NPC interjections and banter are great, more of that please. However regardless of what you see 'romance ' options as the fact is they are very much adolescent boyfriend/girlfriend vibe going on which is pretty icky when you are as crusty and mean as I am.
Writing and subsequently hooking up all the conversation/dialogue/triggers will have taken a substantial amount of time to implement and bug-test for the three new NPCs. Would much rather have had the release date scrolled forward a week or two instead.
NPC interjections and banter are great, more of that please. However regardless of what you see 'romance ' options as the fact is they are very much adolescent boyfriend/girlfriend vibe going on which is pretty icky when you are as crusty and mean as I am.
Writing and subsequently hooking up all the conversation/dialogue/triggers will have taken a substantial amount of time to implement and bug-test for the three new NPCs. Would much rather have had the release date scrolled forward a week or two instead.
@decado Unfortunately, your comment on the type of romances available in games, is true for many games. However, that doesn't have to be the case with the new NPCs and I have high hopes that at least with Dorn and Rasaad, middle-age men with a clear life outlook, the devs will get it right. With Neera... ...I'm skeptical.
You say you would welcome more NPC banter and interjections but not romance because "all the conversation/dialogue/triggers will have taken a substantial amount of time". Linking all the original NPCs (25!) and new NPCs so they could banter with each-other would take just as much time, if not more, than 30 friendship talks with the PC. This however, is my very subjective opinion which I'm sure many would contest.
I am however glad that they are adding 'romance' options to the game and the more, the better... They wouldn't have been allowed to modify the original game to the extent of making it more like PS:T in terms of lines written for every NPC in the game (and perhaps that doesn't even appeal to others as it does to me) so I'll take whatever I can get to feel like I'm part of the world. When another game comes along where every named NPC has at least two paragraphs of description ingame and a small quest or his own personality, I'll stop cheering for party-member content.
@neleothesze Indeed, but to me that would be content which adds value to the game as whole. The romances IMO add very little broad enjoyable content and I would happily leave them if given the choice.
I hope you aren't disappointed by the new romances. I don't hold any hopes I'm afraid simply as they are classed as romances, if it was extra banter, interjections and character building content which doesn't involve sex (even as an abstract concept which is essentially what it all boils down to) as a theme then I would be happy.
I do actually find in-game romances a bit weird and uncomfortable. Like I would always feel really awkward following the Zevran romance in DA if my boyfriend was in the room.
Yes, games mirror real life. As in war, even if you aren't having a romance with someone near you, you are spending money on "comfort women" or making close friends with your hand. There is a reason why "Washer women" used to follow armies around. After spending all day, and sometimes weeks or months dealing death, men tend to want to experience some sort of life-affirming action, even if it's only sex. It got so bad during WW2 that the Americans faced that there was no way to stop this, so they issued men Condoms so that Sexually transmitted diseases were less of an issue. I don't see any reason why Adventurers are going to react so wildly differently.
At least in the modern armed forces, you are probably not going to sleep with another man unless you are inclined that way naturally. But in a mixed group, yeah, there are going to be relationships. Some of them are coercive (a lot of stories are coming out and have come out of rape and sexual harrassment in the ranks in our army and other armed services), and some are just mutual attraction. I know which one I'd rather have.
And yeah, I'd rather have my character have a capacity for love and commitment rather than spending all their time killing monsters and solving quests for people. I want my character to be a well-rounded person, and not just be a killing machine that happened to be also a child of Bhaal. I want to be a Good God if I choose that route, not just another murdering scumbag who killed enough things to "Level Up" to God.
I like the romances, but don't want this to turn into the Bioware Forums, where half the threads are by people want to romance every man/woman/animal/inanimate object in the game.
I voted more options, but the option I want is a "bad girl", who just wants to shag. Kinda like Safana, and how Viconia *should* have been. Romance leads to broken hearts.
For me it's only a game, I have enough real life to deal with without attempting to personalise and flesh out a video game. I've always found people projecting sexual scenarios onto characters as slightly repulsive and embarrassing.
Personally, I believe that if I get to spend 1-2 years(ingame time) with a group of people, there's a lot of room for inter-personal relationships to develop into friendships, romances or rivalries; and not all of them have to be centered around my PC! In BG1 even more than BG2, you don't jump from one life-threatening situation to another. Sometimes you trudge through the wilderness for weeks (based on rest and travel times), sometimes you spend a week or two helping people out in some village or other. I want Alora to try and befriend Monty... I want Tiax to try and convert all the party members to worship Cyric... I'd like the game to be more of a fantasy novel than an IWD clone, where every recruitable character has a personality that shapes his comments and decisions... and that includes having *gasp* feelings. If I wanted silent party members who wouldn't try to express their world view and sometimes argue, sometimes agree with me, I'd play IWD instead of BG1/BG2. Also, it's very improbable that travelling with a very charismatic leader NO one would feel even moderately attracted to him/her.
Couldn't have said it better myself. What I want is not necessarily romance, per se, though that's a part of it. What I want is characters who interact with each other and with the world around them in all sorts of believable ways. Falling in love with my PC may be one, but learning to hate and despise him and eventually betraying him is every bit as good. Having a friendship track, where a character starts confiding in and trusting your character, is just as welcome as a romance track where a character starts confiding in and trusting your character so you can eventually get in their pants.
I want rich, entertaining NPCs who make the world seem alive rather than static and lend my character personality through his/her interaction with them. That is the only thing that makes romances valuable to me.
I'd like more options, but honestly the romances don't really matter to me in the BG games.
I love the romances in the ME series and DA:O (with Morrigan especially, her romance was just perfect), because in those you get much better voice and facial acting and awesome cutscenes to actually get you emotionally invested in the romance. In BG you just randomly get lines popping up with the characters just standing there doing nothing (game pauses in dialog mode), it's not really all that involving.
