So how fares the Romance mods?

[Ethreon]

Charon (which is not pronounced Sharon :P ) is a great companion. He's not a huge door knob like meat doge, and he actually can shoot. I dislike his Rambo-isms, but hey, at least he's quiet and will save my skin when I need him to. So yea, he's great.

 

... I'd still love a Morte companion. The one and only.

[crawe1x]

 

 

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

 

 

Not sure if I agree with your logic here. If we're talking specifically about romancing a companion, then surely sexual orientation and attitudes are extremely relevant? For instance, if you're playing a straight male, you're not going to get far romancing a gay female.

As for character traits established outside of game-play, they're already there. All of the companions already have distinct personalities/attributes. Cait is suspicious and assumes everyone's trying to exploit her. Preston is driven by a desire to make the Commonwealth safe and defend its inhabitants. Strong is seeking the milk of human kindness. Curie is motivated by curiosity about this strange new world she finds herself in. MacCready has a backstory almost as detailed as the Sole Survivor's. These are all aspects of the companions that are there from the start, and which the player isn't responsible for.

As for Deacon and Valentine, I'm fine with them being romanceable. They probably should be. Hell, maybe even Strong, though perhaps that's pushing it. :happy:

All I'm suggesting is that not all of them should be available for romancing all of the time. Different styles of play-through/role playing should result in different romance opportunities. As a result, each play-through could potentially be quite different. The player would be encouraged to approach play-throughs from different angles.

As it stands, the romancing aspect of the game is very one dimensional and gamey. It's all about gaining perks, etc. Yes, it's a big improvement over Skyrim, but there's plenty of room for improvement. Someone said that romance was always weak in games. But honestly, I don't think it needs to be like that. This would have been a very simple addition for Beth to add to their current romancing mechanics.

Obviously, some people aren't interested in this part of the game, which is fine - there's already an option to ignore the companions and travel alone. But for those who do want to travel with companions and romance them, the current mechanics just feel horribly bland.

Edited November 26, 2016 by crawe1x

[llamaRCA]

 

All I'm suggesting is that not all of them should be available for romancing all of the time. Different styles of play-through/role playing should result in different romance opportunities. As a result, each play-through could potentially be quite different. The player would be encouraged to approach play-throughs from different angles.

 

You and I agree completely on this :smile: I just think sexual orientation is less interesting as a constraint than other options because there is nothing the player can do to overcome it via gameplay choices. A creative dev should be able to come up with an endless number of criteria to create/maintain constraints. I pretty much despise that you can get every single companion in the game to love you. It's so Bethesda. They like to let you wallow in how amazing and magnificent you are :tongue:

 

This part is probably boring, so skip it if you like, but I build my own characters to not care about the player's gender for a couple of reasons. One of which is because there isn't much you can do with it in game as a dev. It's like a yes/no choice. No subtlety, no potential quest to change the NPC's mind, etc. The player is just shut out.

 

Also, I prefer to give players the most possible freedom to express their own personal sexuality if that's important to them, which it often is. Basically, I think the relationship is more important than the genders/sexuality of the characters involved because 1) it isn't real life, 2) this is a Bethesda game where lots of the storytelling is done by the player and not dictated by the game and 3) players like to roleplay in different ways. I mean if you are a lesbian who likes to play female characters and the only NPC you like is a girl that only sleeps with men how does that work out for that player? It also eliminates the legions of straight guys that strongly prefer to play female characters. I'd rather ignore the sexual orientation question and let players do what they want in that respect.

[cossayos]

 

You and I agree completely on this :smile: I just think sexual orientation is less interesting as a constraint than other options because there is nothing the player can do to overcome it via gameplay choices. A creative dev should be able to come up with an endless number of criteria to create/maintain constraints. I pretty much despise that you can get every single companion in the game to love you. It's so Bethesda. They like to let you wallow in how amazing and magnificent you are :tongue:

 

 

Sexual orientation makes up a part of a person's identity. I have to stress another Bioware game again. In DA:I you can flirt with Dorian as well as Cassandra with a female character. But you're not able to romance them. Which is as it should be, since not everyone is into everyone of any gender.

 

But that's only scratching the surface of what's wrong with this Bethesfa romance approach. The options are bland, boring and totally unnecessary since the romances don't add anything to the game. They could have just as well left them out entirely to concentrate their efforts on other aspects of the game.

[llamaRCA]

 

 

You and I agree completely on this :smile: I just think sexual orientation is less interesting as a constraint than other options because there is nothing the player can do to overcome it via gameplay choices. A creative dev should be able to come up with an endless number of criteria to create/maintain constraints. I pretty much despise that you can get every single companion in the game to love you. It's so Bethesda. They like to let you wallow in how amazing and magnificent you are :tongue:

 

 

Sexual orientation makes up a part of a person's identity. I have to stress another Bioware game again. In DA:I you can flirt with Dorian as well as Cassandra with a female character. But you're not able to romance them. Which is as it should be, since not everyone is into everyone of any gender.

