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.

[rafael.ramus]

Originally posted by Snake Bit:

Originally posted by smellibear:

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

That's stupid.

That's how it works in this game apparently. Companions want you because you exist.

[LilithVX]

I guess I'm one of the few people who enjoy the change of pace. No longer do I have to chase a companion if I want some romance. Finally they hit on me. I mean people want companions do have their own personality and act more natural, well just like in real life some people will hit on you. The only thing missing would be if they also added a sexuality to companions, so as to not make all of them player-sexual. But then again, lots of people hated that choice CDPR did in Cyberpunk 2077.

[The Seraph of Tomorrow]

Originally posted by 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"

I remember in the early EA, Gale and Wyll were the only cool companions because they treated you like a friend. I don't know why they changed this, as the release version of Gale was too much.

[tmaddox]

Originally posted by BigJ:

Originally posted by tmaddox:

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.

I guess I will see how it goes in my play through then but I can't imagine myself ever getting to the point of irritation with it that many others are. And I say that as someone who pretty much ignores all romance options in games as a general rule.

[The Seraph of Tomorrow]

Originally posted by Snake Bit:

Originally posted by smellibear:

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

That's stupid.

Since the late 2000's, American RPGs started making the move toward player-sexual companions. Where as Japanese RPG's still typically are sex exclusive romance options due to their more traditional culture.

[teksuo]

i simply dont understand why they didnt let us make a full custom party.

would fix all these "issues" some ppl have with companion personalities.

dont like em? make your own! ez fix... alas they didnt want to let us do that for some reason.

[The Seraph of Tomorrow]

Originally posted by 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.

Well, controversy isn't new to steam. Though if there is a controversy there is typically a grain of truth to what it's about.

[Drake]

Originally posted by Snake Bit:

Originally posted by smellibear:

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

That's stupid.

But that's ubfortunately what you get when people are constantly asking "why can't I romance X, why is Y straight I want to romance them with the other gender" etc.

So now devs just make npcs attracted to the main char the same whatever configuration their in. And yes, it leads to absurd and inconsistent writing.

[Anaheim]

Originally posted by teksuo:

i simply dont understand why they didnt let us make a full custom party.

would fix all these "issues" some ppl have with companion personalities.

A big chunk of the game's content has to do with companions and their questlines. They're actually interesting enough characters too if it didn't feel like the whole camp was trying to ♥♥♥♥ me.

[The Seraph of Tomorrow]

Originally posted by teksuo:

i simply dont understand why they didnt let us make a full custom party.

would fix all these "issues" some ppl have with companion personalities.

dont like em? make your own! ez fix... alas they didnt want to do that for some reason.

Don't get me started on that topic, I have made a few threads about why Larian needs to stop forcing their origin characters. Instead allowing for backgrounds such as the Dark Urge or the Origin Backgrounds to be given to custom companions.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1086940/discussions/0/3811785047376150108/?tscn=1691108045

All it would mean is that the customs don't have to be voiced, and to be perfectly honest. I run a business myself, and getting decent voice actors is actually fairly cheap if you aren't digging for well known names in the industry or trying to go through an agent to hire one instead of commissioning a freelancer.

[rafael.ramus]

Originally posted by Drake:

Originally posted by Snake Bit:

That's stupid.

But that's ubfortunately what you get when people are constantly asking "why can't I romance X, why is Y straight I want to romance them with the other gender" etc.

So now devs just make npcs attracted to the main char the same whatever configuration their in. And yes, it leads to absurd and inconsistent writing.

True. That's also why it's wiser to let players do the first move - or at least to let players know they are triggering "romance" options (then giving other options that allow for the path of true friendship).

[Anaheim]

Originally posted by Drake:

Originally posted by Snake Bit:

That's stupid.

But that's ubfortunately what you get when people are constantly asking "why can't I romance X, why is Y straight I want to romance them with the other gender" etc.

So now devs just make npcs attracted to the main char the same whatever configuration their in. And yes, it leads to absurd and inconsistent writing.

I think it'd be completely OK if the player could choose to initiate romances and that dialogue and scenarios stayed 100% platonic prior to making a choice. So no sexual or romantic tension and then the choice comes up. I don't want to know that a character likes me in that way regardless of gender unless I pursue it and take the risk to flirt.

[Kithsakhai]

Player initiated only is actually not true, Lae'zel kept trying to engage my character with it, completely un-initiated...

[The Seraph of Tomorrow]

Originally posted by rafael.ramus:

Originally posted by Drake:

But that's ubfortunately what you get when people are constantly asking "why can't I romance X, why is Y straight I want to romance them with the other gender" etc.

So now devs just make npcs attracted to the main char the same whatever configuration their in. And yes, it leads to absurd and inconsistent writing.

True. That's also why it's wiser to let players do the first move - or at least to let players know they are triggering "romance" options (then giving other options that allow for the path of true friendship).

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the dialogue tree in SWTOR (Old Bioware) other devs should have emulated. As it made it very clear what the outcome of your dialogue choices would be with the indicators.

[Snake Bit]

Originally posted by rafael.ramus:

Originally posted by Snake Bit:

That's stupid.

That's how it works in this game apparently. Companions want you because you exist.

Somehow I think the devs have never interacted with real people.