all the time just by being in my party(Amazing mod/npc!).
Another solution that would be pretty interesting would be if there is a 25%(?) chance that the romance will be initiated by the npc but otherwise will be by the pc and would involve extra lines of dialogue. This in my opinion would create some kind of illusion of intellect in the npc and make several playthroughs more interesting.
And to those who don't care about romances in these types of games like myself, Overhaul could perhaps add an option of removing/turning off romances in the .ini file? I'm not into this kind of stuff put it sounds entirely possible to me.
Also as @LadyRhian 's hilarious comic showed I hate it when the options for initiating romances are:
A) Kick in the face
Let space hamster loose on the others eyes
C) Sex
Y U NO MAKE NICE AND SUPPORTIVE BUT NOT INTERESTED GUY/GAL OPTION!? ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
Actually, the comic is completely false, and probably drawn by someone who reads online fora more than he (or she, but I think more likely he) plays the actual game. There is no chance in hell to "mistakenly" bed Anders, even if he comes on to you. Absolutely none. You have to press on quite a few golden heart options (and ignore quite a few broken black hearts) in order for that to be possible. So unless you have a defective mouse/keyboard, or you do not understand the universal symbols (like a stylized version of the heart for love or romance) used in the western world for the last several centuries, and in the rest of the world for at least a century, if you romanced anyone in DA2 it is because you wanted to romance him/her. There is a bit more believability to such claims on DAO (as there is no reaction wheel there), but even there a six year old can spot the romance text (and the "get me out of this situation" texts).
As for a toggle button, well you can label me "radical", but that is just homophobic. Pure and simple. Why don't you have a toggle for "White companions only" for that matter?
Romances are a strictly optional content, and anyone who does not wish to play them is under no obligation to do so (in the same manner that anybody who doesn't want to do any and all side quests is free to ignore them). Having some companions come on to you adds to their believability. I have yet to encounter a game which does not give a very clear exit option from that situation, and the fact that the existence of potential gay people in your game causes you so much discomfort that you would use such overblown and easily refutable hyperbolic claims (like the ones made by @Aron740 or the comic posted by @LadyRhian) reminds more more than anything of the gay panic defense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense
@LadyRhian I didn't accuse you of anything. And I can understand the humor in the comic, even if it is homophobic and based on a false premise. It would have been funny if it were a straight couple with no DA2 references, but those references make it, as I said, both false and homophobic, and more representative of the mass hysteria and gay panic prevalent on many gamer fora online than of actual game content.
Edit: You know what, after a second thought I retract that - even if it were a straight couple it would not have been funny. A person who jumps into bed with another after a single "hi" when the other person is clearly not interested in that is predatory. If it were a straight couple it would have been misogynistic. As it is now, it is homophobic.
@callimachus I'm sorry but as I see it there is zero sense in your two posts. That is of course my opinion, and I have an option to have that opinion and we are both for options in games and real life, right?
Baldurs gate is a roleplaying game where you create your story and in my story I want my orcish knight to be dark, evil and (not in a sexy way)mysterious and not to be interested in my male protagonist (might add that most of the time I make female protagonists and I still do not want to romance the evil brute) since I want a friend to friend relationship with him that expands over two(three!) games. So if I want to adapt the game to my story, my roleplaying am I homophobic? That makes no sense at all and I am deeply hurt by how you jump the gun at me for no reason and putting me under a homophobic stereotype because of simple misguided assumptions.
Now to the part where I clear up minor confusion:
@callimachus "...I have yet to encounter a game which does not give a very clear exit option from that situation..."
My favorite game series of all time(sorry baldurs gate!) is Mass Effect. The bad thing about the game in my eyes is that everytime you say something in the game you choose from a short summary of options that most of the time is very misleading. Just ask Ashley and Liara, they thought that I was cheating on them just because I was not a douche to the other (quite lifelike). I have had to reload several times because I mistakenly said something that I did not know I would say.
@callimachus "...Why don't you have a toggle for "White companions only" for that matter?"
Because no one asked for it(to my knowledge)? But I asked for a "turn off romances" or "turn off individual romances". If you want "White companions only" I would let you request that without jumping the gun and thinking that you are racist. Maybe in your forgotten realms there are no other race than white humans (I think that would be boring, no Yoshi, "he who shall not be named", stalker or Korax since he is like greenish). But It is YOUR story! And if the devs do not want to fulfill my request, that is where modding comes is! That is why almost every game with modding capabilities will have "nude mods", because the dev does not want to do it but people want it(not everyone, some people want to play a game without having to squint their eyes to see their characters actions behind the cleavage). So I am just asking for something I want, I do not demand that it should be done or forcing it upon anyone.
Really...? Then your comment reminds me of it as well, since you insult me with your assumptions because you seem to think that I made homophobic advances at my own game? Maybe we should call this "homophobic panic defence". Will probably carry just as little weight in everyones ears though.
There is a lot more that I should clear up but sadly I already take up one third on the page but one more thing should be said.
I shall be very honest here, I bloody hate it when people jump to assumptions to fight for something that needs attention but in their blind rage they attack the wrong person. Homophobia is a problem that needs fighting, yes I know that so take the time to think before you waste time on someone who has done nothing wrong in any way.
