Games and relationships

[pulse2]

Dragon Age and Mass Effect have made me think.

1) Would you be able to appreciate a game more if you were in control of which characters you formed an alliance / romance / hatred / rivalry with?

2) Would it bother you that much if homosexuality became more prominent in games, take Gears and Killzone for example, if that's not man love, I don't know what is.

3) Fable allowed you to get married and have kids, but would you enjoy it more if it then went as far as allowing you to decide what your kids then did with themselves, sort of like Sims, either stay in town and work, or join you on your journeys to deafet monsters etc, or is that going too far.

I bring these up because slowly games have been moving away from the Final Fantasy forced romance business and taking on a more Dragon Age idea of you making the choice who your character falls for, but even the likes of Dragon Age at times feels a little wooden when it comes to building relationships.

I'm mainly covering RPGs here, as I don't think people would appreciate thier FPS and third person shooter (for examples) titles turning into a panto of love and marriage etc.

So yeah, what do you guys think?

 

[Radeonx]

1. I don't really care. If the game can pull it off well, it pulls it off well.

2. As long as it isn't shoving the gay-side of the game in your face over and over, I don't care.

3. That just seems kind of boring. Unless the kids played a role in the story, I wouldn't really have a development with them and wouldn't care what they became. And if they did, then that seems like it would just revolve around to the Dragon Age romance.

 

[Qizx]

I would love to be able to control all those things and to create more of a personal experience but I do think that's a little impossible. The reason for that being this; in order to program a game to allow someone to have that much control over something it would get overwhelming. The sheer number of possibilities would get in the way of the actual game, and you could get stuck in a side part of the game pretty easily. Not only that, there will always be invisible walls of some sort and someone won't be able to truly take control and make the game play out the way they want. Either the dev team hadn't thought of it or they thought it was unacceptable. I know there was an issue like this on Second Life (or whatever it's called) where people playing little children would get involved in relationships with adult avatars.

 

[Vampire cat]

Bring on the control ability, being able to chose exactly which side to take and sort of run your own game would be pure awesome. And who really mind homosexuality these days... Backwards people, thats who Oo. Married? Kids? Personal relationships in games in general? No... I think they sucked in the GTA games that had it, it was rubbish in Fable, and so it was in any other game I've played that allowed for it too. I'm sorry, it's just impossible to really care about being together with some random character unless your character spends a lot of game time to actually make you feel a connection between them (and that's easier said than done for the average game developer, so so it seems anyway).

 

[Pandaman1911]

Unless the game is mainly focused on relationships, or if there's no real action in the game, then I don't see the POINT of relationships. It doesn't seem realistic, at least not to me. The world's falling apart, I'm the only one who can save it, blah de blah, and I'm taking time off to get my willy wet? Seriously? Either it's a very slow apocalypse, or I'm not a good manager of my time. If there's conceivably time in the game for relationships, then sure, whatever, I'm fine with my character being able to pick who he sticks. But if it's something like Mass Effect, where there is honestly no reason for me to be porking somebody, and the only reason it's in there is because sex makes any game sell like hotcakes and gets free publicity because of the "controversy", then no, it's stupid, and I don't want any part of it.

 

[Ghaleon640]

I personally like the idea a lot. I think it would be awesome to have that much control, and it would individualize your game and story.

But then again it may have a hard time finding an audience, with too many people thinking it would be a dating sim or something like that.

2. Sure. Not my thing, but go for it.

3. Well, if you could pick between detailed characters rather than you know, four thousand of the same kind of person. (I've never actually played Fable.) But yeah, I mean if you have a party that has a couple of girls in it, I think it would be cool to slowly over time build up a relationship with them.

But out of curiosity, wasn't this (somewhat) done in Record of Agarest War? (Another game I haven't played but looked into.)

 

[Harlemura]

I'd find it quite annoying, myself.
I guess I can sorta, kinda see why people want relationship choices in games, but it's not something I'd want. Just seems like an unnecessary feature that delays time between me stabbing something and stabbing something else. Probably just leads to more endings anyway, forcing my achievement-whoring ass through the game over and over.

Same goes for the homosexuality thing. I don't care who's getting it on with who if I'm being prevented from stabbing things.

Feel I should point out this post should be taken with a pinch of salt, since I barely remember the last RPG I played.
If it doesn't have mostly shooting or fist-fighting involved, I probably haven't played it recently.

