Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback More reasonable romance options.

Tav encounters 'anything' in the EA version of Baldurs Gate 3
Appropriate reaction (?)

Jokes asside - I guess romance options are not reasonable.
I bet there are players who like to get it on with Goblins too.
Technically it is even possible - due to the realistic value of perversion.

It must be hard for Larian to make an ideal stretch.
No matter what they do they cannot please everyone already.
Even I have many ideas so crazy, Larian might never think about this.

Can say only one thing. Just the "start menu compagnions" feel indeed a bit lacking.
Now that true unbound D&D tabletop is booming in popularity like never before
the limits of a videogame will most probably make a hand full of players unhappy,
and it might impact the game negatively anyways.


But it is just a videogame in the end. Not a story up to the players & their DM.
And from what I have seen I am already majorly impressed about what LarianStudio has created.
All hail them!

I mean ... i really dont see any problem with the fact that they are proposing all at once ... as i mentioned earlier, situation is just right. O_o
Especialy if that, was was mentioned before around here ... that Larian somewhere confrimmed that they will focus for more interaction.

On the other hand ...
It would make sense that companions should not initiate any romance, unless you match at least one of two conditions ...

On the third hand (and yes, its curious how many hands i have) ...
It also makes sense to me that companions should take initiative, if we do not ...

So, sumarized ...
IF! We really get more interactions ... and there will be some flirt talking ... and companions will initiate some flirt talking ... and we will have options to refuse them ... AND!! ANOTHER IF!! Some companions will try that again (yes, looking at you, Astarion ) at *that night* ...
I presume it would be good outcome.

I love this idea. The approval/disapproval is cool and I enjoy the feature, but it is rather simple and something more intricate would not only make a lot sense, but it would also really help immersion into the story, the companions, and just generally make it much more interesting and compelling, as people, including characters, are rarely simple with simplistic approval/disapproval point tallies.

Most, if not all, other games that offer romance paths for player characters, tend to do this, and they do it precisely for the reasons that we've gone over in this thread – it puts the choice of what content they want to see firmly in the hands of the player, and stops them from unwittingly coming up against something that they'd rather not deal with. Overall, to make sure the greatest number of players are content, I think this is more or less how it has to be – it needs to be in the player's hands, somehow, to signal to the game, first, before the game makes any moves. That doesn't necessarily mean that your character has to be the one initiating with the NPC, not necessarily... but the player should, either through their character, or through some other above-game means, flag to the game what they want or don't, before the game makes any definite moves at you.

I'm imaging a conversation where, you know, you're getting to know someone before diving into their bedding... and you're chatting about your pasts and your histories and at some point in the middle of the on-going chat scene, there's a nice little simple dialogue choice:

1) [Tell Wyll the story about a boy you had a crush on once]
2) [Tell Wyll the story about a girl you had a crush on once]
3) [Tell Wyll stories about some of the different boys and girls you've had crushes on in the past]
4) [Change the subject; you don't want to talk about romance with Wyll]

And now the game knows what your character wants, while at the same time giving you the chance to flesh out your own character more within the game space. In fact, this kind of conversation is perfect to set up in intro sequences – prologues where you can chat with throw away NPCs that your character is presumed to know (a training academy, a town fair, a harvest festival, etc., pick your trope), but which you use to define yourself, and to tell the game who you're playing, in a subtle, in-universe way.

What if our brain worm didn't just make us build a blank physical doll – what if they put us in brain hack space that was built out of our own memories that we can define elements of, and tell the tadpole all about who we are and what we like unconsciously, and tell the game itself at the same time? Wouldn't that be better than a blank creepy doll?

It starts in haze, but through dialogue choices your recalled to memories of your origin, picking from a few options, and then, memories of a specific setting, building from a few more; it's still vague, but you fill in details as it asks you what you're remembering ,and it sets things up behind the scenes as you go. Maybe it's not quite right anyway – the parasite is building things form memory fragments that it's gleaning, so even details that are personally wrong for your imagining of your character can be excused in this space. The memory serves as a way of teaching the player the basics of playing the game through whatever brief scenario they design, likely without combat, since that's what waking up on the ship will be for later; you'll be able to subtly tell the game many things about your character as you see them, and what they like and don't, and the sort of person they generally are... and then a the end of the memory story, the world breaks apart and cracks, and you're violently awoken to the crashing ship... only now the game knows so much more about you to work with later on.

Sorry got a bit carried away there. I like that idea a lot...

