So how fares the Romance mods?

[llamaRCA]

 

What I would be interested in would be something to make the vanilla romance options meaningful. Such as not being able to romance everything that moves. Way as it is, Beth could have just as well left it out entirely. But same goes for marriage in Skyrim.

 

You can't romance everything that moves. Not even all of the vanilla companions are romanceable (Deacon and Nick being the most notable exceptions). The romance stuff in FO4, while weak compared to something like you'd see in a Bioware game, is significantly improved and much more complex than what was done in Skyrim. The marriage stuff in Skyrim is appallingly bad. The FO4 stuff is only kinda bad and mostly suffers from poor implementation of reasonable material.

[Ethreon]

 

 

What I would be interested in would be something to make the vanilla romance options meaningful. Such as not being able to romance everything that moves. Way as it is, Beth could have just as well left it out entirely. But same goes for marriage in Skyrim.

 

You can't romance everything that moves. Not even all of the vanilla companions are romanceable (Deacon and Nick being the most notable exceptions). The romance stuff in FO4, while weak compared to something like you'd see in a Bioware game, is significantly improved and much more complex than what was done in Skyrim. The marriage stuff in Skyrim is appallingly bad. The FO4 stuff is only kinda bad and mostly suffers from poor implementation of reasonable material.

 

But then, how could you become Commander Shepard, Space Jesus and wasteland saviour?

[cossayos]

 

The marriage stuff in Skyrim is appallingly bad. The FO4 stuff is only kinda bad and mostly suffers from poor implementation of reasonable material.

 

 

Yeah, kinda bad is still bad. Like a pimple on the butt bad.

 

What I meant was, the option offers absolutely no immersion. If there's a romance option I'd like to roleplay that. Such as my survivor being kind of a real person and not just some killing machine.

[crawe1x]

 

 

The marriage stuff in Skyrim is appallingly bad. The FO4 stuff is only kinda bad and mostly suffers from poor implementation of reasonable material.

 

 

Yeah, kinda bad is still bad. Like a pimple on the butt bad.

 

What I meant was, the option offers absolutely no immersion. If there's a romance option I'd like to roleplay that. Such as my survivor being kind of a real person and not just some killing machine.

 

 

Interesting points. People always go on about how much better Skyrim was compared to FO4, but in my opinion, the latter definitely improves on the former in many areas. Romance is one such area. Though like both you guys say, it is still flawed.

 

I think part of the problem is that the game encourages you to romance each and every companion that is available for romancing, no matter their morality, gender, or even race (i.e. human, ghoul, synth, etc). This, however, feels far too gamey and unimmersive to me.

 

For a start, the sole survivor is still grieving the loss of their wife/husband and the loss of their child. Romance, certainly during the early stages of the game, should be the last thing on their mind. I would make it far harder to romance another character - in fact, if we're going to be realistic, it's an option that should probably only happen after a certain period of time spent in-game.

 

In addition, romancing certain characters should rule out other characters (unless you end your relationship with the former first). For instance, in what world does it make sense to have Cait and Curie as lovers? The two are chalk and cheese. From their scripted exchanges, the two really don't like one another, and in reality, they would do everything possible to rid themselves of one another. Preston and MaCcready (as a Minuteman and ex-gunner respectively) are another example of incompatibility. Basically, I think your choice of bedfellows should to some extent have more of an effect on your play-through. Romancing morally ambiguous characters such as Cait or MacCready should fit for a badass playthrough. Curie or Preston should fit for a nice guy playthrough. Piper and Hancock fall somewhere in between. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to achieve high affinity with very different characters - I just don't buy the whole idea of romancing them all. Maybe connect their perks - if it really bothers folks - to high affinity rather than romance.

 

The game's complete blindness to sexuality also feels kinda odd. I always play a male sole survivor. There was one play-through where I specifically chose to be bisexual and romance everything that moved. In another one, I was gay. But in most of my play-throughs, I've been straight and it just felt odd the way the game kept encouraging me to romance MaCready and Hancock. Every time I ran past them, I kept having to tell them I just wanted to be best buds.

[cossayos]

 

 

The game's complete blindness to sexuality also feels kinda odd. I always play a male sole survivor. There was one play-through where I specifically chose to be bisexual and romance everything that moved. In another one, I was gay. But in most of my play-throughs, I've been straight and it just felt odd the way the game kept encouraging me to romance MaCready and Hancock. Every time I ran past them, I kept having to tell them I just wanted to be best buds.

 

 

I agree with you on pretty much all you said there. I took the same approach once, romancing everyone just to see how it pans out. To sum it up in one word, boring.

 

What I want to say is this, if you offer romance options, put some love (pun intended) in their development. If you don't offer romance options, that's fine also. But if that roleplaying element exists, I want some kind of immersion and not just frgging color coded replies and number crunching. The main reason why I play these kinds of games is roleplaying. If I was content with shooting up everything that moves with the best weapons and armor available, I would go for a shooter.