Something similar is now happening with racism in Sweden as you perhaps has seen on the news(riots)? And the consequences of blind rage can sadly be very harsh.
Sorry for being a bit off topic but in a way it's not and it had to be said.
why are people unable to deal with NPC initiating anything? kindly select "not interested" response: it is your "enable/disable content button".
if content turning is option i want "turn off evil/good/neutral options", "disable side quests", "reputation on/off", "no nether scrolls", "disable magic", "no humanoid enemies" etc. buttons.
oh, and god forbid i had to turn down someone interested in me if i do not like them (and vice-versa), because that doesn't happen in real life, so it would be simply forced and unrealistic. -.-
@Aron740: The problem with your argument is that you're basically making The Player (whoever that may be) out to be a complete idiot.
To repeat the valid point @callimachus makes: romances are optional in BG2. It's another variable in the plot. You're not penalized for refusing that path, you just keep going. And shutting them down - whether because you've changed your mind or because you didn't mean to trigger it in the first place - is as easy as saying "Thanks, but no thanks."
You mention Liara, and that happened to me too - I was being nice, she misinterpreted. You know what I did? "Thanks, but no thanks." She gets a little embarrassed (for an asari, she's barely out of her teens) and that's it. Nothing more need be said.
If you need a toggle to avoid navigating that situation, you're basically admitting that the player is either too immature or too mentally-deficient to cope with a scenario like that. And while I hate to use the Slippery Slope fallacy, you could just as easily ask for an "evil" toggle that removes all evil NPCs and evil options for quests from the game because you're not comfortable with the existence of that possibility (even though, as with romances, the game never forces you to be evil).
The romances are built into the game; they're as much a part of it as Watcher's Keep, and means exactly as much or as little as WK does to any given player. Do it, don't do it, whatever feels right for your character.
I see your point but I would still like to have an option to turn off romances and I'm totally open disable them by modding. To ask for it here was simply a first step, so if anyone knows if there exists a mod for this please tell me or if there is a simple way to turn it off by file-editing
The rant may have got a bit out of hand since I don't think anyone should throw around those kind of insults. I hope no one took it badly and if anyone did then I am deeply sorry.
@Aron740 don't feel bad, i simply made my case why i think "enable/disable buttons" (since there is player selection present ingame) are not a good idea regarding the content.
shawne was just more eloquent and rhetorically coherent.
Baldurs gate is a roleplaying game where you create your story and in my story I want my orcish knight to be dark, evil and (not in a sexy way)mysterious and not to be interested in my male protagonist (might add that most of the time I make female protagonists and I still do not want to romance the evil brute) since I want a friend to friend relationship with him that expands over two(three!) games. So if I want to adapt the game to my story, my roleplaying am I homophobic? That makes no sense at all and I am deeply hurt by how you jump the gun at me for no reason and putting me under a homophobic stereotype because of simple misguided assumptions.
In an RPG (especially a computer RPG) you create a character and control its reactions to the world. You indeed create your own story, but only within the parameters of what the game allows. You do not, however, create the world in which your character and its story operate. You may (and most likely will) affect the world around in some ways (again, to the degree that the game allows), but you do not shape it. This is in fact similar to reality, except of course that you have much more freedom to operate within our world, but that your effect on it is (usually) less than that of your character's on its world. In both cases you do not create in which you operate. In both cases that includes the reactions of other people to you, as well as a number of other factors which may not be to your liking. And just like in the real world some people (characters) in the game might take a liking to you, and some may even (gasp) hit on you. You may want your "orcish knight to be dark, evil and (not in a sexy way) mysterious and not to be interested in my male protagonist", but that is not the character that exists in the game. Personally I did not find Dorn sexy in the least, but to each his own, I suppose. I guess we both would have preferred Dorn to be different than he is. Guess what? He is what he is. Just like in the real world other people are what they are. And that is not (and cannot be) subject to player agency.
Now, admittedly, unlike in the real world, Dorn is an artificial entity, written and designed by people. But just like you would have liked him to be different, so would I. To which of us do you suppose the writers should listen more? My answer to this is: neither. The game cannot be everything to everyone, and characters will be written based on what the writers want them to be.
I would still want the inclusion of gay romance, you may want its exclusion, or even the exclusion of all romance. Frankly I do not see a way for your wishes to be fulfilled if they are for the exclusion of all romance (for practical and contractual reasons if nothing else). But luckily for you it is very very easy to avoid them, or shut them down in the bud.
@Aron740: Maybe you could explain more clearly, then, why you feel you need to have this as an overriding feature? If you want to avoid romances altogether, don't take the gender-specific NPC love interests with you: if your PC is male, take Anomen, Mazzy and Edwin instead of Viconia, Jaheira and Aerie; if you're female, take Keldorn, Minsc and Edwin instead of Rasaad, Dorn and Anomen.
Honestly, it seems like you're asking for a solution that's much more complicated than the one that's already available to you...
@callimachus "...You do not, however, create the world in which your character and its story operate."