EDIT:
Just noticed the third option.
Same stuff applies. More kiddy means less stabby.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

1) Do I want to have absolute control over the characters I'm in a relationship with in a game? Generally, no. If for instance, your game character has an in game girlfriend, and you're controlling her too, you've created a relationship between two puppets controlled by the same person. And while there are absolutely some interesting things that a game could do with something like that, if it's trying to create a feeling of involvement with another character, you shouldn't be in control of that other character, or else... well.... you're just playing with yourself.

2) I would love it if homosexuality became a bigger part of games. I'm not saying it should be ostentatious, but I do think that it should be present, if games are art, and art is a reflection of the world, then games should reflect the world, and the world has gays, a fact that people need to get used to. I want people to be able to see relationships that fall outside of the traditional male-female roles, and I would like for games to make these relationships present.

3) I don't know that I'd want to be able to control what my kids do, if you could it'd be the same problem as the first thing, they'd just be a puppet, not a character. Influencing them would definitely be cool, but if you're making their choices for them, then it's not really all that interesting.

Also, yeah, romances in Dragon Age may be a little bit wooden, but you have to remember, it's on the cutting edge of a trend that I suspect will become a bigger part of the games industry as time goes on. These types of mechanics take time to work out properly, they take the involvement of creative people to create the innovations that will make them more engaging and realistic, and they take the willingness of the gaming public to accept them. I can't know for sure, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet that we'll see relationship mechanics in games become more prevalent and evolve significantly in the years to come.

 

[moretimethansense]

1) Depends, sometimes yes, but I like a linear story if it's told well.

2) Not in the slightest.

3) Depends, if they did it well then sure, I'd play a game like that.
Fable needs to get it's shity sorted first thogh before they try something like that.

 

[Embz]

I find I get more attached to characters when I get to make big decisions that effect their 'lives' and when I get more attached to a character it makes me want to play the game more.

 

[pulse2]

Unless the game is mainly focused on relationships, or if there's no real action in the game, then I don't see the POINT of relationships. It doesn't seem realistic, at least not to me. The world's falling apart, I'm the only one who can save it, blah de blah, and I'm taking time off to get my willy wet? Seriously? Either it's a very slow apocalypse, or I'm not a good manager of my time. If there's conceivably time in the game for relationships, then sure, whatever, I'm fine with my character being able to pick who he sticks. But if it's something like Mass Effect, where there is honestly no reason for me to be porking somebody, and the only reason it's in there is because sex makes any game sell like hotcakes and gets free publicity because of the "controversy", then no, it's stupid, and I don't want any part of it.

To argue that point, the irony is, in times of tribulation, it is common fact that humans get closer to one another. If anything, humans are known to be selfish until something happens that brings us together, so the concept that relationship building to the point of sex and romance is unnecessary isn't always true. In fact, what bothers me about the likes of Gears and Killzone for examples is that there is no relationship building whatsoever, yeah its fun killing stuff, but I don't really care for why I'm killing them nor the characters I'm killing or the ones doing the killing. Homefront had good ideas (despite the dismal outcome), desperation, sadness, misery, determination, all the emotions that come with a real war, not just bulky men running around killing everything, I might as well be controlling robots if that's the case.

This becomes especially important in RPGs, RPGs should be ABOUT story, character development and everything else to go with it, I need to care about my characters otherwise the 30+ hours spent with them becomes pointless, which is why I personally can't stand MMOs, I don't see the point in them.

The driving force of a good story is the development of characters, Uncharted did this well for example. And yeah, romance and sex may come between the war, but it only helps to make the gamer understand why the members of your party are even bothering to follow you on your kamikaze mission. It would become all the more evident if when they died they died permanently, apart from thier skills you developed, the relationship you had with that character will want to make you keep them alive.

 

[Pandaman1911]

To argue that point, the irony is, in times of tribulation, it is common fact that humans get closer to one another. If anything, humans are known to be selfish until something happens that brings us together, so the concept that relationship building to the point of sex and romance is unnecessary isn't always true. In fact, what bothers me about the likes of Gears and Killzone for examples is that there is no relationship building whatsoever, yeah its fun killing stuff, but I don't really care for why I'm killing them nor the characters I'm killing or the ones doing the killing. Homefront had good ideas (despite the dismal outcome), desperation, sadness, misery, determination, all the emotions that come with a real war, not just bulky men running around killing everything, I might as well be controlling robots if that's the case.