==

In terms of NPCs initiating, as they do right now... if that can and will happen, then it need to be smoother; having your character actively hit on can feel weird and uncomfortable, especially if the NPC doing it is highly assertive in the act. A lot of folks don't want that, and don't want to have to deal with it in their fantasy video game. At the same time... I don't think there's anything specifically wrong about a character, if they are so inclined, at least 'checking' if your character would be interested. Gently, respectfully and politely. I think Wyll should, for example, be able to check if your male PC would be interested... but, most importantly, it should be something that he asks without expectation, and in a respectful way, and then, if your character is NOT into that at all, Wyll doesn't act like a disappointed puppy or or take it poorly – he just settles it with nothing more serious than an 'ah well', and, most importantly of all... your existing bromance remains utterly unaffected and unchanged by this after the fact – you've both learned something about one another; you that he is seemingly bi, and he that you are not interested in other males (or even just not him specifically), and that's all there is to it... the game needs to go on as if the romance flag had never been set in the first place, because it was not.

Turning down someone for romance or not being interested in them in that way should never, absolutely never, sabotage your ability to share other close bonds with them and build other non-romantic, or non-sexual intimate relationships with them over the course of the game.

My own perspective may be a little insensitive on this score – from the moment I first began to appreciate other people as giving me interesting thoughts and making certain places feel certain things, I have always appreciated the differences and varying appeals of just about everything... so for me, I don't actually know what it's like to turn someone down specifically because they are of a physical sex I don't like... I don't imagine it's that different from the plethora of other reasons, though, nor any different than being propositioned by someone who is a screaming, blaring “No, Never” to my other senses (which I've ample experience of, believe me)... but I don't actually know, so I'm sorry if my stance on that seems too off-handed.

==

I actually really like Ragnarok's suggestion here, about the NPCs having canonical preferences that alter how they react and respond, while still ultimately being open to being pursued. It think that's the kernel of a really good compromise.

This reminds me of one of the more insightful comments from the old herosexual thread

Sozz Said

This point irked me because of how good it was, and how short games are in attaining it.

Niara you mentioned how you should be able to romance anyone you are interested in, but part my problem with that (and I have a few) is that it precludes any sort of platonic relationship with a character. Relationships are presumed to be a prelude to romance (for non-narrative reasons), and every character is made to be romantically available before you even know if you like them, when you get their approval high enough that's what the game assumes is going on. So yes I'm all for even this kind of compromise.
I don't like the pick a story to tell to choose your sexual preference because of how on the nose it is but I've seen it done before so why not.

This was what I was hoping they would do with a prologue, or pre-prologue tutorial where the character is built out. Having this take place surrealist or flashback memory when the worm is first put into our eye makes sense. There is a perfect break after character creation to include something like this.

Approval had it's time, but it's too much of a gamey way of dealing with character relationships. People are too liable to play for the outcome they want, instead of getting an outcome from how they play.

For a game that gives us a literal spectator in our brain, there's very little to do with our characters interior life. You'd think this would be a great way to let us characterize our character.

Besides any opportunity to have the narrator describe us shouldn't be passed up

I feel as though I just finished saying and agreeing that that is, indeed, an ideal way for it to be. That having that push and pull played out is the perfect method of reaching a compromise that will feel good. That having NPCs with preferences and opinions they can voice and comment on where appropriate, and acknowledge the more unusual or unexpected situations, is the ideal situation, and it is sad that so few, if any games, attempt to take that route.


That's not what I've been saying at all, though.
No, the possibility of romance does not and should not, ever, preclude the possibility an equally fulfilling non-romantic progression. I feel I've said exactly that, multiple times, no? I've definitely never implied otherwise. Why do you think anyone here is saying that it does? No-one is.

It should be an option; physical configuration should not be a barrier because it's something the PC doesn't have control over. Other things that the PC does have control over, such as who they are or choose to be, how they act, what they say, what they're like, and their views on various things, all should be factors that either draw another character in or push them away... but features that the PC does not have a choice in should not be lock-outs. But... read that first bit again; an option. Nothing is being suggested as forced, or even pushed. The option to pursue a romance or not should always be in the hands of the player and their character, and their choosing not to, for whatever reason, must be respected, and should also never serve as a lock-out or terminating factor towards building a different close, even intimate, bond with NPCs - even romance-capable ones.

If a game is treating romance as the only path forward, and the only type of close bond you can develop or build with a character, then it's doing it poorly, and it's doing it wrong, and I don't think anyone wants that at all, I feel like I've spent great efforts belabouring that point several times now.


