Skip to content

Romance - who needs it?

12357

Comments

  • Jean_LucJean_Luc Member Posts: 228
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    Considering that most fantasy narratives have at least one romantic subplot - not out of necessity but simply as a narrative tool to add drama to the story - I don't see why fantasy games should be exempt. Part of the role-playing experience is the ability to perform epic heroic (or villainous, depending on the game) identities, and everything that comes with it.

    The notion that it somehow exists at the expense of some other component is patently ridiculous: it's just part of the story.
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf2kAdG7VW4

    There is another choice, you know...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited October 2012
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
  • KortokKortok Member Posts: 165
    I want zero romance in any game ever again. People bitch so much that their particular favorite character isn't gay/straight/bi/tranny that it drives me crazy.

    Plus I simply don't care for romance in videogames in the first place; peoples complaining aside.
  • Kitteh_On_A_CloudKitteh_On_A_Cloud Member Posts: 1,629
    @shawne: I disagree. Baldur's Gate 1 didn't have any romances. Was the game any less good because of that? I've read stories/played games without romances between the characters involved, and I never thought less of them just because there weren't any romances. I think romances are pretty overrated in games nowadays. Somehow developers think that only when your character romances someone, they can get to fully know this person. What about just being friends? I got a friend whom I got to know in kindergarten, and hell do I know more about her than any romantic interest could. The thing is this: it's about creating bonds between characters which do not necessarily have to be romantic ones. Take Oghren from DA:O for example. He isn't a romantic interest, yet your PC gets to know him a lot better during the game and during Awakenings without having to romance him. Romances can thus be used to flesh out a character more, but I think just simple and longlasting friendships could also go a long way and provide an interesting alternative. Well, this is just my own opinion on the matter.
  • Permidion_StarkPermidion_Stark Member Posts: 4,861
    I'm not totally against romances. I just didn't like the way they were implemented in BG2. In BG1 you get to know the NPCs through their banters. In BG2 it is all done with dialogue boxes.

    Playing BG1 I managed to develop a strong emotional bond with Imoen even though she has very little dialogue. I found Jaheira infuriating but always kept her in the party because somehow she managed to make me feel guilty if I kicked her out. And I always had Viconia in my party because I felt there was some kind of romance between her and my PC even though nothing was stated explicitly.

    All this came from the banters and the voice-acting of the NPC's. BG2's dialogue boxes might have added more detail but I found it far less immersive.

    Sometimes less is more.
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    I care for romance and i'm not going people bitterness make what i like to be taken from games.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    edited October 2012

    @shawne: I disagree. Baldur's Gate 1 didn't have any romances. Was the game any less good because of that?

    Comparatively speaking, BG2 is a much better example of how romance functions as a component of characterization; BG1's party members were wafer-thin to begin with.

    I've read stories/played games without romances between the characters involved, and I never thought less of them just because there weren't any romances.

    The lack of a romance doesn't necessarily detract from a story, but when executed properly, the presence of one can add to it. Look at major fantasy epics like "Game of Thrones" or "Wheel of Time" - would those stories be better off if the characters had no romantic aspirations at all? Go further back to various mythologies - every Thor has his Sif, every Achilles his Briseis (or Patroclus, depending on the writer). These are the traditions that form the foundations of modern fantasy, which in turn are the generic basis for most fantasy games today.

    I think romances are pretty overrated in games nowadays. Somehow developers think that only when your character romances someone, they can get to fully know this person. What about just being friends? I got a friend whom I got to know in kindergarten, and hell do I know more about her than any romantic interest could.

    As I'm sure has been stated before, video games are works of fiction and as such adhere to the rules of fiction. Comparisons to similar scenarios in real life will always fall short.

    As for "fully knowing" someone, I'm not sure what you mean - specifically regarding BioWare games, you can exhaust a character's dialogue tree and learn all about them whether you're romancing them or not. Obviously, love interests will have an additional scene or two, but that's only natural: you wouldn't expect an intimate partner to behave or be treated like the rest of your friends.

    The thing is this: it's about creating bonds between characters which do not necessarily have to be romantic ones. Take Oghren from DA:O for example. He isn't a romantic interest, yet your PC gets to know him a lot better during the game and during Awakenings without having to romance him.

    Which is precisely my point: romancing Zevran or Leliana doesn't interfere with getting to know Oghren as a person. The point is to allow players the ability to establish different kinds of relationships with different characters, and - as with plot decisions - the choices are (and should be) left to the player.
  • SecriaSecria Member Posts: 85
    I'm a sucker for romantic stories.
  • jhart1018jhart1018 Member Posts: 909
    @Permidion_Stark I voted because the last two options in the poll almost made me spew Dr. Pepper all over my laptop. That said, as a woman who generally plays female characters, an option other than Anomen would be nice. I completed the Viconia romance as a male paladin and meant to go back and do the others but never got the chance. Like LadyRhian said, I'd like a romanceable male NPC I don't have to babysit.
  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    jhart1018 said:

    I'd like a romanceable male NPC I don't have to babysit.

    I just liked seeing someone with Aerie as their avatar write this!
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    AHF said:

    jhart1018 said:

    I'd like a romanceable male NPC I don't have to babysit.

    I just liked seeing someone with Aerie as their avatar write this!

    AHUHUHAHUHUUAHUAHUAUAUHAUAUHUAHUAHUAHUAUAHUAUAHUAUAUHAUHAUHAUAUUHAUHAHUAHUAUHAUHAUHAUHAHAUUHAHUAHUAHUAUHAUHAHAUHAUHAUHUAAUHUAHUAUHAUAHAUHAUAHUAHUUHAH!
  • Permidion_StarkPermidion_Stark Member Posts: 4,861
    AHF said:

    jhart1018 said:

    I'd like a romanceable male NPC I don't have to babysit.