Well that is the wonderful thing about "fantasy" right? And I may adapt the game to whatever I want since I own my copy. So what I am asking for by giving the option to remove romances is to bring more flexibility to the game for better roleplaying that is also why I am for the introduction of more races that may not work too well with the current story like drow and Tieflings. So if this restriction would be removed I could make Dorn/Neera/Xzar whatever I want. It is like if there was no possible way to change the portraits of npcs. But we can change the portrait of npcs and remove Edwins nose ring and give Dorn lipstick even if the writers wanted the characters to be the way they were painted. I see this as the same thing, if the option is there your fantasy can flow more freely and that keeps games alive longer since they are then ever changing and forever new and I think in a way that that is why BG is still alive.
Sorry if this may just be an assumption as well but it sounds like you want/like restrictions on your game? If so then I have no idea why you would since the gaming experience would be very narrow and dead, All to my own opinion of course but I recommend you try gaming my way(It's great).
@shawne But that will greatly limit my choice in companions? And that is by far not what I'm after.
@trinit I don't, but I felt that it was a bit unnecessary to step on toes if they were not even in my way.
Well that is the wonderful thing about "fantasy" right? And I may adapt the game to whatever I want since I own my copy.
Even fantasy worlds are subject to basic rules of narrative, and so are role-playing games. Whatever individual choices a player makes, certain things are true in all variations: you're always a Child of Bhaal, Gorion always dies, Irenicus always escapes at Spellhold. These are the "core" events that move the primary plot forward, while events concerning Firkraag or Watcher's Keep or Sarevok vary depending on the player.
The same is true of the NPCs. Xan is depressed; Minsc is crazy; Edwin is arrogant; Shar-Teel hates men. These are aspects of how they're characterized in the game, and that's something you don't control (much like a D&D session wouldn't allow you to rewrite the personalities of other players' characters). If you don't like a particular character, don't take them with you.
Now, that last bit: you can, of course, mod your own copy of the game in whatever way you like. That doesn't give you license to advocate the imposition of those changes on other players.
So what I am asking for by giving the option to remove romances is to bring more flexibility to the game for better roleplaying that is also why I am for the introduction of more races that may not work too well with the current story like drow and Tieflings.
And this, right here, is the central flaw in your logic: you're arguing that removing choices leads to more roleplaying. If anything, it's the other way around - the fact that your PC has 8 different potential romances is an additional manifestation of player agency, it can be run in more than one way.
So if this restriction would be removed I could make Dorn/Neera/Xzar whatever I want.
And, in doing so, you would completely miss the point of why they're there in the first place. NPCs are like those "core" events I mentioned earlier: barring very, very few exceptions, these characters are set in stone because they exist as foils to your own PC. The people you take with you reflect who your character is; if you're hanging out with Tiax, Xzar, Minsc, Faldorn and Quayle, it means your Bhaalspawn is clinically insane. If it's Dorn, Montaron, Shar-Teel, Baeloth and Viconia, you're Team Evil. And so on.
If what you really want is a custom-made party built to your specifications, you can always create six PCs and run your game without the dreaded spectre of possible character development.
Sorry if this may just be an assumption as well but it sounds like you want/like restrictions on your game? If so then I have no idea why you would since the gaming experience would be very narrow and dead, All to my own opinion of course but I recommend you try gaming my way(It's great).
There are games that play that way. "Icewind Dale" is one of them; "Baldur's Gate" is not. It sounds to me like you want the latter to become the former, but BG is - and has always been - substantially more popular than IWD.
But that will greatly limit my choice in companions?
Not really, since you can only have a maximum of 5 in your party anyway. BG:EE has nearly 30 characters to choose from; if BG2:EE ever happens, there'll be 21. "Limited" is not a word that can be applied here.
It's pretty easy to disable specific romances. If you have EEKeeper, open up the saved game and set the romance variable for that character (it'll be called something like DORNROMANCE) to -1. That will treat the romance as inactive and it will never start.
@Dee: Alternatively, just pick whichever dialogue option sets that variable in-game. In the immortal words of GLaDOS: "The best solution to a problem is usually the easiest one."
There's that too; although if you don't want to deal with the romance at all, setting the variable manually is a good way to stop it from starting in the first place.
I know that occasionally I wish that Aerie would just let me date Jaheira without forcing me to tell her to go jump in a lake.
Ask for a disable button by mod is entirely fair and no one has the right to ask the guy why he want it, it's his option/decision to take. To do otherwise is to impose on him what "you" (anyone reading this post atm) think or feel based on "your" assumptions. It will be the cross of respect and the begin of abuse of rights.
I can understand a vanilla option hurting feelings (while i wouldn't mind a on/off button for "disable homosexual romancs", "disable heterosexual romances", "disable romances", but an request for a modded tool for this is fair game no matter how @Aron740 want it.
By my request inside the theme, i would really like a moded lesbian version of the Aerie/Jaheira/Viconia Romances (with adapted banters and all the stuff needed for it), or Aerie/Viconia, as jaheira don't appear to fit a bisexual position well, in my view at least.
@kamuizin: Asking for a mod and asking for a feature are two very different things. The devs don't make mods. If that's what @Aron740 wants - a component that affects his copy and only his copy - there's a subforum here where he can get in touch with the modding community and maybe someone there can help him.