In an ideal situation, this would be way of defining how you think your character generally feels by default, or how they start out... however, it should only control what sort of propositions you might receive - the choice of who or what to pursue should still, always, remain with the player, because while the game could in theory show the push and pull, and the change over time, and the building of an unexpected bond perhaps, with their NPCs, the only person who can illustrate that exact same thing on the player character's side is the player themselves, with how their character acts... so such a method of informing the game should never lock you, the player, out of making a different choice for your character.

Thank you!
I sended that to suggestions from launcher ... so it dont get lost ...
Fingers crossed.

I was in accordance with you. Have I been treating you...unfairly? /▼皿▼\ We're on the same team here.

When I first read this I thought you were saying you hadn't been saying that players should be able to romance anyone they want.
I guess I should have added my response to that quote from Atlus because it gets to this point, playersexual characters are not open to platonic relationships until after you deny them a romantic one. Talking about Baldur's Gate, I would like an example of a character whose relationship with you doesn't default to romance. There's an approval system (supposedly) they start as strangers, they either grow to dislike you(but not enough to mention what could have been) or they become mildly more accepting of you until you are offered what appears to be the opening of a romantic relationship. That was the point I was making, BG is in EA, and we haven't even met all the companions that will be in the game, but what we've seen, and what spurs this discussion outside of our abstract and metaphysical diversions, is these companions.

To the second point, "but features that the PC does not have a choice in should not be lock-outs", this is the wish fulfillment you mentioned before? I don't think locking the PC out of things for reasons beyond their control is a bad thing, in fact, I think artificially removing those barriers is bad story-telling.



Going back through the thread, I went ahead and continued commenting on some of the larger posts, you can tell me if it was worth it...I'm not sure myself

Sorry, I'm tired, I probably read the tone more directed than it was, my misread...

Regardless of tone or phrasing, I think we agree on a way that it *should* be, if they are determined to stick with player-sexual definitions (I think they should, but they need to do it better... and I accept that you'd rather they didn't, and went with fixed preferences, I think, yes?)... just as much as we both agree that right now what is represented in BG3 is *not* that ideal yet, by a long stretch... and the hope that it maybe one day, by the time release gets here, *could* be... sound accurate?

In BG3, right now, yes - romance is the ONLY path as presented, and you either walk it, or you don't, and that's all... and that's what we've discussed would classify as doing it *badly*...

My position was that player-sexual definitions are ideal, but only if they're done well... and if done well, they don't preclude other options, work organically, and are internally consistent with their characters while still acknowledging the differences that the individual PC represents, etc...


In general, for story-telling, yes... things happen outside of the player's control, and how they respond to those things is important... if nothing happened that wasn't outside of the players control, or they didn't end up in less than ideal situation due to things beyond their control, then there wouldn't *Be* much of a story, after all... However, I feel that within the sphere of interpersonal romance specifically, for the characters involved, within the context of a greater game, maintaining unfairly punishing factors isn't helpful; doing so doesn't add to the story in any meaningful way that justifies them, and it doesn't need to happen.

==
To the rest,






As always, if I've misread your meaning or intention, or my tone is bad, I promise it's not the intention, I'm just tired.

Edit: collapsed the discussion for thread etiquette.

Niara! Spoilers wouldn't be amiss. I'm wondering at this point if we shouldn't take this off the thread

Sorry! I TRY to be concise, really I do!

I'm BAD at it though..... I value the attempt at full clarity more than concise wording, just at a personal level, so I always end up filling out more and more details, and sub-clauses and extra explanations and so on...

Also, sources here indicate that I'm spending too much time and energy on this topic already and I should back off from it anyway - I'm trying to take better care of myself, not exhaust myself further on long discussions that, while interesting and enjoyable in their own way, aren't really going to achieve very much productive in the long run, beyond what we've already chatted about, I think... It'd be nice if all this got taken under advisement but even if it did, it wouldn't be taken on as more than a few bullet points about ideas related to particular player opinions... So... we've probably done as much as we can in that regard...

I wasn't expecting to change your opinion on the matter but I did hope to at least get you to understand my point of view, as opposed to just saying it was a fallacy or a leap in logic. Hopefully between here and all the other threads I quoted, something like that happened.

Until next time.

I feell that I understand the way you see and grasp the matter, yes... at least I think I do. I do feel there are a couple of points that we disagree on at a fundamental level, and they are personal, subjective feelings about certain things, and that it's from those that the rest of the differing opinions grow outward.

Either way, it's been enjoyable as a discussion, thanks to you and others as well, and I think I will step out of the thread from here. Thanks again ^.^