1) Use the Infinity Engine Plus. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. For me the IE gameplay is perfect rigth now.
2) Many joinable NPCs. One thing that I like a lot in BG is the possibility to play different walkthrough with different parties.
3) You need to recreate the a feel of wonder when the we are playing the game. This implies for example: exotic places to discover, interestig NPCs to meet (joinable or not), legendary weapons to find (please do not include a crafting system. Why I am going to kill the red dragon Firkraag to find the carsonmyr if am able to craft a similar weapon).
4) You need to do something similar to what BG had in Chapter 2. You enter in an exotic city to explore with dozens of quests to do and places to discover. An with secondary quest I mean interesting quests.
That's all. Sorry my english is not my native language. (I almost forgot: translate the game into other languages. These games have lots of text and often complicated language.)
I think the most important part would be the system that the game is going to be made in. For example, Dragon Age II has a pretty good story. A lot of illogical WTH moments that looked like plotholes, but that is real life. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. However, the gameplay let it down badly to the point that quite a number of people preferred Dragon Age I. Similarly, trying to make a DnD 4th Ed game would be a big mistake. If people want to play that, they can go play Diablo II or something similar like Titan Quest. I would say a game using DnD 2nd Ed, DnD 3.5 Ed or DA:O rules would probably be best. Other than that, party banter is what made the BG series so beloved. It was also part of the charm of DA. The key is that the banter is FUNNY. Jan Jansen and his crazy stories, Leiliana teasing Sten and his kitten, the Edwina burns. That is what makes the game great. No forced stereotype pandering also makes for a good game. I hate to bring it up, but just one word: Hexxat. You just know that a character like that is going to cause a storm of controversy but most damning of all is that the character does nothing to add to the story in the slightest. She is just... there. So why put her there at all? Save her for another game where it actually matters, like say, oh, I don't know, Storm Over Zehir??? A Chultan in Chult. Well, fancy that!
Did Hexxat cause controversy? I just thought the general feelings were that she was poorly written and we learn nothing about her character from her quests (I wouldn't know, I never finished her questline).
Did Hexxat cause controversy? I just thought the general feelings were that she was poorly written and we learn nothing about her character from her quests (I wouldn't know, I never finished her questline).
Yes lots.
Main point being that for a good or even neutral Charname/party there was no option to save/defend "Clara", just had to stand by and watch the murder. The poor writing merely added insult to injury.
I did wonder at the time whether the writers got the idea from the werewolf "Anaarg" (is that the right name? the werewolf who kills Mazzy's companion to get the strength to try and face the Shade Lord).
Did Hexxat cause controversy? I just thought the general feelings were that she was poorly written and we learn nothing about her character from her quests (I wouldn't know, I never finished her questline).
I read quite a few closed threads that discussed Hexxat, and it was always because of her black + lesbian + vampire status causing one side to scream Mary Sue and the other to turn SJW on steroids. Hence why I thought there was a lot of controversy over the character. To me, there isn't. Hexxat is just out of place and has too many "I am a unique snowflake" flags. People tend to forget WHERE BG is set in the Forgotten Realms. Baldur's Gate and Amn is set in the very southern end of the Sword Coast. This is the FR analog of Turkey, basically, with the Middle-Eastern Turmish to the east and Calimshan to the south (which, by the way, has a relative lot of native outsider types like genasis and tieflings thanks to the whole genie, efreet and demon summoning shennanigans a la Arabian Nights). To the north, we get all the European analogues, Cormyr, and the Sword Coast proper with the Northmen (as Viking as you are going to get on this side of Icewind Dale) and the city of Waterdeep. To the east is the ocean with the Moonshae Isles, Mintarn and Orlumbor. The Ffolk of Moonshae, in particular, is pure Celtic. And then, across an ocean famous for storms and dangerous conditions, from a nation dangerous for its paranoia, set in thick tropical jungles full of disease, slavers and poisonous creatures, you have the peninsula of Chult. You are telling me that a native vampire sneaked into a paranoid human city, took/hired a boat (bearing in mind that the ocean going boats belongs to non-native traders and/or slavers, we are talking an Ivory Coast Africa analog here), sailed across the dangerous oceans where there is every expectation of the ship sinking and her coffin with it, staying out of the tropical sun all that time, and ended up in... Gah! I can't even continue on. As I said, better to have saved the character for a different game than to force her into BG2. It just does not work. The dialogue and party interaction can be put down to the writer having a bad day or forced to work with a bad set-up. The choice of the basic make-up of the character, far less so.