[EmissaryOfWind]

Romance is pretty difficult to handle in video games. Even in Bioware games, it's still "pick the option with the heart to romance". I can't think of a single game that did romance right. Some dating sims do it better than others, but it's rarely convincing.

[cossayos]

Romance is pretty difficult to handle in video games. Even in Bioware games, it's still "pick the option with the heart to romance". I can't think of a single game that did romance right. Some dating sims do it better than others, but it's rarely convincing.

 

Sure, you have to trigger something since this is still a piece of software and not real life. The question is how you integrate that. Beth has choosen the most lackluster way of doing it. In other games the Sims at least react jealously when you hit on another. In this game it's totally meaningless, hence offers no immersion at all. They could have just as well left it out.

[crawe1x]

Romance is pretty difficult to handle in video games. Even in Bioware games, it's still "pick the option with the heart to romance". I can't think of a single game that did romance right. Some dating sims do it better than others, but it's rarely convincing.

 

I agree up to a point. But then again, I'm not asking them to reinvent the wheel - just to use a bit more imagination in their game design.

For instance, it would have been very easy for Beth to design the romance so that while you are hooked up with Cait, you can't romance Curie. That would be pretty interesting. As time passes in your play-through, maybe you grow tired of Cait and feel more attached to Curie. In which case, you have to end your romance with Cait - and take a big hit on affinity in the process (and possibly even lose her perk) - before you can romance Curie. In other words, you have to make choices.

Also, when it comes to sexuality and sexual attitudes, there's no reason why these things should't be unique to the NPCs. For instance, Piper and Hancock might be bisexual, meaning you can romance them irrespective of whether you are playing a male or female Sole Survivor. Cait could be gay, in which case only a female Sole Survivor can romance her. Preston could be a straight arrow, making him off limits to a male Sole Survivor.

Same goes for monogamy versus promiscuity. Cait's dialog suggests she fancies Piper, so maybe these are two characters who could be romanced simultaneously (assuming Piper is bisexual). Others, such as Curie or Danse, could be more monogamous.

All I'm suggesting is that Beth could have given the companions two additional attitudes (and let's be honest - they already have plenty of attitudes, many not particularly interesting). The first is whether they're straight, bi or gay. The second is whether they're monogamous or promiscuous, or maybe somewhere in between.

If Beth had done this, then as a player, you would still have access to four or five lovers per play-through. But there would be more fun mixing and matching them up, working out which ones are compatible with one another. There would also be more of a sense of character development as you grow out of one companion and set up home with another.

In addition, it would add to the replayability of the game. Currently, I invariably find myself hooking up with Piper, Cait and Curie in that order in every damn play-through, even thought they're totally incompatible with one another. The game degenerates into me, the alpha male, strutting around with my harem of ladies. Maybe that's a failing on my part as a player. But at the same time, too many options often leads to zero choices. To make real choices, you do actually need a few limitations.

In a game like Assassin's Creed, where they're pumping out a new game every year, you kind of expect a lack of imagination. But Bethesda's development cycle is very different. They had more than enough time to implement the simple changes above, but just couldn't be bothered. Had they shown a bit more imagination with the romance and the settlement system (again something that could easily have been finessed), then Fallout 4 would be a outright masterpiece. As it stands, it's just a very good game... which is a shame really.

[crawe1x]

 

 

Sure, you have to trigger something since this is still a piece of software and not real life. The question is how you integrate that. Beth has choosen the most lackluster way of doing it. In other games the Sims at least react jealously when you hit on another. In this game it's totally meaningless, hence offers no immersion at all. They could have just as well left it out.

 

 

Absolutely agreed. If I hit on, say, Magnolia, then Cait "hates" that. But a few lockpickings later, and she's back to idolizing me. This is just one very minor example of how there is no real cost to the player's actions. On the one hand, you have to hit on Magnolia in order to unlock the ghoul Vault Tec Rep. But in doing so, you need to either leave Cait behind for a few minutes or alternatively take a BIG hit (i.e. 25% or so) on affinity.

Edited November 26, 2016 by crawe1x

[EmissaryOfWind]

I'm not against polygamy, I even think it makes sense for some of my characters, but maybe they should at least say something, have a discussion on it, and maybe some of your actions should have consequences that can't be reversed by picking a few locks. Maybe some big decisions could affect their behavior permanently, not on a single love-to-hate straight line, but in more complex ways like what would happen with real people. Maybe dating Piper and Cait at the same time and lying to one about the other would make her break up with you, but remain your companion. Or maybe you'd reject Curie and Danse and they'd end up together. Really, anything that would suggest these characters have an inner life independent of the player.

 

To us modders, making that happen with vanilla companions would be near impossible. But Bethesda could absolutely do it in a future game, and if dedicated modders willing to put a lot of time into it were to put their minds at it, I think creating a companion pack with several characters that have complex psyches is within the realm of possibility. Hell, Bethesda, if you're reading this, hire me and I'll write you complex and lifelike romances for your next title.

Edited November 26, 2016 by EmissaryOfWind