Romance in cRPGs - is it ever good?

[Gangrelrumbler]

Some of us prefer better gameplay.

So what? You won't get "better gameplay" with or without romances.

Yes you almost certainly will.
- case 1: you have 1000 games with romances and for each game implementing the romance took X man/hours and Y money.
- case 2: in an alternate reality the same 1000 games are made without romances and those X and Y were spend on other aspects - including gameplay.
In which case the chance of getting better gameplay is higher ?

Writers who wrote these romances would still need to be hired and would still write the same garbage, just without romance angle. There would be no extra money if you'd eliminate all romances. Just "thanks for solving my deep psychological problems buddy" instead of "thanks for solving my deep psychological problems BAE".

Wrong - you could make a game with lower amount of (irrelevant) text. And those "writers" (lol) can go and starve for all i care.

Removing romances won't lower the amount of text enough to justify reducing number of writers. It's not like RPG companies hire people just to write them.

 

[Reinhardt]

Choices are not "romances OR party based rpg with TB tactical combat". It's "romances or shitting in the woods arcade minigame(because fishing and cooking minigames are already in our open-world akshun-rpg game)". Or just bonus for EA manager.

 

[laclongquan]

"Did she morally corrupt you, comrade? Did she?" Man, that was a good closure to the romantic romp between Liz and MC in Hammer & Sickle.

Planescape Torment's romances always read well.

Vampire Masquerades Bloodlines's fake romance between MC and Velvet Velour (aka Susan?) is another good one.

 

[PulsatingBrain]

Misallocation of developer resources. Some of us prefer better gameplay.

Surely in such a big studio, it'd be completely different people who design the gameplay.

 

[Mustawd]

Writers who wrote these romances would still need to be hired and would still write the same garbage, just without romance angle. There would be no extra money if you'd eliminate all romances.

Resources don't just entail money. They also entail time. Look at PoE. The devs have specifically said that they ran out of time for more editing passes, which might have helped curtail the lore dumps the game suffered from.

Instead of writing retarded romances they can spend more time and effort on the actual game writing, doing editing passes, maybe redoing problems areas, etc.

 

[gaussgunner]

Misallocation of developer resources. Some of us prefer better gameplay.

Surely in such a big studio, it'd be completely different people who design the gameplay.

Big studios don't make CRPGs.

 

[gaussgunner]

Instead of writing retarded romances they can spend more time and effort on the actual game writing, doing editing passes, maybe redoing problems areas, etc.

If I were editor I'd cut all the romance on my first pass.

 

[ga♥]

There's nothing wrong in romances. I believe, if well made, they aren't a "resource mismanagement" but actually help provide for the ROLEPLAY part in the RPG acronym.
Problem is they are really hard to get it right.
Like everyone already said PS:T romances were very good (I actually regret MCA didn't develop them more), and I think noone would say anyhing against something similar in other games, while BG2 romances were shit.

 

[ga♥]

Mustawd instead of rating my post shit why don't you explain how PS:T would have been a better game without Annah, Deionarra, Ravel and Fall-from-grace relationships?

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

Romance in CRPG any good ? Might as well ask if dialogues in porn are ever good. The answer would be the same : "Good ? No. At best it doesn't distract too much from the action".

Sure there is the occasional success like PST or "Not today, you don't", but they're the exception and not the rule.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Writers who wrote these romances would still need to be hired and would still write the same garbage, just without romance angle. There would be no extra money if you'd eliminate all romances.

Resources don't just entail money. They also entail time. Look at PoE. The devs have specifically said that they ran out of time for more editing passes, which might have helped curtail the lore dumps the game suffered from.

Instead of writing retarded romances they can spend more time and effort on the actual game writing, doing editing passes, maybe redoing problems areas, etc.

PoE is a great example why removing romances won't help game a bit. Instead of writing romances people who normally would write them just inserted their garbage writing everywhere else. Now instead of reading crappy romance with companions you can instead just read regular crappy conversations with companions. It doesn't make much difference if a party member fucks PC when he finished telling his sappy story.

 

[Mustawd]

Mustawd instead of rating my post shit why don't you explain how PS:T would have been a better game without Annah, Deionarra, Ravel and Fall-from-grace relationships?

How about you stop caring about ratings?

 

[fantadomat]

I liked the romance in Kotor 1 .It was only one and felt natural.