@LadyRhian that reminded me of one of my favourite schoolboy "facts", that Iodine was given to soldiers in the first world war to prevent "excitement." I just tried looking it up http://www.snopes.com/military/saltpeter.asp
edit - lack of factual basis unrelated to your comment!
I'm not a particular fan of romances in games, they don't appeal to me at all. Saying that I've done all the BG2 romances for the sake of completion.
What I do like is the increased interaction and influence which is present in romances, but not so much with NPCs you aren't romancing e.g. there's no 'bromance' like with Garrus in ME.
@LadyRhian I dont think that my companions are murdering scumbags per se that either rape females or pay the price of deseases for mounting a prostitute... i know the history of the washer womans in the 30year war here in europe very well and their bond with mercenaries. Most of these woman were married to one of these soldiers and they shared the work to make it trough.
I like the BG2 did it with defined characters who have their own inherent personality and where not everyone is romanceable. I played BG1 after BG2 and did feel the NPC interaction was pretty lacking by comparison. I could certainly go for more options but don't want the bland "I'll romance anything that looks at me, either gender, any alignment, etc." option of some games.
I don't need the romance angle but it doesn't bother me much to have it there if it's done reasonably well - if I have any issue with it at all it would be that the time spent crafting romances could just as easily be spent crafting other (non-romantic) ways to have the party interact with one another.
These non-romantic liasons/rivalrys would perhaps make it easier to facilitate a player experiencing more of them in a single playthrough thus allowing him/her to have more elaborate (non-romance) relationships with ALL of the party members instead of just one (usually).
After all is romance the ONLY manner in which you can bring characters and relationships between them to life?
Basically my opinion is I'm fine if the game doesn't have it, but if it does have it it should be done right.
BG1 is fine, BG2 is pretty good for male PCs but I feel bad for females whose only option is Anomen. Also I don't think PCs should be excluded because of their race (although I think it's fine if certain NPCs aren't romanceable by certain types of characters as long as there are other options for those characters).
I'm not against the romances, but I'm not really thrilled with them. Ideally, I think I'd rather see ways for relationships to possibly form with all NPCs, but not necessarily romantic ones. Like friendship paths, I guess. You could get to know then all better and learn more about what makes them tick. But not have it move toward romance, necessarily.
Comments
Writing and subsequently hooking up all the conversation/dialogue/triggers will have taken a substantial amount of time to implement and bug-test for the three new NPCs. Would much rather have had the release date scrolled forward a week or two instead.
You say you would welcome more NPC banter and interjections but not romance because "all the conversation/dialogue/triggers will have taken a substantial amount of time". Linking all the original NPCs (25!) and new NPCs so they could banter with each-other would take just as much time, if not more, than 30 friendship talks with the PC.
I am however glad that they are adding 'romance' options to the game and the more, the better... They wouldn't have been allowed to modify the original game to the extent of making it more like PS:T in terms of lines written for every NPC in the game (and perhaps that doesn't even appeal to others as it does to me) so I'll take whatever I can get to feel like I'm part of the world. When another game comes along where every named NPC has at least two paragraphs of description ingame and a small quest or his own personality, I'll stop cheering for party-member content.
Til then: Banters, romance, quests...
Indeed, but to me that would be content which adds value to the game as whole. The romances IMO add very little broad enjoyable content and I would happily leave them if given the choice.
I hope you aren't disappointed by the new romances. I don't hold any hopes I'm afraid simply as they are classed as romances, if it was extra banter, interjections and character building content which doesn't involve sex (even as an abstract concept which is essentially what it all boils down to) as a theme then I would be happy.
"Romances": I can do without.
At least in the modern armed forces, you are probably not going to sleep with another man unless you are inclined that way naturally. But in a mixed group, yeah, there are going to be relationships. Some of them are coercive (a lot of stories are coming out and have come out of rape and sexual harrassment in the ranks in our army and other armed services), and some are just mutual attraction. I know which one I'd rather have.
And yeah, I'd rather have my character have a capacity for love and commitment rather than spending all their time killing monsters and solving quests for people. I want my character to be a well-rounded person, and not just be a killing machine that happened to be also a child of Bhaal. I want to be a Good God if I choose that route, not just another murdering scumbag who killed enough things to "Level Up" to God.
I only would like more variety.... and this option would require a lot of time and resources for it to be good, but still, I would like this.
I want rich, entertaining NPCs who make the world seem alive rather than static and lend my character personality through his/her interaction with them. That is the only thing that makes romances valuable to me.
I love the romances in the ME series and DA:O (with Morrigan especially, her romance was just perfect), because in those you get much better voice and facial acting and awesome cutscenes to actually get you emotionally invested in the romance. In BG you just randomly get lines popping up with the characters just standing there doing nothing (game pauses in dialog mode), it's not really all that involving.
edit - lack of factual basis unrelated to your comment!
What I do like is the increased interaction and influence which is present in romances, but not so much with NPCs you aren't romancing e.g. there's no 'bromance' like with Garrus in ME.
I've proposed the Baldur's Gate dating sim before.
...I'd play it
These non-romantic liasons/rivalrys would perhaps make it easier to facilitate a player experiencing more of them in a single playthrough thus allowing him/her to have more elaborate (non-romance) relationships with ALL of the party members instead of just one (usually).
After all is romance the ONLY manner in which you can bring characters and relationships between them to life?
BG1 is fine, BG2 is pretty good for male PCs but I feel bad for females whose only option is Anomen. Also I don't think PCs should be excluded because of their race (although I think it's fine if certain NPCs aren't romanceable by certain types of characters as long as there are other options for those characters).