If he's asking the devs to implement a feature, it's something that he wants integrated into everyone's game.
On a personal note, I do hope you realize that throwing around words like "abuse of rights" or "radicals" isn't an automatic "I Win" button. This is an open forum where everyone's past comments are on full display - I suggest you reexamine your rhetoric, or you're going to come off as looking rather foolish around these parts.
@shawne If you think I am forcing this change on everyone let me quote myself:
"To ask for it here was simply a first step, so if anyone knows if there exists a mod for this please tell me or if there is a simple way to turn it off by file-editing"
Do I really need to say more?
@Shawne "Not really, since you can only have a maximum of 5 in your party anyway. BG:EE has nearly 30 characters to choose from; if BG2:EE ever happens, there'll be 21. "Limited" is not a word that can be applied here."
It will remove my options, hence "limit" them. Since I can no longer use some characters because they force their romance on me and therefore ruins my story. I would never stop using them because of this, but I saw it as an improvement to the game to leave the option open to the gamer. And that is why I made this perfectly fair "REQUEST". I do not demand it to be done, I simply "REQUESTED" it because I would like it to be a feature.
@Shawne "And this, right here, is the central flaw in your logic: you're arguing that removing choices leads to more roleplaying. If anything, it's the other way around - the fact that your PC has 8 different potential romances is an additional manifestation of player agency, it can be run in more than one way."
How in any possible way have I asked to remove choices!? I "requested" the "option" to make the romances "removable", r.e.m.o.v.a.b.l.e. NOT removed, that would limit choice and make a lot of people displeased. How could making something easily "removable" limit choice? If anything it will open up at least two possible stories for every romance that is "removable". How can you not understand!? ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
@Shawne "Even fantasy worlds are subject to basic rules of narrative, and so are role-playing games. Whatever individual choices a player makes, certain things are true in all variations: you're always a Child of Bhaal, Gorion always dies, Irenicus always escapes at Spellhold. These are the "core" events that move the primary plot forward, while events concerning Firkraag or Watcher's Keep or Sarevok vary depending on the player."
Romances are like Firekraag and Watchers keep! And they could easily have the option to be turned off without any consequence. I for one also like to bend the core events to my liking but that would not be possible to make into a feature because of contract etc. but romances can be at least the new ones.
If this whole conversation was verbal I could understand that you totally seem to miss my point because of memory etc. but now as you said: "This is an open forum where everyone's past comments are on full display". So I have no idea how you could interpret what I say the way you did. And how even @trinit seems to agree with you is even more beyond me. First @callimachus think I'm homophobic and then @Shawne and @Trinit seem to think that I am trying to take away their romances, starting to doubt my ability to communicate.
@Dee "It's pretty easy to disable specific romances. If you have EEKeeper, open up the saved game and set the romance variable for that character (it'll be called something like DORNROMANCE) to -1. That will treat the romance as inactive and it will never start."
This is exactly what I wanted or at least second place of what I wanted. An easy way to make my story work. I did not know this could be done with the main tool I use for all the tweaking in my playthroughs. Thank you.
I hope I did not accidentally remove anyones romances
@callimachus I haven't played DA yet, but I thought the comic was riffing on the aspect that the only way to turn down a romance option there is to be nasty to the person (i've gotten this impression from people who HAVE played it), and thus, unless you turn them down in a nasty/fairly cruel way... romance happens. It's nice if this isn't so.
1° - @Aron740 didn't started this thread, so if he give his opinion of a mod in the thread, that doesn't meant he's vouching for an official change, unless he says otherwise.
2° - i don't throw words, i state them where they're needed, ppl that complain for the sake of complaint about other ppl request cos those requests hurt their feelings are in my view radicals, and are abusing other ppl right to manifest.
When those adjectives are used, they aren't meant to win a discussion but to clarify a situation. They meant that some lines are being crossed and the discussion had to stop for some posts to put issues in place. If the hood fit so well in you to the point i'm granted a personal answer in reason of a general statement meant that maybe you should review some positions, if you don't mind the criticism.
@Aron740, don't mind the strange agrees in this forum. Anyone that state "Gays are nice" or "long life to homosexuals" or even post simple GLS supporting messages are going to get hundreds of likes, agress and therefore on. But maybe ppl isn't being radical in the issue... who knows!
I have nothing against someone want to be gay, hetero or bisexual, as i don't care if they drink Coke or Pepsi, eat in Burger King or Mac Donald... but this forum radicalism sometimes start to get on the nerves.
Once, maybe in this own thread, someone stated:
"Limit with a button homosexual romances isn't fair, cos the same isn't done to heterosexual romances.", so sometimes i ask, wouldn't be cool if we could have options for "only heterosexual romances", "only homosexual romances" and "no romances"? Who would be losing with this? @Aron740 asked for a mod for this, but i, in MY opinion, think this would make a great vanilla option, and sincerely, to the hell with whoever want to criticize me for asking this, the opinion is obvious open to discussion, my right to state it or want it is not.
@callimachus I haven't played DA yet, but I thought the comic was riffing on the aspect that the only way to turn down a romance option there is to be nasty to the person (i've gotten this impression from people who HAVE played it), and thus, unless you turn them down in a nasty/fairly cruel way... romance happens. It's nice if this isn't so.