 

[ga♥]

Mustawd instead of rating my post shit why don't you explain how PS:T would have been a better game without Annah, Deionarra, Ravel and Fall-from-grace relationships?

How about you stop caring about ratings?

I guess, eventualy when you will reach puberty, you will have a different perspective on romances.

 

[cpmartins]

 

[Mustawd]

Mustawd instead of rating my post shit why don't you explain how PS:T would have been a better game without Annah, Deionarra, Ravel and Fall-from-grace relationships?

How about you stop caring about ratings?

I guess, eventualy when you will reach puberty, you will have a different perspective on romances.

Not sure what that has to do with ratings but ok. Maybe when you have an actual relationship instead of one with a pretend boyfriend/girlfriend in a videogame you'll have a more mature view on how real relationships work? Is that how changing the subject works? Please lemme know. K' thanks.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Mustawd instead of rating my post shit why don't you explain how PS:T would have been a better game without Annah, Deionarra, Ravel and Fall-from-grace relationships?

How about you stop caring about ratings?

I guess, eventualy when you will reach puberty, you will have a different perspective on romances.

Not sure what that has to do with ratings but ok. Maybe when you have an actual relationship instead of one with a pretend boyfriend/girlfriend in a videogame you'll have a more mature view on how real relationships work? Is that how changing the subject works? Please lemme know. K' thanks.

Just answer his question about PST, geez. Jesus, why is talking to people on the Internet so hard. Hardly anybody talks like a normal person this days.

 

[Mustawd]

Just answer his question

A. You're not my real dad. So plz stop telling me what to do. I'm 57 yrs old FFS

B. Why the hell am I being singled out? I didn't even comment on his stupid post. Why don't you answer his question?

 

[uaciaut]

kris Most Bioware romances felt forced to me. I always had the feeling that they were there to please me, the player instead of being an integral part of story.

Doesn't this describe everything in most RPGs, from NPCs to shopkeepers to monsters to geopolitics?

The product (i.e. game) as a whole is there to please the player obviously, but there's a difference between creating an integral piece that's great and creating something out of pieces that are appeasing without any consideration to the entire finished good. If you're shitting on the cohesiveness of the story/world just so a chunk of your playerbase can fill the empty parts of their lonely lives with 5 minutes of satisfaction that they can have a conversation and make a partner fall for them then you get BG2 npc mods and the whole industry starts pandering to that shit because it sells and it's easier to pull off then creating a good game.

More on topic - i liked how PS:T pulled off the romance bit for the most part but there were a few points where i felt like i was carrying my harem around with me for kicks like in a weird dystopian anime. I guess i'd call a romance good if it was weaved in seamless into the game itself and didn't make me stop and ask myself "what the fuck is this shit". Most of the time in games don't manage to pull it off - much like buying a ho's services - she has to be really fucking good to make you forget you're paying (unless you're really dellusional-which a lot of gamers are) - games most often don't come close to that.

 

[MRY]

kris Most Bioware romances felt forced to me. I always had the feeling that they were there to please me, the player instead of being an integral part of story.

Doesn't this describe everything in most RPGs, from NPCs to shopkeepers to monsters to geopolitics?

The product (i.e. game) as a whole is there to please the player obviously, but there's a difference between creating an integral piece that's great and creating something out of pieces that are appeasing without any consideration to the entire finished good. If you're shitting on the cohesiveness of the story/world just so a chunk of your playerbase can fill the empty parts of their lonely lives with 5 minutes of satisfaction that they can have a conversation and make a partner fall for them then you get BG2 npc mods and the whole industry starts pandering to that shit because it sells and it's easier to pull off then creating a good game.

Well, my point is that almost everything in the average RPG is an artificial construct that exists to flatter the player's vanity in a way that makes no sense in practical terms. When was the last time you went into a store that had products sold at a price only you could afford, and no customers other than you, and they were willing to buy, on the spot, any crap you brought in with you, no matter how related or unrelated to their line of work? Essentially every shop in an RPG is a luxury pawn shop with a customer base of 1. The only reason that doesn't harm the "cohesiveness of the story/world" is that you've decided to ignore it (so say we all!), but at an abstract level, it's not that different.

Non-romanceable companions, incidentally, often are just fantasies of college roommates talking philosophy after getting drunk, or the kind of rough, stoical male friendships you might have if one wasn't spending all his time on computer games, etc., etc. They also are there to fill the empty parts of lonely lives! Otherwise we'd just have hirelings/full party creation.