I find it interesting that "followers need a relationship path that isn't romance" comes up repeatedly, as I haven't done a follower where the majority of their content is locked behind a romance since...oh, maybe Carth and Bastila in Knights of the Old Republic? I remember the reactions to those characters were very different by gender, based on the fact that much of their more pleasant qualities were gated to their romance arc.
Since then, I've always prioritized having a fully-realized arc with a romanceable character even if you weren't romancing them...so yay?
I know this is somewhat late, but I think part of the problem is that gamers try to act squeamish when it comes to romance in video games. I think there are two reasons, 1: there is a stigma many gamers have, that putting a few hours into a video game romance will make it seem like they are only fulfilling a need for love 'digitally' (why it should be considered any worse than reading a romance novel e.g. 'Wuthering Heights', is beyond me). This stigma, is exacerbated by the nature of an RPG, you the player take on the role of the main character, and rpgs require a lot of time, time one is not spending out in the real world. Stigmas come with fear, and as a defense gamers end up focusing a great deal of their 'critical' energies on the romance aspect of the story and incidentally, blind themselves to certain narrative facts. That is not to say that there is no valid criticism of video game romances, but good criticism is usually judging the characters as elements in the story, if they work within the continuity etc. Most comments that I see from the consumers go like, "I don't like video game romances, because they never seem to work, but I love relationships.' It's rather silly. 2: In fiction, generally, people are skeptical of sustained happiness. Novels, film and games are the mediums of conflict, therefore the writer has a tougher time trying to make love seem more genuine for the reader. It's like people can't accept two characters in a novel or game being 'too happy, for too long'; from the conception of their love something has to already be working against it (that is why I think people responded so well to Morrigan's romance in DA:O, her agenda was working against the sustained happiness she had with the Warden). Ian McEwan talks about the notion of sustained happiness much better than I can, I've provided the link below, if you have not seen the interview already I recommend a watch.
The reason I don't like romance is video games is exactly the same reason I don't like Wuthering Heights. It just doesn't interest me. It's boring. I don't read romantic books, I don't watch romantic films*.
I like action. I like adventure. I like mystery. I like humour. I don't like romance.
*I make an exception for Casablanca, since the message of that movie is that there are things that are far more important than romance, and it should be put aside in order to beat the bad guys.
The reason I don't like romance is video games is exactly the same reason I don't like Wuthering Heights. It just doesn't interest me. It's boring. I don't read romantic books, I don't watch romantic films*.
I like action. I like adventure. I like mystery. I like humour. I don't like romance.
Overlooking, of course, the obvious fact that action movies typically have romance (Terminator, Matrix, Kill Bill, James Bond, etc.), adventure movies typically have romance (Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Avatar, etc.), mystery movies typically have romance (Memento, The Prestige, practically any hard-boiled/noir detective story, etc.) and comedy films typically have romance (too many to cite).
The presence of a romantic subplot isn't something that's confined to what you call "romantic films", so if you can enjoy any other genre despite that, why should it even be a talking point here?
Any "romantic subplot" is a distraction. I watch those movies because they are the only option. But I would like them better without. Just as I play Baldur's Gate. I tolerate the romance because I have no choice. It doesn't mean I want it there or enjoy that aspect of the game/movie.
The reason I don't like romance is video games is exactly the same reason I don't like Wuthering Heights. It just doesn't interest me. It's boring. I don't read romantic books, I don't watch romantic films*.
I like action. I like adventure. I like mystery. I like humour. I don't like romance.
*I make an exception for Casablanca, since the message of that movie is that there are things that are far more important than romance, and it should be put aside in order to beat the bad guys.
Explain why love is more of a 'distraction' (why is that a bad thing in the first place?) than any other emotion, e.g. hate, fear? This is exactly what I'm talking about. lol I cannot deny the possibility that someone just does not like romance, but to focus so much emotional energy on it and then want to exclude only it from the gauntlet of human experience explored in fiction, is suspect.
1) All emotions are distractions, a hero needs to be able to set them all aside.
2) Romance isn't the same as love. Romance is wasting energy pursuing a relationship with a specific person of the prefered gender. Love is caring about someone more than you care about yourself, irrespective of how that person feels about you.
3) in many modern crpgs relationships have become the main focus, religating the saving-the-world buisiness to a trivial sub-plot.
1) All emotions are distractions, a hero needs to be able to set them all aside.
2) Romance isn't the same as love. Romance is wasting energy pursuing a relationship with a specific person of the prefered gender. Love is caring about someone more than you care about yourself, irrespective of how that person feels about you.
3) in many modern crpgs relationships have become the main focus, religating the saving-the-world buisiness to a trivial sub-plot.
1) Without emotions, fiction would be a barren wasteland consisting of nothing but a plot (point a to point b). There would be no drive for the protagonist, it would become facile i.e. 'I'm saving the world, because I'm the hero.'
2) Romance is in fact part of being in love. You cannot have one without the other.
3) Give an actual example. Moreover, why wouldn't relationships be a primary focus, unless the main character is a social isolate? Why would story driven games without relationships be superior?
Relationships with the companions I think most people like in a game (always someone could be an exception of course).
But what I think is if I am playing a very long campaign together with companions, in order to take care of the member of my party I need to know about their psyche. And the best way to do that is relationships with them (love, friendships, ...)
1) the hero needs to learn to overcome obsticles, including emotion.
2) I doubt I would could say what I actually think of that comment without breaking site rules. I guess I have to limit it to saying I disagree in the strongest terms imaginable. Love is unselfish and can be for anyone of any gender, as it has nothing whatsovever to do with sexuality. It gives everything without asking for anything in return. Romance is the act of trying to pursuade someone else to love you, and is fundamentally selfish.
3) example: the-game-we-are-not-allowed-to-mention-in-this-thread II and III. Especially II, the interactive soap opera.
I like Romance and want it in the things I experience.
I don't like Romance and don't want it in the things I experience.
Neither is correct nor wrong, just a difference in subjective opinions.
I will say though on a Hero has to overcome emotion that's a complete opposite for all my Charnames (in games, my personal writings, and in PnP D&D). My characters are usually driven forward by their emotions and the only one who isn't, my Cleric Azrael Gaunt, is so detached from his emotions that it's a flaw for his character. But again, that's subjective on how people want their character to be.
The reason I don't like romance is video games is exactly the same reason I don't like Wuthering Heights. It just doesn't interest me. It's boring. I don't read romantic books, I don't watch romantic films*.
I like action. I like adventure. I like mystery. I like humour. I don't like romance.
*I make an exception for Casablanca, since the message of that movie is that there are things that are far more important than romance, and it should be put aside in order to beat the bad guys.
1) the hero needs to learn to overcome obsticles, including emotion.
2) I doubt I would could say what I actually think of that comment without breaking site rules. I guess I have to limit it to saying I disagree in the strongest terms imaginable. Love is unselfish and can be for anyone of any gender, as it has nothing whatsovever to do with sexuality. It gives everything without asking for anything in return. Romance is the act of trying to pursuade someone else to love you, and is fundamentally selfish.
3) example: the-game-we-are-not-allowed-to-mention-in-this-thread II and III. Especially II, the interactive soap opera.
1) You are missing the point, emotions are evolutionary drives that give rise to meaning in our lives. Why would one even care to save the world if there is nothing that one cares enough about, that they fear to lose it and so on?
2) This is is incredibly off base, I have no idea why you brought sexuality into this discussion. I don't think you know what romantic love is. I should add that it does not have to do anything with sex, read Dante's 'La Vita Nova.' Even if trying to 'woo' someone is selfish, we would not survive without it, not all selfishness is bad in the first place.
3) I have no idea what you are talking about, name a different example then.
I like Romance and want it in the things I experience.
I don't like Romance and don't want it in the things I experience.
Not really, no. It's not subjective opinion to say that romance tends to pop up in practically all forms of genre fiction - those are just the facts, going all the way back to mythology. The Trojan War has romance. The Poetic Edda has romance. And these are the foundations on which most genres have evolved. Star Trek has romance. Sherlock Holmes has romance. The list goes on.
Now, I suppose not liking that fact is all well and good (though it begs the question of what on earth you could possibly be reading/watching/playing where you're not exposed to that on some level); but I don't know how you go from that to thinking it's reasonable to position that as a request or a valid expectation.
1. alright lets have the hero have no emotions lets see how long it takes before he/she has a fall and becomes evil from being numb.
3. but you're still saving the world in mass effect. the romances are sub plots. you act like they force them on you. these are not romance visual novels where those are the point. no they are optional you never have to do them.
I like romances in games. Most romances in games are boring as hell.
Nothing wrong with romance in games, as long as they are better presented than the average run of the mill Hollywood script. Instead of the prolonged meeting-lack of interest-building of trust/interest-attraction-"romancing", there should be (listing the "best possible" in-game ending for each alternative): -As above, but have it only as one of the options instead of all of them. -Meet, lack of interest, try to woo the other person, have the option to keep trying to woo them and keep at it, end the game without ever managing to do it. (regardless of what you do) -Meet, lack of interest, the other party gets interested, then they meet somebody else and lose interest. (regardless of what you do) -Meet, "fall in love", marry (why not?), keep it going. (pretty much regardless of what you do) -Meet, "fall in love", marry, they grow to hate you, separate. (regardless of what you do) -Meet, "fall in love", lose the other person (death/responsibilities/boredom). (regardless of what you do) -Meet, have fun (do it), keep having fun, continue having fun till the end. Never actually "romance" them. -Meet, have fun, keep having fun, "romance". -Meet, have fun, keep having fun, everything explodes, separate. -Meet, get way too much attention from the other person, keep rejecting them all the time. -Meet, get way too much attention from the other person, keep rejecting them, give in, get rid of them. -Meet, get way too much attention from the other person, keep rejecting them, get together, keep it going. -Meet, build and have a great relationship, realise you're being used. -Meet, get together, meet somebody else, get all together. -Meet, lots of attraction, never meet again. -Meet a tree. -Etc.
The point with Casablanca is "achieving romance" is not the objective of the story. It is if you like, the counter-objective. The protagonist has to learn that duty and honour are more important than romance.
You see a similar approach in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The hero simply sets his romance aside for a year because fighting evil is far more important. Once evil is defeated he picks up where he left off. When there is romance between his party members it leads to jealousy that jeopardises the mission.
Brief Encounter is another movie where romance is the antagonist to be resisted, not the objective to be achieved.
1. alright lets have the hero have no emotions lets see how long it takes before he/she has a fall and becomes evil from being numb.
3. but you're still saving the world in mass effect. the romances are sub plots. you act like they force them on you. these are not romance visual novels where those are the point. no they are optional you never have to do them.
IMO the opposite is true. It is the protagonist that allows emotions to dictate their actions who is most likely to turn to evil. Morality stems from the dispassionate exersise of reason, without fear or favour.
I wasn't refering to Mass Effect (although it is certainly an offender), I was refering to the games that Dave Gaider has specificaly said he doesn't want to talk about.
IMO the opposite is true. It is the protagonist that allows emotions to dictate their actions who is most likely to turn to evil. Morality stems from the dispassionate exersise of reason, without fear or favour.
True to a certain extent.
Excessive passion leads ultimately to the idea of "the ends justifies the means" and "I am Good, so anyone who agrees with me is Evil and I don't need to be nice to them; in fact, I should humiliate, silence, hurt and destroy them at every opportunity and wherever possible, kill them all". Happens in real life all the time. See it every day, more so recently, and for obvious reasons that should not be brought to this forum.
But, without some emotion, someone stealing a crust of bread to feed his kids will have his hands chopped off for stealing.
Basically, you guys are arguing Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Stupid, if you want to use DnD terminology.
Excessive passion leads ultimately to the idea of "the ends justifies the means" and "I am Good, so anyone who agrees with me is Evil and I don't need to be nice to them; in fact, I should humiliate, silence, hurt and destroy them at every opportunity and wherever possible, kill them all".
It's not the idea of "the ends justify the means" (more often known as pragmatism or consequentialism) that prompts people to turn against each other. There are multiple names for that idea, but "the ends justify the means" is not one of them. That idea isn't anywhere in those five words. I've never heard anyone use the phrase that way.
I think you mean "Us and Them," the "tribe mentality," the "siege mentality," the "Other," racism, or "anti-whateverism," or a similar term.
"The ends justify the means" is the idea that the most important thing is the end result of one's actions, not just the actions themselves. Hence the more common name, pragmatism. The classic example would be killing baby Hitler: killing a baby is wrong, but killing Hitler when he was a baby would prevent suffering in the end, and would therefore be justified according to pragmatism.
"The ends justify the means," or pragmatism, is the exact opposite of excessive passion in pursuit of an ideal. It's about NOT being dogmatic and NOT applying broad generalizations to things. It's about focusing on whatever works in ONE particular situation, not applying blanket solutions.
More importantly, I don't see what any of this has to do with romance in video games.
Actually it's in part because of the Aerie romance in BG2 and the Gann romance in NWN2: MotB that cause those games to be my two favorite rpgs of all time.
Games like Pillars of Eternity and Morrowind are close followers to being my all time favorites but in my, subjective, perfect RPG the player should be allowed to pursue a romance if they want to.
But my ideal adventure is something of a cross between grimdark realism of the Game of Thrones setting and the whimsical adventure and characters of The Princess Bride.
Death is very real but so is love, happiness, sadness, and everything else.
I also feel flawed and weak protagonists make for more interesting characters. I'd rather watch a character muddied in their emotions and lost in the world than a stoic hero who chooses the right answer every time.
But that's why this is all just subjective content and content creators can decide whatever they want to be in the content. If there are no romances in the next Beamdog game then cool. If there are romances then cool.
Comments
1) Use the Infinity Engine Plus. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. For me the IE gameplay is perfect rigth now.
2) Many joinable NPCs. One thing that I like a lot in BG is the possibility to play different walkthrough with different parties.
3) You need to recreate the a feel of wonder when the we are playing the game. This implies for example: exotic places to discover, interestig NPCs to meet (joinable or not), legendary weapons to find (please do not include a crafting system. Why I am going to kill the red dragon Firkraag to find the carsonmyr if am able to craft a similar weapon).
4) You need to do something similar to what BG had in Chapter 2. You enter in an exotic city to explore with dozens of quests to do and places to discover. An with secondary quest I mean interesting quests.
That's all. Sorry my english is not my native language. (I almost forgot: translate the game into other languages. These games have lots of text and often complicated language.)
Similarly, trying to make a DnD 4th Ed game would be a big mistake. If people want to play that, they can go play Diablo II or something similar like Titan Quest.
I would say a game using DnD 2nd Ed, DnD 3.5 Ed or DA:O rules would probably be best.
Other than that, party banter is what made the BG series so beloved. It was also part of the charm of DA. The key is that the banter is FUNNY. Jan Jansen and his crazy stories, Leiliana teasing Sten and his kitten, the Edwina burns. That is what makes the game great.
No forced stereotype pandering also makes for a good game. I hate to bring it up, but just one word: Hexxat. You just know that a character like that is going to cause a storm of controversy but most damning of all is that the character does nothing to add to the story in the slightest. She is just... there. So why put her there at all? Save her for another game where it actually matters, like say, oh, I don't know, Storm Over Zehir??? A Chultan in Chult. Well, fancy that!
Main point being that for a good or even neutral Charname/party there was no option to save/defend "Clara", just had to stand by and watch the murder. The poor writing merely added insult to injury.
I did wonder at the time whether the writers got the idea from the werewolf "Anaarg" (is that the right name? the werewolf who kills Mazzy's companion to get the strength to try and face the Shade Lord).
People tend to forget WHERE BG is set in the Forgotten Realms. Baldur's Gate and Amn is set in the very southern end of the Sword Coast. This is the FR analog of Turkey, basically, with the Middle-Eastern Turmish to the east and Calimshan to the south (which, by the way, has a relative lot of native outsider types like genasis and tieflings thanks to the whole genie, efreet and demon summoning shennanigans a la Arabian Nights). To the north, we get all the European analogues, Cormyr, and the Sword Coast proper with the Northmen (as Viking as you are going to get on this side of Icewind Dale) and the city of Waterdeep. To the east is the ocean with the Moonshae Isles, Mintarn and Orlumbor. The Ffolk of Moonshae, in particular, is pure Celtic.
And then, across an ocean famous for storms and dangerous conditions, from a nation dangerous for its paranoia, set in thick tropical jungles full of disease, slavers and poisonous creatures, you have the peninsula of Chult.
You are telling me that a native vampire sneaked into a paranoid human city, took/hired a boat (bearing in mind that the ocean going boats belongs to non-native traders and/or slavers, we are talking an Ivory Coast Africa analog here), sailed across the dangerous oceans where there is every expectation of the ship sinking and her coffin with it, staying out of the tropical sun all that time, and ended up in... Gah! I can't even continue on.
As I said, better to have saved the character for a different game than to force her into BG2. It just does not work. The dialogue and party interaction can be put down to the writer having a bad day or forced to work with a bad set-up. The choice of the basic make-up of the character, far less so.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nPzIABiyiPI
That is all.
I'll see myself out now.
Please don't throw things at me...
The reason I don't like romance is video games is exactly the same reason I don't like Wuthering Heights. It just doesn't interest me. It's boring. I don't read romantic books, I don't watch romantic films*.
I like action.
I like adventure.
I like mystery.
I like humour.
I don't like romance.
*I make an exception for Casablanca, since the message of that movie is that there are things that are far more important than romance, and it should be put aside in order to beat the bad guys.
The presence of a romantic subplot isn't something that's confined to what you call "romantic films", so if you can enjoy any other genre despite that, why should it even be a talking point here?
2) Romance isn't the same as love. Romance is wasting energy pursuing a relationship with a specific person of the prefered gender. Love is caring about someone more than you care about yourself, irrespective of how that person feels about you.
3) in many modern crpgs relationships have become the main focus, religating the saving-the-world buisiness to a trivial sub-plot.
2) Romance is in fact part of being in love. You cannot have one without the other.
3) Give an actual example. Moreover, why wouldn't relationships be a primary focus, unless the main character is a social isolate? Why would story driven games without relationships be superior?
But what I think is if I am playing a very long campaign together with companions, in order to take care of the member of my party I need to know about their psyche. And the best way to do that is relationships with them (love, friendships, ...)
2) I doubt I would could say what I actually think of that comment without breaking site rules. I guess I have to limit it to saying I disagree in the strongest terms imaginable. Love is unselfish and can be for anyone of any gender, as it has nothing whatsovever to do with sexuality. It gives everything without asking for anything in return. Romance is the act of trying to pursuade someone else to love you, and is fundamentally selfish.
3) example: the-game-we-are-not-allowed-to-mention-in-this-thread II and III. Especially II, the interactive soap opera.
I like Romance and want it in the things I experience.
I don't like Romance and don't want it in the things I experience.
Neither is correct nor wrong, just a difference in subjective opinions.
I will say though on a Hero has to overcome emotion that's a complete opposite for all my Charnames (in games, my personal writings, and in PnP D&D). My characters are usually driven forward by their emotions and the only one who isn't, my Cleric Azrael Gaunt, is so detached from his emotions that it's a flaw for his character. But again, that's subjective on how people want their character to be.
I think you are missing that romance/relationships often give rise to the
action
adventure
mystery
humour.
Without the romance, Casablanca becomes a straightforward
"I need papers"
"How much can you pay?"
2) This is is incredibly off base, I have no idea why you brought sexuality into this discussion. I don't think you know what romantic love is. I should add that it does not have to do anything with sex, read Dante's 'La Vita Nova.' Even if trying to 'woo' someone is selfish, we would not survive without it, not all selfishness is bad in the first place.
3) I have no idea what you are talking about, name a different example then.
Now, I suppose not liking that fact is all well and good (though it begs the question of what on earth you could possibly be reading/watching/playing where you're not exposed to that on some level); but I don't know how you go from that to thinking it's reasonable to position that as a request or a valid expectation.
3. but you're still saving the world in mass effect. the romances are sub plots. you act like they force them on you. these are not romance visual novels where those are the point. no they are optional you never have to do them.