This becomes especially important in RPGs, RPGs should be ABOUT story, character development and everything else to go with it, I need to care about my characters otherwise the 30+ hours spent with them becomes pointless, which is why I personally can't stand MMOs, I don't see the point in them.

The driving force of a good story is the development of characters, Uncharted did this well for example. And yeah, romance and sex may come between the war, but it only helps to make the gamer understand why the members of your party are even bothering to follow you on your kamikaze mission. It would become all the more evident if when they died they died permanently, apart from thier skills you developed, the relationship you had with that character will want to make you keep them alive.

I'm all for character development and growing closer together, I just don't understand the whole "relationship" aspect of it. Yes, the team learns to trust one another, gets over certain things, and grows tighter as a unit as time and time again they cheat death by relying on each other, et cetera et cetera. However, there's no need to develop a relationship beyond "I would trust you with my life in combat" when the extent of your interaction boils down to fighting together and being in transit to another place where you get to fight together. Maybe it's just something I can't grasp, I don't know.

 

[pulse2]

To argue that point, the irony is, in times of tribulation, it is common fact that humans get closer to one another. If anything, humans are known to be selfish until something happens that brings us together, so the concept that relationship building to the point of sex and romance is unnecessary isn't always true. In fact, what bothers me about the likes of Gears and Killzone for examples is that there is no relationship building whatsoever, yeah its fun killing stuff, but I don't really care for why I'm killing them nor the characters I'm killing or the ones doing the killing. Homefront had good ideas (despite the dismal outcome), desperation, sadness, misery, determination, all the emotions that come with a real war, not just bulky men running around killing everything, I might as well be controlling robots if that's the case.

This becomes especially important in RPGs, RPGs should be ABOUT story, character development and everything else to go with it, I need to care about my characters otherwise the 30+ hours spent with them becomes pointless, which is why I personally can't stand MMOs, I don't see the point in them.

The driving force of a good story is the development of characters, Uncharted did this well for example. And yeah, romance and sex may come between the war, but it only helps to make the gamer understand why the members of your party are even bothering to follow you on your kamikaze mission. It would become all the more evident if when they died they died permanently, apart from thier skills you developed, the relationship you had with that character will want to make you keep them alive.

I'm all for character development and growing closer together, I just don't understand the whole "relationship" aspect of it. Yes, the team learns to trust one another, gets over certain things, and grows tighter as a unit as time and time again they cheat death by relying on each other, et cetera et cetera. However, there's no need to develop a relationship beyond "I would trust you with my life in combat" when the extent of your interaction boils down to fighting together and being in transit to another place where you get to fight together. Maybe it's just something I can't grasp, I don't know.

I suppose it depends on what the story is trying to achieve, I wouldn't care for it much in a fast paced, chaos causing game like Just Cause 2, Tekken 6 or Halo, but I would expect to see some character development and relationship building in a game like Uncharted or an RPG.

I think too many games shy away from the 'deep' concept and 'love' beyond just trust and friendship. If there is a female character in the game, I'd find it pretty darn boring if the character I'm playing as never gets to form a better relationship with her and just keeps her as a friend. RPGs are long, so I expect the characters to use that time wisely, whats the point if they just act the same way every other action game plays out.

 

[SageRuffin]

Dragon Age and Mass Effect have made me think.

1) Would you be able to appreciate a game more if you were in control of which characters you formed an alliance / romance / hatred / rivalry with?

Not really, as that kinda railroads me into playing a certain way to keep who might be my most effective party members from cutting out my jugular while I'm sleeping.

I like my jugular.

2) Would it bother you that much if homosexuality became more prominent in games, take Gears and Killzone for example, if that's not man love, I don't know what is.

So long as the game doesn't beat me over the head with it, I couldn't care less.

3) Fable allowed you to get married and have kids, but would you enjoy it more if it then went as far as allowing you to decide what your kids then did with themselves, sort of like Sims, either stay in town and work, or join you on your journeys to deafet monsters etc, or is that going too far.

Again, not really. It seems like unnecessary busy work to try and keep you interested in the core game. Not to mention there was no reason to get married, much less have children, in either of the 360 Fable games aside from achievement grinding.

Also, I say both Mass Effect games are a bad example as they almost tried to force your character into a relationship when all you were doing was being nice to him/her (FemShep to Kaidan, for example). It's especially bad in ME2 as FemShep constantly has this really obvious flirtatious tone whenever she talks to Jacob. It's almost like she's begging to his bones. o__O'

 

[Kortney]

1) Would you be able to appreciate a game more if you were in control of which characters you formed an alliance / romance / hatred / rivalry with?

