Character Romances (Where Larian Went Wrong)

[The Seraph of Tomorrow]

There is A LOT Larian did wrong with the way the companions were included into the game, along with the player-sexual element which has caused so much controversy which was...

Abandoning What Works

In most RPGs with player-sexual romance, the player has to initiate the romance in order for any flirting or romance dialogue to appear. This is typically indicated by a dialogue choice with a label such as (romance) or (start romance) to let the player know the dialogue choice opens up romantic or flirty dialogue with the NPC.

As such, the player is not the one being sought, but rather the one who has to earn their way into a relationship with the NPC through dialogue choices, or most often a companion related quest. The relationship is earned, not given.

(Larian abandoned the formula and it shows with the numerous posts about unwanted advances by NPCs. This is one of countless RPG's with player-sexual NPCs and it's clear why they got it wrong.)

To emphasize on the previous statement; to avoid bogging the player down with unwanted romantic dialogue options, many RPGs also allow the player to choose their characters preferences for males, females, or both. Thus, the player may turn off the appearance of dialogue options from characters of the undesired sex. What some would call having your cake and eating it too.

(At the end of the day, while people are making it about homosexuality. The truth of the matter was Larian's shamefully poor implementation of the companion romances. No one would have made a single post if it was properly implemented.)

So instead of getting upset with other users on the forum as if it's their fault for wanting or not wanting options in the game, I instead suggest focusing your ire one the devs for causing this problem in the first place. The team knew better, they made DoS1 and DoS2 after all, and yet it seems fairly clear the companions implementation into BG3 were not properly implement.

I suspect it has to due with the many radical changes the companions saw during EA, but that is just speculation. I don't want to start assuming, as I am a cynical person by nature and feel as though having to point this basic aspect of story development out to a studio is shameful.

[faffy]

Romance options come up far to quickly, and companions seem far to readily willing to avail themselves to horny.

[The Seraph of Tomorrow]

Originally posted by faffy:

Romance options come up far to quickly, and companions seem far to readily willing to avail themselves to horny.

Might have been an issue with the fact the world map is so small. thus they rushed the romances through in ACT one to show off in the EA. Instead of tying the romances to the companion quest chains.

[smellibear]

At the end of the day, if you demand queer people do not exist in your game, you are a bigot.

If you just want properly labeled dialogue so you can have your custom gaming experience, then you are a normal gamer like the rest of us.

Larian fumbled the ball here because they were trying to Do Something New. The reactions have been overwrought but the game has also been decidedly pushy. You don't play an RPG because you love being told how to handle your experience, it's because you like being handed a set of rules and then let loose. Larian really wants us to have a certain experience, and given how horny everyone is the experience is at once overwhelming and monotonous

Not great writing or design

[Dondu]

i dont know why people obsesses with sex scene, you are here to save the world, not bone your whole party LOL... unless you wanted a sex simulator this probably the wrong game... kill all your companions and save the world thats how a hero suppose to do

if you think about, superman is a virgin...

[tmaddox]

Originally posted by BigJ:

Originally posted by tmaddox:

That is a bit naive. People still would have made a fuss.

I will say that, as a 50+ year old straight male from the Midwest, it does not bother me at all. In 30 or so hours Gale made an advance, I chose a dialog option saying I was not interested and there has not been another peep.

When it is so easy to reject them I don't see a need for a big Heart icon next to dialog options to warn me away.

Even if rejected Gale will try to keep progressing the romance with you... you'll see.

If so then I will turn him down again and move on. People are acting like you are spending hours fending off unwanted advances. I'm just saying that I have not seen that to be the case at all yet.

[Daedelous]

I just wish the options to let them down/block romance advancement before it gets too far would let you be at least nice about it without trying to provoke an obvious disapproval. Gale's advancement also turns from seemingly platonic to romance only when it's too late and the game is saying that you feel like you feel like it with him and you have to block it with one last attempt only AFTER it has gotten to that point, before then and "Oh wow you are rude"

[hgshurtugal01]

I am curious if its as bad as some people are saying. its hard to take people seriously on the form since a lot of it is homophobic. Although I am playing as a female character so ill see.

[Anaheim]

Originally posted by tmaddox:

Originally posted by Tech-Priest:

(No one would have made a single post if it was properly implemented.)

I will say that, as a 50+ year old straight male from the Midwest, it does not bother me at all. In 30 or so hours Gale made an advance, I chose a dialog option saying I was not interested and there has not been another peep.

When it is so easy to reject them I don't see a need for a big Heart icon next to dialog options to warn me away.

Every male character including the mind flayer has made an advance on mine and a lot of their bonding events after saying no include things like "give him a chance" when the sexual tension rises inexplicably. While that's cool you're chill with it a lot of us are uncomfortable and would like an option to avoid these encounters entirely. I'd like to be able to opt in to romance rather than being propositioned and then buttered up for a second chance.

[Snake Bit]

What does player sexual even mean?

[BigJ]

Originally posted by tmaddox:

Originally posted by BigJ:

Even if rejected Gale will try to keep progressing the romance with you... you'll see.

If so then I will turn him down again and move on. People are acting like you are spending hours fending off unwanted advances. I'm just saying that I have not seen that to be the case at all yet.

I've had to tell of Gale a total of 2 times no...1 should be enough, with one of those been a "magic lesson" that turns out quite different with no social cues as to what it really is.

[hgshurtugal01]

Originally posted by Snake Bit:

What does player sexual even mean?

That NPCs will be attracted to the PC

[smellibear]

Originally posted by Snake Bit:

What does player sexual even mean?

That all NPC romances are determined not by gender but by interest int he player-character

[rafael.ramus]

Originally posted by tmaddox:

Originally posted by BigJ:

Even if rejected Gale will try to keep progressing the romance with you... you'll see.

If so then I will turn him down again and move on. People are acting like you are spending hours fending off unwanted advances. Just saying that I have not seen that to be the case at all yet.

That's not how it works anywhere. In real life, most of the time saying "no" takes seconds, and yet, people will feel harassed if they have to keep saying "no" again, and again, and again, and again... it's just how things are.

That's why I've said many times that the natural thing to do would be kicking companions out permanently for misbehavior. That's what you do in real life when you feel someone is being inconvenient.

[Snake Bit]

Originally posted by smellibear:

Originally posted by Snake Bit:

What does player sexual even mean?

That all NPC romances are determined not by gender but by interest int he player-character

That's stupid.

[The Seraph of Tomorrow]

Originally posted by smellibear:

--Snip (unneeded comment that will cause arguments)--

Larian fumbled the ball here because they were trying to Do Something New. The reactions have been overwrought but the game has also been decidedly pushy. You don't play an RPG because you love being told how to handle your experience, it's because you like being handed a set of rules and then let loose. Larian really wants us to have a certain experience, and given how horny everyone is the experience is at once overwhelming and monotonous

Not great writing or design

I can certainly agree that the game was pushy, which I never noticed in the DoS series. To me, the heart of a RPG is the players ability to explore and interact with fantastic worlds in order to tell a story or all a player craft their own story. I will never disagree with that principle.

Some RPG's are strictly linear like the Final Fantasy or loosely linear like the Fable series, but it seems that Larian did not properly implement either RPG method into BG3.