That's absolutely false - the dialogue options that activate romances are clearly-worded, and breaking up runs along the lines of "We need to end this now". They'll ask why, and you have a whole bunch of options to choose from like "I'm interested in someone else", "I'm sorry, it's just not working" or "I don't want to talk about it."
"To ask for it here was simply a first step, so if anyone knows if there exists a mod for this please tell me or if there is a simple way to turn it off by file-editing"
Then why are you discussing this here and not on the Modding subforum? Why pose this as a request to the devs?
It will remove my options, hence "limit" them. Since I can no longer use some characters because they force their romance on me and therefore ruins my story.
No, you are limiting your options. If you're unable or unwilling to deal with the fact that some characters exist as potential romances (despite that - as has already been pointed out - no one forces anything on you, this is a complete fabrication), you can choose from the 17 NPCs who are not potential romances.
I would never stop using them because of this, but I saw it as an improvement to the game to leave the option open to the gamer. And that is why I made this perfectly fair "REQUEST". I do not demand it to be done, I simply "REQUESTED" it because I would like it to be a feature.
And here we are, discussing the merits of that request. What's the problem?
How in any possible way have I asked to remove choices!? I "requested" the "option" to make the romances "removable", r.e.m.o.v.a.b.l.e. NOT removed, that would limit choice and make a lot of people displeased. How could making something easily "removable" limit choice? If anything it will open up at least two possible stories for every romance that is "removable". How can you not understand!? ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
Because you're wrong. It's as simple as that. You are asking to implement a possible state of gameplay in which plot variables that already exist never trigger. By definition this removes a choice the player faces when a potential romance comes into play: do you activate the romance or reject it? That's a roleplaying decision you make in-game and in-character. If it never comes up, that is one less choice you can make.
Romances are like Firekraag and Watchers keep! And they could easily have the option to be turned off without any consequence. I for one also like to bend the core events to my liking but that would not be possible to make into a feature because of contract etc. but romances can be at least the new ones.
And once again, you're missing the point: if you don't want to do Firkraag or Watcher's Keep, you can just not do them. Much simpler and far less effort required than going into the game code and making them disappear because their mere existence offends you.
If this whole conversation was verbal I could understand that you totally seem to miss my point because of memory etc. but now as you said: "This is an open forum where everyone's past comments are on full display". So I have no idea how you could interpret what I say the way you did. And how even @trinit seems to agree with you is even more beyond me. First @callimachus think I'm homophobic and then @Shawne and @Trinit seem to think that I am trying to take away their romances, starting to doubt my ability to communicate.
To be blunt, your problem is one of entitlement: an optional component of the game bothers you, you don't want to deal with it, so you want a magic switch that makes it disappear rather than amend your in-game choices to reflect what you want. (Really, is one line of dialogue so impossible for you to handle that you need someone to modify the whole game instead?)
2° - i don't throw words, i state them where they're needed, ppl that complain for the sake of complaint about other ppl request cos those requests hurt their feelings are in my view radicals, and are abusing other ppl right to manifest.
There you go with those words again. Well, good luck with that.
@Aron740, don't mind the strange agrees in this forum. Anyone that state "Gays are nice" or "long life to homosexuals" or even post simple GLS supporting messages are going to get hundreds of likes, agress and therefore on. But maybe ppl isn't being radical in the issue... who knows!
This coming from someone who once commented, and I quote:
I'd prefer Dorn being the gay romance as i feel him more inclined to force his will over others.
And so goes the Ballad of Poor Oppressed Kamuizin, persecuted by crazed radicals who blindly approve of comments that express tolerance and support and yet, oddly enough, find his equation of "gay romance = rape" to be slightly distasteful. Go figure.
so sometimes i ask, wouldn't be cool if we could have options for "only heterosexual romances", "only homosexual romances" and "no romances"? Who would be losing with this? @Aron740 asked for a mod for this, but i, in MY opinion, think this would make a great vanilla option, and sincerely, to the hell with whoever want to criticize me for asking this, the opinion is obvious open to discussion, my right to state it or want it is not.
You have every right to state your request and explain why you want it. I have every right to challenge your assertions.
Comments
Please, make them only trigger if I flirt with the npc.
I don't know if this will be a problem for bg(2)ee but as an example it was in mass effect(which is not your game I know) were it was enough to be nice to someone to make them assume you two were in an relationship, pretty annoying if you just like to talk to people...
And personally(just my own opinion) in bgee I don't like when my evil orcish death-knight-like-tank makes advances on my male pc when I try to make him a little nicer just so he won't leave the party when I do not kill every kitten I see.
Maybe make it a choice in the menu?
Make the romances be started by the player, all of them, is atm the best neutral approach of this subject.
Another solution that would be pretty interesting would be if there is a 25%(?) chance that the romance will be initiated by the npc but otherwise will be by the pc and would involve extra lines of dialogue. This in my opinion would create some kind of illusion of intellect in the npc and make several playthroughs more interesting.
And to those who don't care about romances in these types of games like myself, Overhaul could perhaps add an option of removing/turning off romances in the .ini file? I'm not into this kind of stuff put it sounds entirely possible to me.