Don't get me wrong: I found Dak'kon and Kreia wonderful and Bioware romance ridiculous, it's just that I think that's primarily a matter of taste/preference as opposed to something you can prove objectively ("These kinds of characters are realistic extensions of the world, while those are pandering.").

 

[Colour Spray]

Cross pollination really doesn't work in the case where catering to one part of your fan-base causes revulsion in the rest of it. Which is why i err on the side of games not including them; because I'd rather have them not try to be fair to everybody than include a bunch of stuff i personally find gross.

The Witcher gets away with it by focusing solely on their male demographic, but it also marks the game as clearly in that demographic. Bioware tries to straddle the margin, but by catering to a minority that likes easy gameplay and gay bdsm they stigmatize the product to what ordinarily would be the majority consumer.

Also action movie hard asses aren't remotely attractive waifu characteristics, so they are bound for failure from the outset.

 

[JarlFrank]

Companions serve several purposes in an RPG:

- provide assistance to the player in his quests (read: be another controllable character in combat)
- give quests to the player/use his help to achieve their own goals (done very seldomly these days, in BG2 some companions joined you because they needed your help in a quest, not because they wanted to help you with yours)
- provide an interesting story that you learn about bit by bit as you travel

Romances and other kinds of relationships are part of #3, but with more player interaction than just learning about the companion's past.

The problem with most romances is that they're usually linear and don't offer you much choice, or any gameplay benefits. You just romance a character, get a sex scene if you're lucky, and that's that... nothing actually changes in the game, even though the potential is there.

What if you could lead on an manipulate a character in order to gain something from him/her? Seduce the sorceress in your party, make her fall madly in love with you, make her stick to your side when you do something evil, then dump her afterwards. That would be a cool way to give more flavor to evil characters, but betrayals like that, or even manipulating your companions is rarely - if ever - seen.

What if an NPC could do the same to you? Give the player some nice flirty dialogues, make him believe that elven princess actually loves him, only to find out she merely used him for her own goals and kicks him out when he served his purpose.

Or just give some minor gameplay changes to characters in a relationship. So the player plays a female character and romances a barbarian, barbarian gets a chance of going berserk if player is wounded in battle. Or maybe she romances a wizard whose spells are going to be more effective due to them doing sex magic rituals together, or something like that, whatever.

As is, most RPG romances are merely player-centered and player-pandering scenes removed from the game's other mechanics. Heck, even something like in Baldur's Gate 2, where NPCs could have romances with each other (Minsc and Aerie could be considered one; or of course Khaled and Jaheira in BG1), would be an improvement to make the whole thing less player-centered.

 

[Mustawd]

What if ...

That's a big what if. And to be fair the OP specifically asks if romances in CRPGs are ever good? As in existing ones.

Again, having romance exist as a thing, I'm not against. What I am against is having companions exist for romantic fantasy of making them fall in love with the PC or anyone in the party. Really, it boils down to why you play RPGs. For me, LARPing romantic relationships is not why I play RPGs. Lhynn mentioned "getting the girl" kind of reaosn for adventuring. Yah sorry, I don't see that either.

And to be honest I'm having a hard time articulating why Biowarian romances turn me off so much, but why I once created a couple of Thorwalians in RoA and LARPed that they were husband and wife. It's hard to explain. I just feel like the romances in that vein (Be it Bioware, of FO4, Witcher) just seem like a completely different type of content than what I look for in these RPGs. I don't want to see my party members try to fall in love with me any more than I want to see them use a toilet or read a book or any other kind of activity that would add to the immurshun of the game, but for which is absolutely vapid for me.

And I would much gladly have romance kept more abstract as to not distract why I'm playing an RPG: To kill cool shit in a cool world and have fun adventures. Not to see naked cut scenes of 3D models have sex or romance all the womyn NPCs in the game. I just don't care. I really don't. But is it ok to have romance exist as a thing to make interesting situations? Sure. Just please keep my PC or my party members away from the romance dialogue wheel.

K' thanks.

 

[JarlFrank]

I play RPGs to play different kinds of characters and have different options for interacting with the world and the NPCs. Romances, if done well, are just another way of interaction so I have nothing against them per se.
They can potentially add more choice and consequence to a game.

 

[Azarkon]

There are those who enjoy them, and those who don't.

But since this is the Codex, where only absolutes exist: