Romance Options

[Gear]

Not sure if this has been asked before, but I'd like some fresh opinions anyway.

If any of you play any games outside of VNs, you might have played Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age II. In the former, your character has a few romance options. There was a bi elf, a bi human bard, a straight human warrior and a straight human mage. (I personally wanted to romance the straight warrior because he was hot, but my character was male, so it didn't really work out.)

In the latter, Dragon Age II, all the characters were bi (except for one of the downloadable characters) so they could be romanced by anyone, though I would think this to be exceptionally unrealistic.

So, I find myself facing a similar issue in my own game. Simply because of how everything turned out, my game consists of four male characters, and one female characters. This means, romance options are limited, unless everyone's bi, which again is unrealistic.

So which bothers you more? A lack of romance options, or a whole host of unrealistic ones?

[Crusher]

Well, it depends on the game/novel you are doing! I wouldn't even mind if there are no romance options at all. What's important is what you actually want the readers/players to go through. If romance has no relevant place in the story I don't see any reason to add it. Actually that's something I disliked in Bioware titles although they are by far my most favorite game developer. It's just not realistic that everyone around the main character loves him, especially turning more and more characters into bisexuals just doesn't feel natural anymore. I'd even love to see some romance options that end in rejection - *that* would be something fresh and interesting.

[Arcanum]

All the romance options, please. I always end up falling for the character I'm unable to romance, and that sucks. I don't feel like particularly playing a gender just to romance that one character. As for realism, you're playing as a warrior/mage/thief casting spells and kicking ass and defeating monsters (I don't have specific Dragon Age knowledge, but it's often that). I don't see why you'd have to only pull "realism" as an excuse when dealing with the romancable characters - it's simply that, an excuse.

Edit: Also, yeah, telling specifically about your story - often stories deal with things much more "unrealistic" than "everyone is bi" thing, which I don't see as unrealistic at all since theoretically picking a different gender (I'm assuming you pick your gender) just resultes in another alternative version/universe of the story. Say, if you can be a girl in one story and a guy in another, why can't A be straight in the first one and gay in the second? Something like that. Meep.

[Marcelo_Orlando]

I agree with crusher, it really depends on the type of game that you are making. If the romance is a big part of your story then yes, a few different choices in courtships would give your game more replay value. But if the romances are just an added bonus then I'd rather have it make sense. If the story is unrealistic and I can't get into it then I won't finish it, no matter how many pretty gals and guys there are.

[Aleema]

So which bothers you more? A lack of romance options, or a whole host of unrealistic ones?

Why would everyone being bi make their individual romance stories unrealistic? I understand that having a party that is entirely bi is improbable, but I don't think the romances in DA2 suffered at all. One player's gameplay experience will be different from the next, one person can believe the Merril is straight, and the next player might think she is gay. The chars from DA2 weren't all explicitly bi. They didn't go around saying they were (only Isabella), so it didn't form an unrealistic world or collection of romances. The player knowledge of the game itself is the only unrealistic thing -- because how the heck would your character even know that there's no gender barriers? And just because there's no gender flag for a romance, does that mean the character is suddenly BI? Isn't that left up to the player's interpretation? So, if you're asking me if that one fact would ruin the characters or romance for me, the answer is no. I'd rather have content than not.

[Arcanum]

Aleema, you're so much more articulate than me. This is exactly the point I've been trying to make. There are more often than not nothing to prove the romanceable characters are bi/straight/gay/assexual in a gameplay besides the relationship they form with the MC and IF they form that relationship. And that relationship is valid for that gameplay only. It's the same as saying your MC can't end with girl B in your second gameplay because in the first your MC loved girl A.

[Aleema]

It's the same as saying your MC can't end with girl B in your second gameplay because in the first your MC loved girl A.

That's a good analogy. Dating sims are of course unrealistic because you can get with all the romance characters to begin with. The sexual orientation being just as variable doesn't seem like a huge game-breaking thing to me. It's another thing we get to customize, and that's awesome.

But if character integrity is really, really important to you, please write the game that you want, not what I or anyone else wants.