Also as @LadyRhian 's hilarious comic showed I hate it when the options for initiating romances are:
A) Kick in the face
C) Sex
Y U NO MAKE NICE AND SUPPORTIVE BUT NOT INTERESTED GUY/GAL OPTION!? ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
As for a toggle button, well you can label me "radical", but that is just homophobic. Pure and simple. Why don't you have a toggle for "White companions only" for that matter?
Romances are a strictly optional content, and anyone who does not wish to play them is under no obligation to do so (in the same manner that anybody who doesn't want to do any and all side quests is free to ignore them). Having some companions come on to you adds to their believability. I have yet to encounter a game which does not give a very clear exit option from that situation, and the fact that the existence of potential gay people in your game causes you so much discomfort that you would use such overblown and easily refutable hyperbolic claims (like the ones made by @Aron740 or the comic posted by @LadyRhian) reminds more more than anything of the gay panic defense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense
Edit: You know what, after a second thought I retract that - even if it were a straight couple it would not have been funny. A person who jumps into bed with another after a single "hi" when the other person is clearly not interested in that is predatory. If it were a straight couple it would have been misogynistic. As it is now, it is homophobic.
I'm sorry but as I see it there is zero sense in your two posts. That is of course my opinion, and I have an option to have that opinion and we are both for options in games and real life, right?
Baldurs gate is a roleplaying game where you create your story and in my story I want my orcish knight to be dark, evil and (not in a sexy way)mysterious and not to be interested in my male protagonist (might add that most of the time I make female protagonists and I still do not want to romance the evil brute) since I want a friend to friend relationship with him that expands over two(three!) games.
So if I want to adapt the game to my story, my roleplaying am I homophobic? That makes no sense at all and I am deeply hurt by how you jump the gun at me for no reason and putting me under a homophobic stereotype because of simple misguided assumptions.
Now to the part where I clear up minor confusion:
@callimachus
"...I have yet to encounter a game which does not give a very clear exit option from that situation..."
My favorite game series of all time(sorry baldurs gate!) is Mass Effect.
The bad thing about the game in my eyes is that everytime you say something in the game you choose from a short summary of options that most of the time is very misleading.
Just ask Ashley and Liara, they thought that I was cheating on them just because I was not a douche to the other (quite lifelike). I have had to reload several times because I mistakenly said something that I did not know I would say.
@callimachus
"...Why don't you have a toggle for "White companions only" for that matter?"
Because no one asked for it(to my knowledge)? But I asked for a "turn off romances" or "turn off individual romances". If you want "White companions only" I would let you request that without jumping the gun and thinking that you are racist. Maybe in your forgotten realms there are no other race than white humans (I think that would be boring, no Yoshi, "he who shall not be named", stalker or Korax since he is like greenish).
But It is YOUR story!
And if the devs do not want to fulfill my request, that is where modding comes is! That is why almost every game with modding capabilities will have "nude mods", because the dev does not want to do it but people want it(not everyone, some people want to play a game without having to squint their eyes to see their characters actions behind the cleavage). So I am just asking for something I want, I do not demand that it should be done or forcing it upon anyone.
@callimachus
"...reminds more more than anything of the gay panic defense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense"
Really...? Then your comment reminds me of it as well, since you insult me with your assumptions because you seem to think that I made homophobic advances at my own game? Maybe we should call this "homophobic panic defence". Will probably carry just as little weight in everyones ears though.
There is a lot more that I should clear up but sadly I already take up one third on the page but one more thing should be said.
I shall be very honest here, I bloody hate it when people jump to assumptions to fight for something that needs attention but in their blind rage they attack the wrong person.
Homophobia is a problem that needs fighting, yes I know that so take the time to think before you waste time on someone who has done nothing wrong in any way.
Something similar is now happening with racism in Sweden as you perhaps has seen on the news(riots)? And the consequences of blind rage can sadly be very harsh.
Sorry for being a bit off topic but in a way it's not and it had to be said.
if content turning is option i want "turn off evil/good/neutral options", "disable side quests", "reputation on/off", "no nether scrolls", "disable magic", "no humanoid enemies" etc. buttons.
oh, and god forbid i had to turn down someone interested in me if i do not like them (and vice-versa), because that doesn't happen in real life, so it would be simply forced and unrealistic. -.-
To repeat the valid point @callimachus makes: romances are optional in BG2. It's another variable in the plot. You're not penalized for refusing that path, you just keep going. And shutting them down - whether because you've changed your mind or because you didn't mean to trigger it in the first place - is as easy as saying "Thanks, but no thanks."
You mention Liara, and that happened to me too - I was being nice, she misinterpreted. You know what I did? "Thanks, but no thanks." She gets a little embarrassed (for an asari, she's barely out of her teens) and that's it. Nothing more need be said.
If you need a toggle to avoid navigating that situation, you're basically admitting that the player is either too immature or too mentally-deficient to cope with a scenario like that. And while I hate to use the Slippery Slope fallacy, you could just as easily ask for an "evil" toggle that removes all evil NPCs and evil options for quests from the game because you're not comfortable with the existence of that possibility (even though, as with romances, the game never forces you to be evil).