Yeah, certainly.

2) Would it bother you that much if homosexuality became more prominent in games, take Gears and Killzone for example, if that's not man love, I don't know what is.

It wouldn't bother me, but I'd like to see it properly implemented. I don't agree with the hoards of people who were complaining because Mass Effect 2 had no homosexual Shepard. If a developer of an RPG doesn't include the option to be homosexual - it doesn't mean they are homophobic or discriminating against anyone.

I don't want games to include the option to be homosexual simply because they are forced to. It would feel tacked on that way and no good would come of it.

Fable allowed you to get married and have kids, but would you enjoy it more if it then went as far as allowing you to decide what your kids then did with themselves, sort of like Sims, either stay in town and work, or join you on your journeys to deafet monsters etc, or is that going too far.

Eh, I doubt it. Maybe I'm being short sighted - but I don't see how that could be implemented well enough to be interesting without taking away other parts of the game.

 

[flim.geek.chic]

1. Yes, such as in other games like Jade Empire, and Mass Effect by Bioware I certainly apperciate the abillty to even bypass the relationship entirely.
2.No, Lesbian romance seems to be okay why not Homosexual.
3. Well as much as I enjoyed making Virtual Baby with my Boyfriend over Co-op in Fable 3... we are crossing into uncanny vally teritory.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

1. Yes. Though, I bring up Persona 3/4 as an example.

2. Not at all.

3. Eh....I'll stick to a simple relationship. I doubt Naoto is ready to have kids.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

1. Yes. Though, I bring up Persona 3/4 as n example.

2. Not at all.

3. Eh....I'll stick to a simple relationship. I doubt Naoto is ready to have kids.

Persona 3 and 4 were exactly what I thought of too =P For number 2 - Go Kanji!

As far as 3 goes, it would depend. Yea, there are games that let you have kids, and they do different things. Fable and Harvest Moon come to mind here. But unless there's a point, I don't really want to have to worry about it. I feel like having kids could be distracting, unless they either don't do a whole lot (eg Fable and Harvest Moon) or have a pre-set role in the story. Phantasy Star... 4 I think? maybe it was 3, did a good job of this, and to a lesser extent Golden Sun on the DS, since your main character is the son of Isacc. Otherwise, I think it would feel forced.

I'd check out Record of Agarest War. It has an interesting system if you like SRPGs. You play through five generations of heroes.

 

[ten.to.ten]

1. Yes, unless it was tacked onto game with an otherwise linear story and badly implemented (kind of like GTA's dating/friend system, ugh). But plenty of open world games already offer experiences like this and they work just fine.

2. Gay relationships should definitely be portrayed more in gaming, and tastefully too, please.

3. That might be good but I think it would require a good designer to work at all, so I wouldn't like to see it unless it was done really well.

Number 2 would bother me a bit. I'm not a homophobe or anything but I certainly don't want manlove shoved down my throat.(oh man that sounds terrible) Even still if a game had full blown gayness all throughout I'm pretty sure I would know beforehand and wouldn't be playing it regardless. Enjoy your games gays!

"I'm not homophobic but fags are gross."

As long as it isn't shoving the gay-side of the game in your face over and over, I don't care.

So long as the game doesn't beat me over the head with it, I couldn't care less.

Sounding a liiiiitle bit homophobic too here, guys. What would constitute having it beaten over your head? Cuddling and kissing? Nudity? A sex scene? If you don't consider a straight couple or women doing this stuff in a game having it shoved in your face then if a gay couple are doing this it's not going to be shoved in your face either.

 

[SageRuffin]

So long as the game doesn't beat me over the head with it, I couldn't care less.

Sounding a liiiiitle bit homophobic too here, guys. What would constitute having it beaten over your head? Cuddling and kissing? Nudity? A sex scene? If you don't consider a straight couple or women doing this stuff in a game having it shoved in your face then if a gay couple are doing this it's not going to be shoved in your face either.

Wow, for real?

Gotta love how you express a slight disagreement over homosexuality (even if you agree by and large that nothing's wrong with it), everyone's ready to decree you as homophobic. If any of the above scenarios don't belong in the setting, it's gonna come out tacky regardless of who's involved. If it's well-written into the rest of the narrative, sure it may be off-putting at first glance, but I'm not gonna cry out "omg its teh GAY!!!1" and wanna take the game back. How would that make me any better than actual homophobes?