Hosker said:
Good points. It COULD work, but only if it was really well written, I think. But if you have a companion throughout the story, I can't help but think somebody you have never met before would be more interesting, as you'd have the possibility to find out a lot more about them, and the relationship would have a lot more room to grow. If they are already in a relationship, a lot/ most of their development between each other has already occurred. The writers would have to make the player really care about the in-game partner, which is no easy feat, but, yes, if done well, it would be quite an interesting game.
I know it seems to be asking a lot. But we're getting to the point in games where people are almost demanding better writing. The people throughout this thread who seem to be most against exploring an established relationship in games often use what has already come to pass as their basis for an objection to it, when the biggest problem with that is that very few games already in existence use the relationship of a character the way I think it needs to be used to push that kind of exploration. It feels more like automated lines that are based on what exact spot your standing on or if you accidentally nudge an NPC as you walk past them, rather than a fluid character that exists outside of yourself.
I think if we could swap out the word "character" for "relationship" for a second, you might see where I'm getting at. Relationship-driven. Relationship building. Relationship exploration. Instead of a blank slate character who serves as the player's lens into the game, the way to make a relationship an interesting dynamic is to treat the person and their partner as two lenses to a pair of dichromatic glasses.
It's also the case that many games use the relationship as a piece to drive the conflict. If the relationship isn't interrupted/sabotaged early on, then usually no endgame conflict arises from it. But doesn't that simply mean that the writer would then have to create conflict out of something less convenient/more challenging? Would that not mean the writer has to challenge themselves to do something new, both in keeping the relationship as integral as if you were controlling just one character, and in creating a conflict that affects both people and needs both for its resolution, not because one was kidnapped/killed, but because they're both working towards that end goal? It gives the player more options (and of course several limitations) for exploration of their surroundings and it establishes a constant system of consequence. It could keep even the most linear game feeling as non-linear as possible, when you realize you've got two perfectly capable people who have to tackle walking down a straight line in a multitude of ways left up to the player.
And the assumption seems to be that the relationship is good and perfect, which is what a lot of people are saying isn't interesting. They never once consider that the relationship doesn't exactly have to be on the best of terms for the gameplay/narrative to work. A relationship that is either strained or at a point where it could change because of something that may or may not be directly associated with the game's conflict would also be interesting. A less-than-perfect relationship also does not necessarily mean the worst relationship ever, either. It could be possible for your partner to be cruel, controlling, psychotic, and I understand that then the question arises "But why would I want to make anything work with them?" This ultimately falls on the strength and abilities of the writer, one who approaches both characters as people to learn things about and allows us to see cracks in the facade. It is completely possible to write a character as unlikeable but for the viewer to see that they are still an interesting and worthwhile character. And it is also possible to write a character in such a way where your mind not only changes about them, but where it was set up to change about them. Good characterization is key here, and it does not have to be just the love interest; it could be the assumed central character as well.
There's also the case that people are taking the word "relationship" at face value, which I admit isn't helped by Yahtzee's emphasis on the word "couple." Picture this: a game where Batman and the Joker have to drop their agendas to survive, and only after getting out of whatever hellhole they were forced into, can they go back to the usual state of affairs (the endgame cutscene goal, or even the precursor to the actual endgame). Their approaches to solving conflicts are as different as night and day, and it would be easy to see how letting one or the other get their way more would put a serious strain in their teamwork. Hell, if you really wanted to get creative, being forced to let Joker use some of Batman's gadgets could really shake things up.
All this is just playing around with the idea of a collaborative relationship on a more simplistic level. It would require a combination of excellent writing, particularly detailed worlds, non-linear problem-solving, and a mastery of micro-management, to say the least (I imagine there could be and are many, many other elements to making such a game work).
In other words, it's up to our current game writers to do something more than depict a relationship as "something I'd like to have with this hot NPC of mine" or "something I want revenge for losing" or "completely lovey-dovey and uninteresting once I have it," the latter of which pretty much treating a relationship as some quest that's already been completed, when the reality of the matter is that a relationship is a living, breathing thing, always being built on, always changing (for better or worse). You say there's nothing to write for an already established relationship. I say there's EVERYTHING to write.
Also, it'd reaaaaaaaaally help my case if writing wasn't such an afterthought for most game design and instead the game was already being made with the story/characters/relationship in mind. And that's not just true for relationships in games. That's true for storytelling all around. We'd have many better games if writing were regarded more highly instead of "Look how realistic our game is/is not" or "Our game is different because of [insert one random slightly unique gimmick" mixed with "Holy crap! Someone quickly write a paragraph of who these people are and why our consumers should care."
It'd also help my case if everytime a suggestion was made for improving gaming people's objections to it didn't stem from them thinking the argument is for every game to incorporate that feature.