 

Yeah, irl. In fact, my argument in favor of ignoring it in a Bethesda game supports players exercising more freedom in game to follow their irl inclinations.

 

I'm not arguing that sexual orientation is an invalid expression of a real person's personality. My earlier comment makes that very clear. I'm arguing that building characters in video games that are as much like real people as possible can be taken too far. A game is not real life and it doesn't always improve gameplay or a player's experience to reproduce it too accurately.

 

But that's only scratching the surface of what's wrong with this Bethesfa romance approach. The options are bland, boring and totally unnecessary since the romances don't add anything to the game.

 

 

Many players feel that the FO4 romances, as crude as they are, add quite a lot to the game. You may not like them, I may critique them quite vigorously, but they don't fall short for all players. And the relationship building, while happening, can be quite fun. I think if a player wants/needs a Bioware companion experience to be happy they should go play a Bioware game. Beth, even if they improve this system with another title, will never be Bioware, nor will they produce games that acheive what Bioware games acheive (they don't even understand the purpose of the dialogue wheel they've implemented, ffs). They don't have the same goals/desires/skill sets that Bioware does.

[Ethreon]

"if a player wants/needs a Bioware experience to be happy they should go play a Bioware game."

 

That, there, is what all the people asking for various new features should get. If you want to play that type of game, go play those games..

[crawe1x]

@llamaRCA: Yeah, I get where you're coming from. Thing is, during my first play-through of FO4, I was quite impressed with the romances, companion back stories, etc. It was definitely a big improvement on Skyrim. But during subsequent play-throughs, it felt that with a little extra work and imagination, Beth could have done something really special here.

 

Like I said somewhere earlier in this thread, for me, the romance in FO4 falls into the same category as the settlement building - a great idea implemented in a weak, half-arsed way. The difference is that on the settlement side, there was just enough for modders to work with. The end result was mods like Don't Call Me Settler. Romance appears to be even more lacking. There are some great companion mods coming out, such as Ellen, but because of limits to the game mechanics, mod authors are forced to stick to quite a rigid formula.

[llamaRCA]

@llamaRCA: Yeah, I get where you're coming from. Thing is, during my first play-through of FO4, I was quite impressed with the romances, companion back stories, etc. It was definitely a big improvement on Skyrim. But during subsequent play-throughs, it felt that with a little extra work and imagination, Beth could have done something really special here.

 

Like I said somewhere earlier in this thread, for me, the romance in FO4 falls into the same category as the settlement building - a great idea implemented in a weak, half-arsed way. The difference is that on the settlement side, there was just enough for modders to work with. The end result was mods like Don't Call Me Settler. Romance appears to be even more lacking. There are some great companion mods coming out, such as Ellen, but because of limits to the game mechanics, mod authors are forced to stick to quite a rigid formula.

 

I agree with everything you say here. This is what I've done in the past. I have a WIP FO4 companion in the works now; I'm pushing hard to get her done by Christmas, but I don't know that I'll make that. I've built her almost entirely outside of the vanilla system so isn't stuck to the "rigid formula," although, yeah, there are definitely constraints I have to work within, like the horrible dialogue wheel and voiced protag, but other than being constrained by that I've done most things my own way.

[crawe1x]

"if a player wants/needs a Bioware experience to be happy they should go play a Bioware game."

 

That, there, is what all the people asking for various new features should get. If you want to play that type of game, go play those games..

 

I disagree with this. Beth is the one who introduced these new features (romance, settlements, etc.). They just didn't do it very well.

 

Like cossayos has said several times before, if they weren't going to do it properly, why do it at all? Personally, I'm fine without the romance aspect. But if Beth wants it to be part of their game, then they could have made something of it. As it stands, for me personally, it feels a little tacked on. That's all.

 

Having said all that, I've still managed to sink a 1000 hours into this game without completing the main quest, so I'm not gonna complain any more. :laugh:

[crawe1x]

 

 

I agree with everything you say here. This is what I've done in the past. I have a WIP FO4 companion in the works now; I'm pushing hard to get her done by Christmas, but I don't know that I'll make that. I've built her almost entirely outside of the vanilla system so isn't stuck to the "rigid formula," although, yeah, there are definitely constraints I have to work within, like the horrible dialogue wheel and voiced protag, but other than being constrained by that I've done most things my own way.

 

Yes, I've heard great things about Willow and I'm REALLY looking forward to your follow-up (as are a lot of people, I imagine). I'll be downloading it the moment it's out!

 

That's the one thing that's encouraging - there are some great companion mods beginning to emerge. Tales of the Commonwealth, Ellen, and now your mod. And the fact that Beth allows modders to do their thing is what makes it a special developer, no matter its failings.