[YonYonYon]

"everyone's bi" is ok
damn, I played DragonAge2 4 times - Fenris-x-Hawk(Mage) Friendly Romance, Fenris-x-Hawk(Rogue) Rivalry Romance, Fenris-x-Fem!Hawk(Warrior) Friendly Romance and at last, but not least, Fenris-x-Fem!Hawk(Mage again) Rivalry Romance...
So, it's Ok, really

[Crusher]

Arcanum: I see a difference between unrealistic things like magic and unrealistic things when it comes to the social aspect. Although the worlds are far from ours I still like to have believable characters around me. Especially when Bioware games are mentioned since those games focus very much on the characters. And I truly don't understand why everyone always wants to be able to f*** everything that moves to say it bluntly. I enjoyed the older games much more where it was not possible to have everyone for yourself because that gives the supporting characters a personality. They are not some stupid pawns that love you if you want it, they have their own minds that do not change just because you chose the right words.

I personally always want some kind of surprise. If I already know I can have anything I want there is no surprise. That's why I said I'd prefer being rejected for a change: This would be so shocking that nobody would expect it.

[KomiTsuku]

It's one of those storytelling things you need to be careful of. Not everyone is bi. Not everyone is looking for romance and love. Honestly, it sometimes comes off as illogical when every single character is romancible by every single gender. It is going to hurt the story's realism and logic train if you pursue that course. If a character's personality and gender identity are able to go back and forth across the spectrum, there's something lacking in their personality and reason for being in the story. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if a character is bi, go for it. If a character is gay, go for it. If the character is straight, go for it. Just realize that there is more to a character and their personality than your desire to make love with everything that moves. Why can't the other supporting characters have their own romance without you, the MC, butting in and ruining it?!

[papillon]

It's less realistic. However, it's equally unrealistic that the player character is always able to be the chosen one no matter how he or she is played, and is able to solve all quests and convince all NPCs of things other than romance. No pre-written computer RPG character is ever going to compare to interacting with a real human player.

"Make the right choices and everyone loves you" is a criticism aimed at the *entire concept* of game romances, not just the issue of sexuality.

When you choose to make content available to some characters and not to others, you have the likelihood of unbalancing the game and therefore stepping on some players' toes - telling them "Sorry, I don't think you're important enough to deserve as much content as other players get." Remember back in the day when Bioware gave male PCs three romance options and female PCs... one, who nobody liked? And all the options were het? Unsurprisingly this quickly led to players finding ways to hack the game in order to be able to play the content they wanted. If it's all there, why intentionally deny it to some of your players?

This is not to say that it's always a bad idea to put limits on things based on character type - having things change based on who you're playing gives you more to explore and keeps things interesting. Just don't do it by slamming the door in players' faces. A lot of people would be happy if there were the option of, say, an angsty friendship slash unrequited love 'path' for characters with incompatible orientations. This allows you to cover realistic issues while not making the player feel that the developer is intentionally excluding them. Of course, it's more work to write.

[Gear]

Well, the game I'm creating has five characters, but they're premade and you play as all of them from time to time. So limiting which ones get with who could be considered natural, as the player wouldn't necessarily have that choice realistically anyway. But I have to worry if it's being TOO accommodating to make everyone unrealistically bisexual (because I have too many friends that I wish were.)

[J. Datie]

Well, it depends on what kind of game/story it is, doesn't it? Every aspect of a work should be used to reinforce the work's purpose. Is an important part of the game that the protagonist is able to engage in romantic relationships with other characters, regardless of gender? Can part of the plot only happen if the main character is making out with someone? Do you want to, like, have it in there anyways? It's not like "everyone's bi" is that much more of a stretch than "a group of people,with different personalities and body types are all attracted to the opposite sex protagonist, who lacks both a personality and eyes." Yes, it'll hurt realism, but will it hurt believability? I'd imagine that'd depend on how you handle it.

Just act natural about it. A lot of things in fiction are accepted just because no attention is brought to them. It's a fictional world, if you pretend it's normal, then it is.

[KomiTsuku]

It's less realistic. However, it's equally unrealistic that the player character is always able to be the chosen one no matter how he or she is played, and is able to solve all quests and convince all NPCs of things other than romance. No pre-written computer RPG character is ever going to compare to interacting with a real human player.

