So how fares the Romance mods?

[cossayos]

 

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.

 

 

Bioware made it so in their ME series that Tali and Garrus hook up at some time if you didn't romance either of them. I assume it's a purely scripted event with a lot of ifs running in the background. But something like that adds to immersion and gives the illusion of being part of a dynamic group instead of just a player.

[crawe1x]

 

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.

 

Exactly. It would have been fairly easy for Beth to implement a system like this into their base game. Then, as you say, mod authors could have had a field day. As it stands, given the lazy limitations of the current system, there's very little that modders can do.

[crawe1x]

 

 

Bioware made it so in their ME series that Tali and Garrus hook up at some time if you didn't romance either of them. I assume it's a purely scripted event with a lot of ifs running in the background. But something like that adds to immersion and gives the illusion of being part of a dynamic group instead of just a player.

 

 

Yeah, it's little things like this that would have taken Fallout 4 to the next level. I love the game, but just wish they'd taken it closer to its full potential.

[damanding]

As someone who identifies as queer (having dated men, women, and people with a variety of other gender identities) and also someone who identifies as polyamorous, I quite enjoy the ability to romance the whole crew. :D As for some of the companions not really liking each other...this too is actually real life immersive. Many straight men who've always had monogamous relationships or only cheated without permission tend to assume that polyamorous relationships mean that everyone involved has sex with one another and that's actually not usually the case. In my personal relationship history I've never shared my partners with each other. So it would be natural to have a relationship with both Cait and Curie because I'm with them separately, not as a threesome.

[crawe1x]

As someone who identifies as queer (having dated men, women, and people with a variety of other gender identities) and also someone who identifies as polyamorous, I quite enjoy the ability to romance the whole crew. :D As for some of the companions not really liking each other...this too is actually real life immersive. Many straight men who've always had monogamous relationships or only cheated without permission tend to assume that polyamorous relationships mean that everyone involved has sex with one another and that's actually not usually the case. In my personal relationship history I've never shared my partners with each other. So it would be natural to have a relationship with both Cait and Curie because I'm with them separately, not as a threesome.

 

Yep, I don't disagree. I'm just thinking that Beth should have given the companions a base sexual identity (i.e. straight, bi, gay), a view on monogamy vs. polygamy, and possibly certain likes and dislikes regarding other companions.

 

This way you could play a badass bisexual drifter in a polyamorous relationship with, say, Cait and MacCready (but at the expense of missing out on, say, Curie or Piper). Or you could equally play a character caught between, say, Piper and Preston, both of whom could be more monogamous companions, thus forcing you to make a choice.

 

Although a very simple change to the game mechanics (from Beth's point of view), it would have had a huge effect on the overall immersion and each individual play-through. I think that's the irony of Beth's current approach - by letting you do anything and everything all at the same time, each play-through takes on a sameness.

 

I had a similar problem with Skyrim, where you became the Dragonborn, jarl of half a dozen towns, leader of the Dawnguard, Thieves Guild, Companions, Dark Brotherhood, and the College of Winterhold (and also the Bards, if I remember correctly?). It was just too much, and at times bordered on the farcical. I still remember by Conan-esque barbarian warrior with his bulging muscles and battleaxe running around with the mages to save Winterhold; it just felt so incongruous. In this particular instance, FO4 represents a big improvement - ultimately, you do have to choose between factions, and some - like BoS and the Institute - are diametrically opposed. This is a good thing, in my opinion. I just wish they had also done something like that with the romance side of the game.

Edited November 26, 2016 by crawe1x

[cossayos]

As someone who identifies as queer (having dated men, women, and people with a variety of other gender identities) and also someone who identifies as polyamorous, I quite enjoy the ability to romance the whole crew. :D As for some of the companions not really liking each other...this too is actually real life immersive. Many straight men who've always had monogamous relationships or only cheated without permission tend to assume that polyamorous relationships mean that everyone involved has sex with one another and that's actually not usually the case. In my personal relationship history I've never shared my partners with each other. So it would be natural to have a relationship with both Cait and Curie because I'm with them separately, not as a threesome.

