Dragon Age III is Bioware's absolute LAST chance and here is how they can get it right.(Long read)

[Delterius]

Companion interaction as a whole has been getting more attention, but romance isn't all that important.

And you interact with them either as "companion" or as a love interest. Therefore, romance is important. At the BSN, one thread about one hypothetical love interest has more posts than the entire gameplay subforum.

As far as gameplay goes, they're not important. You can skip all of them and feel like you're missing nothing.

Optional means unimportant content? That's a silly generalization. Isn't The Ideal RPG all about experiencing a story in different ways and through a multitude of paths? Saying that optional content isn't important is agreeing to the design that cuts all forms of "roleplaying" from games because "most people won't play the game more than once".

Besides, if BioWare "romances" weren't really about sex, then the actually romantic scenes would be a interesting addition to the story. And if you disagree with me, if you think that BioWare romances are a fulfilling story, then they ARE a interesting addition to the game. If anything, the choice of turning DA into a All Bisexual Universe in DA2 was to pander to those people who didn't get to shag <character> because the first DA wasn't stupid. Those people felt like they were missing a lot.

And that doesn't even rebuke the very obvious treasuring of NPC romance that the fandom does. As I said, one thread about a HYPOTHETICAL love interest has more attention than entire subforums. Not to mention that, through 2012, one of the few moments of positive press that BioWare got was how their romance is still inclusive.

 

[Roguey]

Optional means unimportant content? That's a silly generalization.

I meant it has no gameplay benefit. It can't be increasingly important as a gameplay element if there's none attached.

Isn't The Ideal RPG all about experience a story in different ways and through a multitude of paths? Besides,iIf BioWare "romances" weren't really about sex, then the actually romantic scenes would be a interesting addition to the story.

You can romance characters without having virtual sex with them.

Besides, that doesn't even rebuke the very obvious treasuring of NPC romance that the fandom does. As I said, one thread about a HYPOTHETICAL love interest has more attention than entire subforums. Not to mention that, through 2012, one of the few moments of positive press that BioWare got was how their romance is still inclusive.

I don't see how that's relevant. It doesn't change what's in the game.

 

[Carrion]

I only realized that romances existed in BG2 on my second or third playthrough. They were there for those who are into that kind of stuff, but I always happened to choose the "wrong" dialogue options so that I pretty much killed the romances before they even started, which is what most sane persons would probably do considering that the romance dialogue really stood out as completely fucking dumb. I'm alright with that kind of an approach, really. The romances were mostly just minor fluff, and a few extra lines of dialogue here and there most likely didn't eat up a lot of their resources. The writing was bad, but I never thought it was supposed to be that serious in the first place, more like tongue-in-cheek and cheesy on purpose. Then again, I've never experienced the Aerie romance, so...

In the newer BioWare games (from KotOR onwards) it's pretty much impossible to completely avoid romances, though, and that is just horrible. My character was a total asshole towards Bastila from the start and she still went on and on about her feelings like I should have cared. In the first Mass Effect the whole romance thing pretty much turned into self-parody, and in DA:O I felt like Sir Galahad in Castle Anthrax, except that most of the hot chicks were replaced with men and there was nothing even remotely sexually arousing about it. I'm guessing it only got worse after that.

 

[Roguey]

"In the newer BioWare games (from KotOR onwards) it's pretty much impossible to completely avoid romances, though, and that is just horrible"
Bullshit. Pretty much works how it does in BG2. In DA2 it's possible to totally avoid romances by never selecting a heart icon and always selecting a broken heart icon whenever you see one (not doing this in that one Anders convo results in hilarity).

 

[Delterius]

Optional means unimportant content? That's a silly generalization.

I meant it has no gameplay benefit. It can't be increasingly important as a gameplay element if there's none attached.

Now, that's a contradiction. You said it yourself, companion interaction is gaining in importance. Especially if you consider that A) BioWare prizes itself in more elaborate plots than average and B) That BioWare has chosen a path of cinematic presentation - where choosing which cutscene rolls becomes a big choice. Even if you must relate everything to the primary game mechanic, combat, companion interaction its also impacting gameplay more and more.

Case in point is the Dragon Age series. In the first game the approval ratings opened attribute bonuses or even caused companions to leave you/polish your blade with their blood in case you did something heinous or they disapproved you of too much. In the second game, companion interaction was further weaved into combat as it regulates 2 mutually exclusive paths of special abilities. If memory serves, man-woman warrior tank Aveline can either become more resilient individually (because she can't really trust her her back to you) or a better tank for the protagonist, as she comes to like you and put a little more effort in your well-being.

And what else are the romances but a form in which this major game mechanic is conveyed? Then you could still argue that romances are relatively minor, and they are, but that doesn't change the fact that they grow within the context of companion interactions - and that's also where the relevance of the fandom comes in. Because it does change what's in the game.

Let's go back all the way to Baldur's Gate. You said it yourself somewhere: the developers realized the fandom was larping/modding their own romances so they filled that need in BG2. Now: fast forward to DA:O, where a couple of companions aren't love interests; the choice of gender does limit/impact on your choices of virtual concubine; and romances weren't judged a worthy addition to the game's ~20 hour long expansion. Another point of interest is how in BG2 races would also limit/impact the choices, whereas DA:O foregone that conclusion.

Now, come in DA2. The game's design and story changed dramatically. Gender no longer impacts the game, to the point where the characterization of long-estabilished characters is retconned (Anders, I think, was heterosexual); every companion, from what I read, is romanceable, even the chaste guy; and even the comparably minor DLC includes a flirt/romance of its own.

Could BioWare tie in Romances more with the game's plot? Could they add some more consequence to their choices? Sure. But to say that the choice of romance isn't that important is silly. Companion interaction impacts both the story and combat. Romances are a major marketting point. Discussions of romances and love interests produce more data in the BSN than some Universities. If anything, the C&C of romance is above the BioWarian average of "cosmetic" choices.

Isn't The Ideal RPG all about experience a story in different ways and through a multitude of paths? Besides,iIf BioWare "romances" weren't really about sex, then the actually romantic scenes would be a interesting addition to the story.

You can romance characters without having virtual sex with them.
True. That's a more personal criticism to focus of the romance plots. Its transparent in my speech there, but its in no way a universal thing so I won't bother to elaborate from here.

 

[Carrion]

Bullshit. Pretty much works how it does in BG2. In DA2 it's possible to totally avoid romances by never selecting a heart icon and always selecting a broken heart icon whenever you see one (not doing this in that one Anders convo results in hilarity).

By "romances" I don't mean just getting laid but all sexual dialogue between the PC and the "love interests". In Mass Effect Kaidan, Ashley and Liara all start hitting on you almost right away. In DA:O Zevran, Leliana and Morrigan do this, and I'd imagine Alistair too if you play a female character. As long as you talk to your followers, you will hear someone talk about how hard or wet they get around you. Sure, you can tell everyone to just go screw themselves, but at that point the damage is already done. I haven't played DA2 and I most likely never will, but the fact that it even has visible hearts or broken hearts says enough about the game.

In BG2 there's a lot of seemingly harmless banter that might or might not result in some kind of a romance later in the game. It's much more subtle, and like I said, I managed to finish the game without even realizing that there were romances in it. Viconia is more straightforward than the other characters, but "romance" is maybe the wrong word to describe the things you can do with that nympho, and I don't think she's into Lawful Good guys either.

 

[Western]

"In the newer BioWare games (from KotOR onwards) it's pretty much impossible to completely avoid romances, though, and that is just horrible"
Bullshit. Pretty much works how it does in BG2. In DA2 it's possible to totally avoid romances by never selecting a heart icon and always selecting a broken heart icon whenever you see one (not doing this in that one Anders convo results in hilarity).

That's funny, but it also makes sense aspers would need heart icons in their dialogue.

 

[Karmapowered]

Can't wait for Dragon Age III! Good luck to the Bioware staff!

Sex sells.

Famous media like books, movies, theater pieces or folk-lore have depicted romances/sex for ages. Video-games are a medium. Bioware wanted to sell the most of their video-games, ergo they included romances/sex in their games.

It's the least of the issues I am having with their games.

Tits aren't inherently obscene (quite the contrary I might add). I would actually enjoy to play cRPGs focusing more on physiognomy (genders, races) and adult psychology (seduction being only one of the many ways to manipulate the human mind) in their story and setting.

I just don't think we'll ever have the chance to go through such a fine gaming experience thanks to Dragon Age 3, because I can only assume from what I've gathered that it will be more of the same : "romances" served on a silver platter, among tasteless pixel orgies and gorefests, for a largely North-American public that needs to get laid with suppressed libido issues since their teens.

 

[RK47]

Killing Leliana in DA:O was the most satisfying quest conclusion ever.
Then the writers brought her back in DA2's ending.
So, so stupid.

 

[Karmapowered]

Another shortcoming of the DA series, bless the modding community.

 

[Jick Magger]

At least the nips managed to segregate that group of degenerates with the visual novel genre.

 

[RK47]

 

[sea]

Sex sells.

Famous media like books, movies, theater pieces or folk-lore have depicted romances/sex for ages. Video-games are a medium. Bioware wanted to sell the most of their video-games, ergo they included romances/sex in their games.

The problems are:

a) BioWare put very little effort into making their romances interesting, or, frankly, good. Characters and situations are soap operatic at worst, pandering at best.
b) Romances have no real tie-in to the plot. Instead of driving the story and characters in interesting ways as a good writer might manage to do, in BioWare titles they're usually a few flirtatious comments + sex scene.
c) Romance and sex don't really sell. Rather the promise and image of them does. There is no need to waste lots of development time on romance if you can accomplish the same thing with less effort (from a marketing standpoint).
d) BioWare seem to think romances are way more important to their fans than they actually are. Their forum community probably gives them a very distorted idea of what players really want.

Just because you intended for something to be shitty doesn't make it okay to be shitty. At least all those Chinese free-to-play titles out there are honest about being shallow and manipulative.

 

[Commissar Draco]

In fact only Viconia has a path to be true romance with option to make change her alignment to neutral and send her into adeptus kitchenus. straight and much less whiny way... but it requires Your PC to say no to free pussy at some point, which is unacceptable for modern pondering to Deviants players Biowhore. Besides Bio-romances are total retardo you can have casual sex during adventures but I can't imagine any romancing done in 5 dialogues done between fighting the undead hordes and mantaining your kit at the camp.

 

[Karmapowered]

The problems are:

a) BioWare put very little effort into making their romances interesting, or, frankly, good. Characters and situations are soap operatic at worst, pandering at best.
b) Romances have no real tie-in to the plot. Instead of driving the story and characters in interesting ways as a good writer might manage to do, in BioWare titles they're usually a few flirtatious comments + sex scene.
c) Romance and sex don't really sell. Rather the promise and image of them does. There is no need to waste lots of development time on romance if you can accomplish the same thing with less effort (from a marketing standpoint).
d) BioWare seem to think romances are way more important to their fans than they actually are. Their forum community probably gives them a very distorted idea of what players really want.

Just because you intended for something to be shitty doesn't make it okay to be shitty. At least all those Chinese free-to-play titles out there are honest about being shallow and manipulative.

I couldn't agree more with all of your points.

More specifically :

• a) The quality is appalling for a company that has made "romances" a defining feature of their games, and tries to appeal to a public of adult gamers.
• b) If they fail to achieve their fundamental mission, "driving the story and characters in interesting ways", they become useless. I understand people feeling resentful at the manpower wasted on implementing them if it's to produce such poor results. Yet, the human psyche is built in such a fashion that they should produce good results (EDIT: at supporting the game/enhancing the experience of the story/game).
• c) We'll see for how long it'll last for Bioware. Their games (current and to come) have already started to suffer from a significant backslash because of too much marketing, and not enough consistence.
• d) Just to be clear on "romances" : (sub)plots hold no more intrinsic value to me because they're of romantic nature, rather than say of dramatic or comedic nature. It just so happens that I've played video-games with good drama or comedy (sub)plots, but never any with good romantic (sub)plots. I think that if books, movies or theater pieces can deliver an experience that is satisfying over the full spectrum of the genres, video-games should be able to do the same. As you said, it just takes good writers (and probably a good team as a whole) to achieve such an effect.