"Make the right choices and everyone loves you" is a criticism aimed at the *entire concept* of game romances, not just the issue of sexuality.

When you choose to make content available to some characters and not to others, you have the likelihood of unbalancing the game and therefore stepping on some players' toes - telling them "Sorry, I don't think you're important enough to deserve as much content as other players get." Remember back in the day when Bioware gave male PCs three romance options and female PCs... one, who nobody liked? And all the options were het? Unsurprisingly this quickly led to players finding ways to hack the game in order to be able to play the content they wanted. If it's all there, why intentionally deny it to some of your players?

Then why not make every single character in the game romancible, just to make sure nobody's toes are stepped on? Because there is a point where it isn't feasible from both a storytelling and programming perspective. Sometimes you have to deny certain paths before you get into the never-ending web of potential story paths based on the bajillion romantic ideas of the audience. That's not saying that it must be all het paths, but not everyone is bi (unless you are operating in a different culture, which at that point is feasible). Let's flashback to DA1. Some characters were bi, some were het. The story moves on.

This is not to say that it's always a bad idea to put limits on things based on character type - having things change based on who you're playing gives you more to explore and keeps things interesting. Just don't do it by slamming the door in players' faces. A lot of people would be happy if there were the option of, say, an angsty friendship slash unrequited love 'path' for characters with incompatible orientations. This allows you to cover realistic issues while not making the player feel that the developer is intentionally excluding them. Of course, it's more work to write.

This is where we are back on common ground. For characters who are less developed, more "create your character" and jump into the story as opposed to an already fleshed out character, this is a much better option. I agree, you should have those options. Some characters will slam the door in your face, some will make sweet love to you. However, there should be both categories, not just "You get everyone!". That's poor storytelling and a disservice to reader. I'd actually like to see a "potentially romancible" character who turns you down on both genders despite your advances and ends up with another "potential" character. I want to see you actually have to... you know... romance a character instead of just push teh heart meter up and you get them.

"a group of people,with different personalities and body types are all attracted to the opposite sex protagonist, who lacks both a personality and eyes.

Then have the MC get shot down! Have someone call them ugly! I swear 90% of MCs first name is Mary, and their last name is Sue! I want to see something new and original in the stories of games!

[papillon]

When you choose to make content available to some characters and not to others, you have the likelihood of unbalancing the game and therefore stepping on some players' toes - telling them "Sorry, I don't think you're important enough to deserve as much content as other players get." Remember back in the day when Bioware gave male PCs three romance options and female PCs... one, who nobody liked? And all the options were het? Unsurprisingly this quickly led to players finding ways to hack the game in order to be able to play the content they wanted. If it's all there, why intentionally deny it to some of your players?

Then why not make every single character in the game romancible, just to make sure nobody's toes are stepped on? Because there is a point where it isn't feasible from both a storytelling and programming perspective. Sometimes you have to deny certain paths before you get into the never-ending web of potential story paths based on the bajillion romantic ideas of the audience. That's not saying that it must be all het paths, but not everyone is bi (unless you are operating in a different culture, which at that point is feasible). Let's flashback to DA1. Some characters were bi, some were het. The story moves on.

While some fans would be very happy if all characters were romanceable, sometimes imbalance is easy to see - like the example I mentioned, where there were three women datable by men and one man datable by women and no same-sex options at all.

In DA1, if you were playing a straight character, you had two options. If you were playing a bi character, you had three. If you were playing a gay character, you had one. This works out great for me, since I'm bi anyway, and I get the most options. Many strictly gay players were a bit less happy, especially as the straight-only romances were VERY CLEARLY the canon-focused ones with more character interaction and plot integration than the others. Sure enough, mods soon came along to open up the straight-only romances to the players who wanted that content. (Which is how I played the one path that wasn't otherwise open to me as a female character.)

Also, Bioware have made it clear that they will never write a gay-only romance option. While it makes sense from a numbers perspective, it tends to suck to be reminded that you're in a camp guaranteed to get less.