    I just liked seeing someone with Aerie as their avatar write this!
    @jhart1018 has just started playing Aerie in LadyRhian's role-playing challenge. It's not her regular profile picture.
  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376

    AHF said:

    jhart1018 said:

    I'd like a romanceable male NPC I don't have to babysit.

    I just liked seeing someone with Aerie as their avatar write this!
    @jhart1018 has just started playing Aerie in LadyRhian's role-playing challenge. It's not her regular profile picture.
    It wasn't a personal shot at all. I just found that pretty funny!
  • jhart1018jhart1018 Member Posts: 909
    lol... Yes, I've heard that Aerie can be needy. My brother and I have played BG2 to death and beyond, and he's done all the female NPC romances. He said Viconia is the best written, but Aerie is his favorite because he finds it funny. And @AHF when I'm not role-playing, my profile picture is usually flowers or something random. :) I forgot about the irony of my comments vs. my current avatar.
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,214
    @jhart1018 Maybe next time you should try this kind of comment while playing as Shar-teel. That would raise some interesting reactions in the board :)
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    Aerie romance is very annoying, i made many runs on it, even a screw run on prupose once (made sex with her in the first opportunity, what screw the romance).

    Her voice is sexy and i feel somehow dragged to her portrait, but her self pity and constantly depression is just annoying, by far the hardest romance to stand for but have her benefits.

    But this is just my opinion, i like the romances in the following order: Anomen, Jaheira (would be the first if at least the game provided a sex banter with her, too friendship for my taste), Aerie and Viconia.
  • LadyEibhilinRhettLadyEibhilinRhett Member Posts: 1,078
    The problem with the romances is none of the characters I actually want to romance are romanceable. But honestly, what I crave the most is just party interaction. People fall in love, people become friends, rivals, get into fights or arguments, make up--you know, the kind of thing that makes it feel more like these are a bunch of real people traveling together, and not just a bunch of stat-bundles with a couple amusing phrases. Depending on what kind of character you're playing, you should be able to fall in love with different people, and make friends or enemies with different people. Not every female charname is the kind of girl who will fall for Anomen. Not to mention, what about different races? If you played a halfling, gnome, or dwarf, you were pretty much just screwed over when it came to romances, because apparently halflings, gnomes, and dwarves don't fall in love. So yeah I think every character who's single and might possibly become interested in someone should be a potential romance option, though only certain ones may be able to become active in any given playthrough depending on charname's alignment, stats, and/or reputation, in correspondence with each NPC's preferences.
  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    I think Aerie will romance a gnome and that multiple people will romance a halfling.

    Here is a description for Aerie listing both gnome and halfling for romance options.

    http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/Walkthrough2/npcs/aerie.php
  • LadyEibhilinRhettLadyEibhilinRhett Member Posts: 1,078
    Yes, but if you are a FEMALE gnome or halfling, well then. Also what about dwarves. Look all I know is that no one would romance my halfling rogue and my feelings were hurt.
  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    Dwarves get screwed and all female characters get a raw deal compared to the men. Given the interesting plot line between Mazzie and Korgan, I think Korgan would be an interesting choice if they developed his character in some greater depth.
  • RomulanPaladinRomulanPaladin Member Posts: 188
    AHF said:

    Dwarves get screwed and all female characters get a raw deal compared to the men. Given the interesting plot line between Mazzie and Korgan, I think Korgan would be an interesting choice if they developed his character in some greater depth.

    Ha, yeah. Of course they budgeted more time to make romances for men. Think of what the D&D video game player demographic looked like 14 years ago.
  • LifatLifat Member Posts: 353
    tbh I actually just want more options between the NPCs (why are there no romanceable short people? That is just racism :P)
    But when you put in an option like "I need help. Everything should be romanceable: green slimes, carrion crawlers, the dead bodies you find in the sewers. Everything!" Expect at least some people to choose that simply because it is so awesomely funny :P
  • XaenorXaenor Member Posts: 34
    edited November 2012
    Oh, man. Every time I face romance options in RPGs, it feels that I don't really choose one of the variants but instead drop all the rest of them. Besides, I'm just generally trying to be nice to NPCs, and it feels *wrong* when certain romantic possibilities occur - I didn't have anything like that in mind, I just wanted to keep a friendly atmosphere! Gosh! My mind would be at ease if there were no romance options at all.
  • DrugarDrugar Member Posts: 1,566
    edited November 2012
    [Insert obgligatory bearded lady comment]
  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    edited November 2012

    AHF said:

    Dwarves get screwed and all female characters get a raw deal compared to the men. Given the interesting plot line between Mazzie and Korgan, I think Korgan would be an interesting choice if they developed his character in some greater depth.

    Ha, yeah. Of course they budgeted more time to make romances for men. Think of what the D&D video game player demographic looked like 14 years ago.
    The more I think of Korgan and Anomen fighting over Charname, the more I like this. PC chooses Korgan...Korgan slaughters Anomen...romance does not break...

  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    edited November 2012
    Speaking of shorty romances, does it bother anyone that you can't hook up the paladin with the admiring gnome in the temple district of BG2? I know that is a reunion bit for Garrick but I have clicked on both of them way too many times trying to see if this time there will be a dialogue tree that will let me do something. Maybe she is an inquisitor and therefore romancing her is not allowed (as a non-elf/non-spell caster).
  • XylusXylus Member Posts: 6
    Actually I would really love to see NPCs romance each other. I know that's just a ton of script to right, but it would be interesting to see Minsc and Aerie actually end up as a couple
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    edited November 2012
    Not Minsc and Aerie, but maybe Aerie and Haer'Dalis (as they start a flirt during the vanilla game anyway). An nice idea, specially for BG where we have tons of joinable NPCs.
Sign In or Register to comment.