- cross-posted to:
- games
- cross-posted to:
- games
You must log in or register to comment.
Good. I gotta say, I find romance options incredibly distracting and pointless in games. BG3 was awful about this. Covered in shit, tadpole in the head, just got finished slaughtering a bunch of people and all my companions are just like “But I’m horny, please fuck me!”. You almost can’t avoid it. You basically have to be an asshole to all of them because platonic companionship apparently just doesn’t exist.
There is no need for it. It does not help nor drive the story. No game was ever improved by adding softcore porn. If you want that, may I introduce you to the internet where you can have any flavor of porn you want.
I disagree on pretty much every point, but I personally don’t see the problem you’re having with the game. If you don’t like the nudity, that is optional (as in, there is an option for it.) If you’re complaining about the romance, that’s like an entire genre of stories. Heck, softcore porn is also a genre of stories that is exceptionally popular. So, why would removing it for you make up for the loss of potential customers that were gained from it being there, especially since you bought it with it there anyway? Idk, seems like you disproved your own point.
Romance should absolutely exist, but it doesn’t need to be included in every story, and it’s currently included in far too many stories (another example: The Witcher games, what does it add?).
I generally think the writing is better either when the story focuses on romance, or when it avoids it entirely. As the author of my favorite book said (I don’t speak french, but I think this is the right passage):
Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n’y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n’y a plus rien à retrancher.
In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away, when a body has been stripped down to its nakedness.
- Antoine de Saint Exupéry, Wind, Sand and Stars
I think romance is included in a lot of stories because it is a very common component in life. We have so many experiences around love, and exploring that in a fictional environment at the same time we do battle against demons is fun for many people.
TTRPGs cater to you choosing your own story. To remove the romance from this story is to say that some choices in this story cannot be made.
Also, there’s mods to remove the romance. It would be a loss to have them gone at the onset.
In the example I gave (The Witcher), you really don’t make your own story, you follow the main quest amd your choices are limited to who to have sex with.
It’s included because sex sells. That’s really it.
I haven’t played BG3 (haven’t had time), so I don’t know what it adds to the story. My understanding is that it doesn’t really add anything, and should probably be a mod for those who want it. That’s true for most RPGs, unless the romantic relationships matter in the broader context of the story. I thought it added some real depth to Yakuza 1&2, since it was integral to the plot. Likewise for Nier: Replicant (but in a very different way). If it’s just stapled on like in Skyrim or GTA, it feels cheap and unnecessary.
I’m not against romance and love stories generally, but they need to matter in the context of the plot.
You are making a silly argument that is flawed. The Witcher includes sexual themes because the book it is based on also includes these themes.
BG3 includes optional romantic themes because the game it is based on can include optional romantic themes. The game is about your involvement in the story, about how you navigate the world and its people because it attempts to mimic DnD. You can do a lot of “I seduce the dragon” and BG3 was designed to be fairly accomodating to a variety of tables.
To suggest the game would be better if it contained no romance when you haven’t played it is… bizarre? Especially with it being optional. But, that is perhaps the epitome of my argument. A lot of content in BG3 is optional. To remove any of it would be to make a game about options lesser.
I have read the books, and while there are sexual themes, they’re not a huge part of the story. Basically, we know Geralt is a womanizer, but most of the stories have little, if anything, to do with that, it’s just part of the character development. The books are all about his adventures fighting monsters and resolving disputes.
Basically, Geralt is like James Bond, and James Bond games don’t include sexuality.
I don’t know much about BG3, hence why I kept to The Witcher (haven’t played 3, only 1&2), which I think would be better without the sexuality, since it’s not part of the main plot, or even a particularly interesting sub-plot. There are plenty of other games with bad/uninteresting romance.
I’m not against romance in games, I’m against bad romance.
The problem is that BG3 makes it too easy. A lot of them companions like you a lot just by taking a basic interest in them and being a decent person. I think ironically it doesn’t help that all of them can be interested in you and at the same time.
Let’s assume you happen to be a golden god and having a camp full of people into you isn’t weird, in what world do they not attempt to sort it out between them in some form.
Or just have smoother no options.
What the game has done narrative wise is seriously impressive. Whatever choices you make, it feels like that’s the main, intended path (maybe except one choice with Gale, but that’s nice to have too). As fun as jumping down the throat of a fallout 4 for having dialogue choices that don’t really change anything might be, most games don’t do it (especially fully voiced, and in many cases mo-capped too) because it’s a huge investment. But with the romance specifically, some of the come ons aren’t obvious, and the only way to say no is to pretty much tell them to fuck themself. A “you’re cool, but I don’t want to bang you” would be nice.
Go outside.
I agree with you about BG3, but not about games in general. I think romance stories are valid narratives and can add to the experience if executed well.
The presence of sex also depends on the scope and intent of the game. Ultimately, love and sex are integral parts of the human experience. And some settings - like Cyberpunk - would be strictly weird and implausible without stuff like oversexualised ads and street hookers.
Honestly I’d say Fallout 4 did a good job with their companions and relationships. It’s not super deep, mind you, but the more you travel with a certain character and do things they like, they’ll start to have feelings for you, and almost all will take it in stride if you politely decline.
Also, Curie best girl.
Thank you! It seems like every developer or TV producer is shoehorning awkward sex scenes and romance into every piece of media being produced. It’s like the people in charge don’t realize porn exists, and think their viewers desperately need to be able to jerk off to whatever media they’re consuming at any given time. It’s pathetic. A creator should be able to create something without it turning into porn.
100% agree. It’s cringy as fuck and takes away from so much more content that could be put in its place.
They keep referencing The Outer Worlds for comparison. Wasn’t that game kinda panned?
Panned mainly by folks who expected “Fallout in Space” in terms of open-world and modding, but it was smaller in scope and great in writing and tone. Would recommend watching Tim Cain’s YT channel for the vids about it. The main valid criticism was that it was too easy, but I really enjoyed it.
Bit too Rick and Morty esque for me. I was hoping more Robo cop style anti corporatism.
Yeah, I get that - it’s downright silly in a lot of ways, but I found that fun myself. If looking for Robocop-type things, you did see this, right? It’s a pretty good shooter, and the anti-corp tone is straight out of the first movie.
Really do need to play that, played the Terminator game awhile back and it was solid. But yeah I really hope outer worlds 2 is more akin to Fallout 2 in improvements rather than Red faction Armageddon. But ill just have ro wait.
Following your recommendation, would you say: if you like ____ then you will like The Outer Worlds.
If you like Fallout: New Vegas and wanted to like Starfield, you will like The Outer Worlds. It’s compact and satisfying.
_____ = New Vegas
I mean that’s literally what it was marketed as, so that’s what everyone expected going in.
They said “From the Creators of Fallout and Fallout: New Vegas” which is true because it was Tim Cain and Leonard Boyarsky. That doesn’t mean the game is going to be FNV. Every interview they gave, they were clear about it. But a bunch of people saw the word “Fallout” and immediately stopped listening to anything else.
When you make a game that looks like Fallout, sounds like Fallout, plays like Fallout and you reveal as “From the Creators of Fallout New Vegas” people are going to expect Fallout New Vegas.
I mean it objectively didn’t look like any Fallout game, it certainly didn’t play like any Fallout game, and it was space opera not post-apocalyptic. But please explain to me exactly how it’s just like Fallout? And which Fallout exactly?
First person Sci-Fi RPG with heavy criticism of capitalism and a retro futuristic look.
That’s like saying Cyberpunk 2077 looks like Fallout.