People may object that they don't want to see more "dating sims" developing in their games than there already are, but that's really not the point here. To reiterate what the OP correctly pointed out, it's more the matter of making our cRPGs *aware* of factual differences between the player picking a male MC over a female MC, for example, a human MC over a dwarf MC, or a truthful (if weaker) henchman over a mythomaniac (and eventually disloyal) one as INPUT, and delivering a more coherent, consequential and therefore interesting experience to the player as OUTPUT.

It should come as no surprise that if I still find some redeeming qualities in DA:O today, it's (only) thanks to the introduction of the game, which made clear distinctions between the different backgrounds/origins of our MCs. There was no romance to speak of at that stage, and yet it was beautifully executed (for the human noble origin anyway). I really felt there was a connection between the in-game family and my in-game avatar. I would have liked to save them, all of them, but even if I couldn't, I enjoyed the experience, because it made sense. On the other hand, in DA2, I lead 4 people, supposedly a family (mother, sister, brother and the MC), out of some deserted landscape, and I never could be bothered to feel the slightest emotion at the imposed demise/execution of one of the siblings of my MC.

Call it a deeper "emotional engagement" (despite its negative connotation around these parts) towards the game, the story and its avatars (NPCs). I call it setting the player really in the (adult) context of the game, which shouldn't be anything controversial for a *role* playing game.

 

[Angthoron]

beautifully executed (for the human noble origin anyway). I really felt there was a connection between the in-game family and my in-game avatar. I would have liked to save them, all of them, but even if I couldn't, I enjoyed the experience, because it made sense.

Funny. My first and only DA: O game was as that of a human noble, and I felt it horribly devoid of any sort of connection-building and to me it failed to make the PC feel like a son of the lord of the manor. Maybe it's awesome compared to DA2 but I didn't touch that masterpiece so can't rightly say.

 

[Karmapowered]

beautifully executed (for the human noble origin anyway). I really felt there was a connection between the in-game family and my in-game avatar. I would have liked to save them, all of them, but even if I couldn't, I enjoyed the experience, because it made sense.

Funny. My first and only DA: O game was as that of a human noble, and I felt it horribly devoid of any sort of connection-building and to me it failed to make the PC feel like a son of the lord of the manor. Maybe it's awesome compared to DA2 but I didn't touch that masterpiece so can't rightly say.

Okay, maybe I somewhat overdid it for theatrical purposes, and YMMV of course, but I honestly thought the first part of the game to be immensely superior to the rest of the game (maybe with the exception of the demon child part).

DA2 doesn't even come close, I stopped playing that travesty of a game after 10 minutes.

 

[Jick Magger]

This is why I always think that while the developers should always listen to their fans criticisms or complaints, they should never look to them for advice on what they should do instead.

Let's face it; 90% of any game's fanbase don't know what they want most of the time, and it especially doesn't help when you listen primarily to the feedback from your most autistic minority.

 

[Roguey]

By "romances" I don't mean just getting laid but all sexual dialogue between the PC and the "love interests". In Mass Effect Kaidan, Ashley and Liara all start hitting on you almost right away. In DA:O Zevran, Leliana and Morrigan do this, and I'd imagine Alistair too if you play a female character. As long as you talk to your followers, you will hear someone talk about how hard or wet they get around you. Sure, you can tell everyone to just go screw themselves, but at that point the damage is already done.

It's the same deal with BG2. The difference is that instead of being able to talk to everybody, you can only talk to the romance options when they choose to initiate dialogue. What's happening is transparent considering the silence from the others.

I haven't played DA2 and I most likely never will, but the fact that it even has visible hearts or broken hearts says enough about the game.

It says "Here's an easy way to completely opt out of this feature, you'd have to be blind to miss it" (turns out many people are blind; though making diplomatic/joking responses in that one dialogue stealth-romance openings was a mean trick I'm sure they won't repeat).

In BG2 there's a lot of seemingly harmless banter that might or might not result in some kind of a romance later in the game. It's much more subtle, and like I said, I managed to finish the game without even realizing that there were romances in it.

Heh, subtle. I once had Aerie and Jaheira in my party and they both fought like children over my pc like I was in some harem anime even though I was only just being nice to them (up until that moment).

Viconia is more straightforward than the other characters, but "romance" is maybe the wrong word to describe the things you can do with that nympho, and I don't think she's into Lawful Good guys either.

 

[Carrion]

It's the same deal with BG2. The difference is that instead of being able to talk to everybody, you can only talk to the romance options when they choose to initiate dialogue. What's happening is transparent considering the silence from the others.

I don't consider Aerie's inane banter the same thing as Bastila's confessions on how she has suddenly developed feelings for the PC. BG2 romances essentially start from the friend zone, and in my case they never developed anywhere from there.

It says "Here's an easy way to completely opt out of this feature, you'd have to be blind to miss it"

It also says: "Here's a feature, you'd have to be blind to miss it." That is the difference between BG2 and Dragon Age.

 

[Konjad]

I kind of liked Dragon Age 2 and I still wish Bioware's existence to cease.

 

[Delterius]

a) BioWare put very little effort into making their romances interesting, or, frankly, good. Characters and situations are soap operatic at worst, pandering at best.
b) Romances have no real tie-in to the plot. Instead of driving the story and characters in interesting ways as a good writer might manage to do, in BioWare titles they're usually a few flirtatious comments + sex scene.
c) Romance and sex don't really sell. Rather the promise and image of them does. There is no need to waste lots of development time on romance if you can accomplish the same thing with less effort (from a marketing standpoint).
d) BioWare seem to think romances are way more important to their fans than they actually are. Their forum community probably gives them a very distorted idea of what players really want.

I agree with the general direction of your argument. But I'd like to add some considerations.

a & b) Interestingly, I was much more forgiving of romances in Dragon Age: Origins because I think its a bit hard to create such a personal story with a "fit 'em all" silent protagonist. It was only when things got too graphic (the sex scenes) that I found it really grating. I suppose it speaks volumes when BioWare not only increased writer control over the protagonist in DA2 and the romances manage to become even more grating - a minimalist approach to storytelling can not only accomplish as much as the cinematic focus of modern gaming, but it also makes less than stellar writting a little better.

Reminds me about how part of Squaresoft's western fandom disliked the increasingly "otaku"-focused art style, but also how technology only managed to show it more and more.

c) Maybe this came out wrong, but it sounds like you consider the mass market a bunch of sheep to be lead into the corral. There's some truth in that sentiment, but I actually think that when people talk about game features, they are fully aware of what they are asking - just not really aware of what they aren't asking.

Sex and Romance sell. A story in which people get sexually involved is exactly what BioWare's fandom want. They are probably aware of how ridiculously presented that story is, and they want it just as ridiculous. One good example, I think, is gay romance, though I'm probably overstepping my competence here.

Homosexuality is a word inserted in a context of discrimination and still quite a lot of conflict. As BioWare games are a part of our culture, the idea of sexual inclusion and indiscrimination is, by itself, a reflection of the sexual revolution that we're marching through right now. However, BioWare is not interested in stories of gay romance that can also be related to our world. In their so called "dark" fantasy, there's not even a hint of discrimination in there. And that's because people don't want it.

To make my argument a bit simpler, another good example is how there's no gender or racial discrimination when it comes to the physical abilities of men and women. Though we are aware that its a bit silly when men and women are physically similar, especially if the game itself appears low fantasy (like in DA:O), and though we are also aware that a elf and a human being equally strong is even worse, we may not actually bother to deal with the intricacies of a realistic system. That's because we are all gamists and because realism isn't really necessary. And neither appears to be actually romantic romance subplots.

d) In my experience, BioWare tends to minimize internet as a medium of communication. All the time. Especially when faced with criticism or suggestions.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

I don't think all BioWare romances have been equally terrible over the years. The ones in KotOR were OK, in my opinion.

 

[tuluse]

I meant it has no gameplay benefit. It can't be increasingly important as a gameplay element if there's none attached.

The romance is the end goal, and Bioware keeps adding gameplay elements to it. The whole gift giving mechanic as an example.

 

[The Plague]

Reading all this shit makes me feel proud never playing Dragun Age nor Fag Effect. It seems Bioware went down the shitter after Baldurs Gate 2. The benefits living under a rock i guess...