The romances are built into the game; they're as much a part of it as Watcher's Keep, and means exactly as much or as little as WK does to any given player. Do it, don't do it, whatever feels right for your character.
I see your point but I would still like to have an option to turn off romances and I'm totally open disable them by modding. To ask for it here was simply a first step, so if anyone knows if there exists a mod for this please tell me or if there is a simple way to turn it off by file-editing
The rant may have got a bit out of hand since I don't think anyone should throw around those kind of insults.
I hope no one took it badly and if anyone did then I am deeply sorry.
shawne was just more eloquent and rhetorically coherent.
In both cases that includes the reactions of other people to you, as well as a number of other factors which may not be to your liking. And just like in the real world some people (characters) in the game might take a liking to you, and some may even (gasp) hit on you.
You may want your "orcish knight to be dark, evil and (not in a sexy way) mysterious and not to be interested in my male protagonist", but that is not the character that exists in the game. Personally I did not find Dorn sexy in the least, but to each his own, I suppose. I guess we both would have preferred Dorn to be different than he is. Guess what? He is what he is. Just like in the real world other people are what they are. And that is not (and cannot be) subject to player agency.
Now, admittedly, unlike in the real world, Dorn is an artificial entity, written and designed by people. But just like you would have liked him to be different, so would I. To which of us do you suppose the writers should listen more? My answer to this is: neither. The game cannot be everything to everyone, and characters will be written based on what the writers want them to be.
I would still want the inclusion of gay romance, you may want its exclusion, or even the exclusion of all romance. Frankly I do not see a way for your wishes to be fulfilled if they are for the exclusion of all romance (for practical and contractual reasons if nothing else). But luckily for you it is very very easy to avoid them, or shut them down in the bud.
Honestly, it seems like you're asking for a solution that's much more complicated than the one that's already available to you...
"...You do not, however, create the world in which your character and its story operate."
Well that is the wonderful thing about "fantasy" right? And I may adapt the game to whatever I want since I own my copy.
So what I am asking for by giving the option to remove romances is to bring more flexibility to the game for better roleplaying that is also why I am for the introduction of more races that may not work too well with the current story like drow and Tieflings.
So if this restriction would be removed I could make Dorn/Neera/Xzar whatever I want. It is like if there was no possible way to change the portraits of npcs. But we can change the portrait of npcs and remove Edwins nose ring and give Dorn lipstick even if the writers wanted the characters to be the way they were painted.
I see this as the same thing, if the option is there your fantasy can flow more freely and that keeps games alive longer since they are then ever changing and forever new and I think in a way that that is why BG is still alive.
Sorry if this may just be an assumption as well but it sounds like you want/like restrictions on your game?
If so then I have no idea why you would since the gaming experience would be very narrow and dead, All to my own opinion of course but I recommend you try gaming my way(It's great).
@shawne
But that will greatly limit my choice in companions? And that is by far not what I'm after.
@trinit
I don't, but I felt that it was a bit unnecessary to step on toes if they were not even in my way.
The same is true of the NPCs. Xan is depressed; Minsc is crazy; Edwin is arrogant; Shar-Teel hates men. These are aspects of how they're characterized in the game, and that's something you don't control (much like a D&D session wouldn't allow you to rewrite the personalities of other players' characters). If you don't like a particular character, don't take them with you.
Now, that last bit: you can, of course, mod your own copy of the game in whatever way you like. That doesn't give you license to advocate the imposition of those changes on other players. And this, right here, is the central flaw in your logic: you're arguing that removing choices leads to more roleplaying. If anything, it's the other way around - the fact that your PC has 8 different potential romances is an additional manifestation of player agency, it can be run in more than one way. And, in doing so, you would completely miss the point of why they're there in the first place. NPCs are like those "core" events I mentioned earlier: barring very, very few exceptions, these characters are set in stone because they exist as foils to your own PC. The people you take with you reflect who your character is; if you're hanging out with Tiax, Xzar, Minsc, Faldorn and Quayle, it means your Bhaalspawn is clinically insane. If it's Dorn, Montaron, Shar-Teel, Baeloth and Viconia, you're Team Evil. And so on.
If what you really want is a custom-made party built to your specifications, you can always create six PCs and run your game without the dreaded spectre of possible character development. There are games that play that way. "Icewind Dale" is one of them; "Baldur's Gate" is not. It sounds to me like you want the latter to become the former, but BG is - and has always been - substantially more popular than IWD. Not really, since you can only have a maximum of 5 in your party anyway. BG:EE has nearly 30 characters to choose from; if BG2:EE ever happens, there'll be 21. "Limited" is not a word that can be applied here.
I know that occasionally I wish that Aerie would just let me date Jaheira without forcing me to tell her to go jump in a lake.
I can understand a vanilla option hurting feelings (while i wouldn't mind a on/off button for "disable homosexual romancs", "disable heterosexual romances", "disable romances", but an request for a modded tool for this is fair game no matter how @Aron740 want it.
By my request inside the theme, i would really like a moded lesbian version of the Aerie/Jaheira/Viconia Romances (with adapted banters and all the stuff needed for it), or Aerie/Viconia, as jaheira don't appear to fit a bisexual position well, in my view at least.