Nothing wrong with romance in games, as long as they are better presented than the average run of the mill Hollywood script. Instead of the prolonged meeting-lack of interest-building of trust/interest-attraction-"romancing", there should be (listing the "best possible" in-game ending for each alternative):
-As above, but have it only as one of the options instead of all of them.
-Meet, lack of interest, try to woo the other person, have the option to keep trying to woo them and keep at it, end the game without ever managing to do it. (regardless of what you do)
-Meet, lack of interest, the other party gets interested, then they meet somebody else and lose interest. (regardless of what you do)
-Meet, "fall in love", marry (why not?), keep it going. (pretty much regardless of what you do)
-Meet, "fall in love", marry, they grow to hate you, separate. (regardless of what you do)
-Meet, "fall in love", lose the other person (death/responsibilities/boredom). (regardless of what you do)
-Meet, have fun (do it), keep having fun, continue having fun till the end. Never actually "romance" them.
-Meet, have fun, keep having fun, "romance".
-Meet, have fun, keep having fun, everything explodes, separate.
-Meet, get way too much attention from the other person, keep rejecting them all the time.
-Meet, get way too much attention from the other person, keep rejecting them, give in, get rid of them.
-Meet, get way too much attention from the other person, keep rejecting them, get together, keep it going.
-Meet, build and have a great relationship, realise you're being used.
-Meet, get together, meet somebody else, get all together.
-Meet, lots of attraction, never meet again.
-Meet a tree.
-Etc.
You see a similar approach in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The hero simply sets his romance aside for a year because fighting evil is far more important. Once evil is defeated he picks up where he left off. When there is romance between his party members it leads to jealousy that jeopardises the mission.
Brief Encounter is another movie where romance is the antagonist to be resisted, not the objective to be achieved.
I wasn't refering to Mass Effect (although it is certainly an offender), I was refering to the games that Dave Gaider has specificaly said he doesn't want to talk about.
Excessive passion leads ultimately to the idea of "the ends justifies the means" and "I am Good, so anyone who agrees with me is Evil and I don't need to be nice to them; in fact, I should humiliate, silence, hurt and destroy them at every opportunity and wherever possible, kill them all". Happens in real life all the time. See it every day, more so recently, and for obvious reasons that should not be brought to this forum.
But, without some emotion, someone stealing a crust of bread to feed his kids will have his hands chopped off for stealing.
Basically, you guys are arguing Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Stupid, if you want to use DnD terminology.
It's not the idea of "the ends justify the means" (more often known as pragmatism or consequentialism) that prompts people to turn against each other. There are multiple names for that idea, but "the ends justify the means" is not one of them. That idea isn't anywhere in those five words. I've never heard anyone use the phrase that way.
I think you mean "Us and Them," the "tribe mentality," the "siege mentality," the "Other," racism, or "anti-whateverism," or a similar term.
"The ends justify the means" is the idea that the most important thing is the end result of one's actions, not just the actions themselves. Hence the more common name, pragmatism. The classic example would be killing baby Hitler: killing a baby is wrong, but killing Hitler when he was a baby would prevent suffering in the end, and would therefore be justified according to pragmatism.
"The ends justify the means," or pragmatism, is the exact opposite of excessive passion in pursuit of an ideal. It's about NOT being dogmatic and NOT applying broad generalizations to things. It's about focusing on whatever works in ONE particular situation, not applying blanket solutions.
More importantly, I don't see what any of this has to do with romance in video games.
Actually it's in part because of the Aerie romance in BG2 and the Gann romance in NWN2: MotB that cause those games to be my two favorite rpgs of all time.
Games like Pillars of Eternity and Morrowind are close followers to being my all time favorites but in my, subjective, perfect RPG the player should be allowed to pursue a romance if they want to.
But my ideal adventure is something of a cross between grimdark realism of the Game of Thrones setting and the whimsical adventure and characters of The Princess Bride.
Death is very real but so is love, happiness, sadness, and everything else.
I also feel flawed and weak protagonists make for more interesting characters. I'd rather watch a character muddied in their emotions and lost in the world than a stoic hero who chooses the right answer every time.
But that's why this is all just subjective content and content creators can decide whatever they want to be in the content. If there are no romances in the next Beamdog game then cool. If there are romances then cool.