 

A well written game character should make sense. Wether they're gay, straight, bi, promiscuous or monogam. Wether they're trans or not. It makes up part of their story. An important part of their story, I would say. Being able to date anyone with any player doesn't make for a story. It's just what I said above. Number crunching and clicking the right dialogue options. It doesn't add anything to the game experience, so they could have just as well left it out entirely.

[Ethreon]

Personally I never cared much about the romancing part of the games. Not why I play them.. I was perfectly fine having wacky companions in 1/2 which didn't have an option to .. get them.

[crawe1x]

Personally I never cared much about the romancing part of the games. Not why I play them.. I was perfectly fine having wacky companions in 1/2 which didn't have an option to .. get them.

 

Yeah, but that's why FO4 gives us the dog and the robots. :happy:

 

Besides, there are a few human/synth companions, such as Nick, who can't be romanced. Truthfully, in my last play-through, my only three permanent companions were Ada and two custom bodyguard companions, none of whom were romanceable. But that is my point to some extent - as it stands, romancing in FO4 feels so bland and uninteresting, like it's just been tacked on.

Edited November 26, 2016 by crawe1x

[Ethreon]

So I have to choose between door block or incessant chatter, or Ballarms? Nah .. I'll go alone.

[llamaRCA]

 

 

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.

 

 

I guess. I liked Danse and his quest and it felt very "real" to me for lack of a better description and I thought most of them were fine during their affinity quest, but they don't offer much more than that. The biggest issue for me is I don't like any of them much so I don't care about going through the affinity stuff with them. My favorites are Danse and Deacon but they gave Deacon the dumbest backstory/affinity quest they could come up with and Danse is completely boring after his affinity quest and his faction stuff after his quest is handled badly. They had a lot of potential and they have a lot of content, but it just fails to deliver a well-rounded experience. I don't travel with any of them.

 

Having said all that, and knowing that you and I more or less agree that they aren't very good, there are a lot of players that like them and think of them as a highlight of the game. I think that's because players will tolerate a lot for a character they very much like (whether they like that character for looks or personality or backstory, etc) and we probably don't like any of them enough to overlook their shortcomings. I love Charon in FO3 and the FO3 companions are a complete mess.

 

 

 

@crawe1x - Yeah, I don't understand why Bethesda decided the right way to run the companions was to incentivize the player to travel with as many of them as possible. There are players that run through all of them just to get the perks. It completely destroys the idea that achieving a romantic relationship with a companion can be a special thing to savor in a particular playthrough and turns them in to just another quest to run through. That and the fact that just about every one of them has to tell the SS how uniquely amazing he is. If one of them said that it would be cool, but I think just about every one of them says it at some point. It's painful.

 

 

@EmissaryOfWind - It is hard to develop a proper relationship in a game. I don't think the characters in FO4 are the problem. I think they meet the level of complexity that could work to have relationships with. I think the bigger problem is the implementation. But this is Beth's first foray into complex companions and the quality of it is something I'd expect from a talented modder's first attempt to build a complex companion with a romance plot. It has promise but is rough around the edges. I think it shows that whoever directed the effort wasn't clear on what a complex companion should do in game. But they tried, and I have to give them credit for that. Maybe in the next title it will get better. The improvement from Skryim to FO4 is impressive and astonishing. I didn't expect it.

 

 

@Ethreon - I travel alone too. Which I never, ever do, but they are just so irritating. Which is a shame, because I honestly enjoy Danse and Deacon when they are at their best, but they fall apart so fast.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Re: player choice in companion choices

 

So it sounds like you guys are arguing for restricted payer choice, which isn't such a great thing in a Beth game, imo. Having the ability to romance whichever character you choose allows you to create your own stories as you play. Also, I hear more complaints re: not being able to romance Deacon or Nick than I ever hear about having too much choice.

 

I agree it would be much more interesting if a couple of the companions weren't available for whatever reason, but that could be anything and doesn't need to be sexual orientation. I think it's better to build it around factions you ally with, karma choices, etc. That allows players to express their choices via even more game choices rather than restricting them via a character trait that is established outside of gameplay during chargen (male or female) and doesn't express itself via gameplay