If he's asking the devs to implement a feature, it's something that he wants integrated into everyone's game.
On a personal note, I do hope you realize that throwing around words like "abuse of rights" or "radicals" isn't an automatic "I Win" button. This is an open forum where everyone's past comments are on full display - I suggest you reexamine your rhetoric, or you're going to come off as looking rather foolish around these parts.
If you think I am forcing this change on everyone let me quote myself:
"To ask for it here was simply a first step, so if anyone knows if there exists a mod for this please tell me or if there is a simple way to turn it off by file-editing"
Do I really need to say more?
@Shawne
"Not really, since you can only have a maximum of 5 in your party anyway. BG:EE has nearly 30 characters to choose from; if BG2:EE ever happens, there'll be 21. "Limited" is not a word that can be applied here."
It will remove my options, hence "limit" them. Since I can no longer use some characters because they force their romance on me and therefore ruins my story.
I would never stop using them because of this, but I saw it as an improvement to the game to leave the option open to the gamer. And that is why I made this perfectly fair "REQUEST". I do not demand it to be done, I simply "REQUESTED" it because I would like it to be a feature.
@Shawne
"And this, right here, is the central flaw in your logic: you're arguing that removing choices leads to more roleplaying. If anything, it's the other way around - the fact that your PC has 8 different potential romances is an additional manifestation of player agency, it can be run in more than one way."
How in any possible way have I asked to remove choices!? I "requested" the "option" to make the romances "removable", r.e.m.o.v.a.b.l.e. NOT removed, that would limit choice and make a lot of people displeased. How could making something easily "removable" limit choice? If anything it will open up at least two possible stories for every romance that is "removable".
How can you not understand!? ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
@Shawne
"Even fantasy worlds are subject to basic rules of narrative, and so are role-playing games. Whatever individual choices a player makes, certain things are true in all variations: you're always a Child of Bhaal, Gorion always dies, Irenicus always escapes at Spellhold. These are the "core" events that move the primary plot forward, while events concerning Firkraag or Watcher's Keep or Sarevok vary depending on the player."
Romances are like Firekraag and Watchers keep! And they could easily have the option to be turned off without any consequence. I for one also like to bend the core events to my liking but that would not be possible to make into a feature because of contract etc. but romances can be at least the new ones.
If this whole conversation was verbal I could understand that you totally seem to miss my point because of memory etc. but now as you said: "This is an open forum where everyone's past comments are on full display". So I have no idea how you could interpret what I say the way you did. And how even @trinit seems to agree with you is even more beyond me. First @callimachus think I'm homophobic and then @Shawne and @Trinit seem to think that I am trying to take away their romances, starting to doubt my ability to communicate.
@Dee
"It's pretty easy to disable specific romances. If you have EEKeeper, open up the saved game and set the romance variable for that character (it'll be called something like DORNROMANCE) to -1. That will treat the romance as inactive and it will never start."
This is exactly what I wanted or at least second place of what I wanted. An easy way to make my story work. I did not know this could be done with the main tool I use for all the tweaking in my playthroughs.
Thank you.
I hope I did not accidentally remove anyones romances
1° - @Aron740 didn't started this thread, so if he give his opinion of a mod in the thread, that doesn't meant he's vouching for an official change, unless he says otherwise.
2° - i don't throw words, i state them where they're needed, ppl that complain for the sake of complaint about other ppl request cos those requests hurt their feelings are in my view radicals, and are abusing other ppl right to manifest.
When those adjectives are used, they aren't meant to win a discussion but to clarify a situation. They meant that some lines are being crossed and the discussion had to stop for some posts to put issues in place. If the hood fit so well in you to the point i'm granted a personal answer in reason of a general statement meant that maybe you should review some positions, if you don't mind the criticism.
@Aron740, don't mind the strange agrees in this forum. Anyone that state "Gays are nice" or "long life to homosexuals" or even post simple GLS supporting messages are going to get hundreds of likes, agress and therefore on. But maybe ppl isn't being radical in the issue... who knows!
I have nothing against someone want to be gay, hetero or bisexual, as i don't care if they drink Coke or Pepsi, eat in Burger King or Mac Donald... but this forum radicalism sometimes start to get on the nerves.
Once, maybe in this own thread, someone stated:
"Limit with a button homosexual romances isn't fair, cos the same isn't done to heterosexual romances.", so sometimes i ask, wouldn't be cool if we could have options for "only heterosexual romances", "only homosexual romances" and "no romances"? Who would be losing with this? @Aron740 asked for a mod for this, but i, in MY opinion, think this would make a great vanilla option, and sincerely, to the hell with whoever want to criticize me for asking this, the opinion is obvious open to discussion, my right to state it or want it is not.
less than 2% of the population is gay and we need to make this
Sentence removed. This site is PG-13; please respect that. ~Dee
I'd prefer Dorn being the gay romance as i feel him more inclined to force his will over others.
And so goes the Ballad of Poor Oppressed Kamuizin, persecuted by crazed radicals who blindly approve of comments that express tolerance and support and yet, oddly enough, find his equation of "gay romance = rape" to be slightly distasteful. Go figure. You have every right to state your request and explain why you want it. I have every right to challenge your assertions.