Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
RELATIONSHIPS IN GAMES: DOING THINGS DIFFERENTLY?
Posts
Pages:
1
unity
View playlists
CloseI'm talking about the sort of relationships you find in Bioware games and other games where you can romance one of your allies. The only real version I've seen is the one where there are generally a bunch of multiple choice questions and it pretty much comes down to: If you can guess the answer that the person wants to hear, you can get them to like you more, and eventually move the romance further, until you have another multiple choice question, and then rinse and repeat.
But genuine relationships in real-life don't go that way. People like other people despite their differences, and while they generally don't like people who are mean or disagreeable, that doesn't mean they're going to lose respect for you if your likes and dislikes don't completely match up with theirs.
So, what if in a game while you still have the questions, but your answer doesn't raise or lower how much the other person likes you? What if, instead, the answers alter the outcome of the relationship more than on a simple "S/he likes me vs S/he likes me not" aspect? Such as, a character who has a philosophy that you, through your answers, disagree with causes her to inspect her own feelings on that philosophy and thus triggers a new scene about it later in the game?
I guess what this basically boils down to is: Can someone remove the whole sense of 'winning' or 'losing' from the equation of in-game relationships and still make it fun for players?
But genuine relationships in real-life don't go that way. People like other people despite their differences, and while they generally don't like people who are mean or disagreeable, that doesn't mean they're going to lose respect for you if your likes and dislikes don't completely match up with theirs.
So, what if in a game while you still have the questions, but your answer doesn't raise or lower how much the other person likes you? What if, instead, the answers alter the outcome of the relationship more than on a simple "S/he likes me vs S/he likes me not" aspect? Such as, a character who has a philosophy that you, through your answers, disagree with causes her to inspect her own feelings on that philosophy and thus triggers a new scene about it later in the game?
I guess what this basically boils down to is: Can someone remove the whole sense of 'winning' or 'losing' from the equation of in-game relationships and still make it fun for players?
Such a great point!
It's ridiculous. If anything, agreement should be in more fundamental, but actually important things (read: where you want to go in your life, what it means to you, etc), because those affect a relationship. Not liking or disliking X. And, I believe, not even the big philosophies. Sure, stuff like thinking killing people for the greater good make their impact, but if you disagree in one or two such areas, than that is not as bad as if your lifestyle clashed if you want to stay together.
An alternation of outcome would be interesting, but either limits the choices greatly or amounts to a hell load of work.
What would be another take is to take which step further. While general interest is increased, the characters usually don't do anything. You know, there's more than kissing and sex to sexuality.
A different approach would be, rather than pointing at the likes or dislikes, choosing an appropriate action to take based on how far they've progressed. Closing in on the other person, whispering something into their ear, holding hands, hugging, those kinda things which could be done throughout the game as well as in private scenes.
I know they've been done, but usually only barely and rather than win - lose, they may impact or delay the characters' proximity.
While this maaay have negative effects as well, this would rather hint at a different approach to the subject. You could have more intimacy of thought / more dialogue for less touchy-feely choices and thus gain more knowledge about them as opposed to growing physically more intimate.
It's ridiculous. If anything, agreement should be in more fundamental, but actually important things (read: where you want to go in your life, what it means to you, etc), because those affect a relationship. Not liking or disliking X. And, I believe, not even the big philosophies. Sure, stuff like thinking killing people for the greater good make their impact, but if you disagree in one or two such areas, than that is not as bad as if your lifestyle clashed if you want to stay together.
An alternation of outcome would be interesting, but either limits the choices greatly or amounts to a hell load of work.
What would be another take is to take which step further. While general interest is increased, the characters usually don't do anything. You know, there's more than kissing and sex to sexuality.
A different approach would be, rather than pointing at the likes or dislikes, choosing an appropriate action to take based on how far they've progressed. Closing in on the other person, whispering something into their ear, holding hands, hugging, those kinda things which could be done throughout the game as well as in private scenes.
I know they've been done, but usually only barely and rather than win - lose, they may impact or delay the characters' proximity.
While this maaay have negative effects as well, this would rather hint at a different approach to the subject. You could have more intimacy of thought / more dialogue for less touchy-feely choices and thus gain more knowledge about them as opposed to growing physically more intimate.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
You just described, for the most part, how relationships in Dragon Age: Origins and DA2 work. Without spoiling anything, you can dramatically change at least two character's outlook on life in DA:Origins with your answers. When you're in a relationship with them, they have different attitudes and are more willing to make hard choices. If someone disagrees with you so much they simply can't stand being near you anymore, they'll leave. Just like in real life.
In Dragon Age 2, it works differently. Each character has a bar with two different extremes: friend or rival. You can disagree with them, make fun of them, or even be downright hostile towards your party members and they will still like you, albeit for different reasons.
As the course of both games goes on, they start to look at their own lifestyles and think about what they're doing with their actions. Your input will influence their thoughts and morals. Eventually, they might even do exactly the opposite of their beliefs because they trust you enough.
... Yes, I am a rabid Bioware fanboy, thanks for noticing.
I don't think that would work. If there is someone you don't like or don't trust, you would have practically no reason to take their thoughts on your actions seriously. If you hate someone enough, sometimes that hate would make you disregard even the good things that they have to say.
As for your last question: I think it's possible, but the formula works pretty well as it is. Relationships in real life take effort, time, and commitment. If you're not willing to spend that time and effort, then you don't get the relationship. If someone disagrees with your choices, then they think slightly less of you, but they don't IMMEDIATELY hate you. Like them, hate them, whatever, but you need to spend TIME with them. You can't agree or disagree with them if you don't spend TIME with them.
When I see that relationship meter build up, I take that as a representation of the TIME I've spent with that character. Granted, a lot of game character relationships don't operate the way I do, but you get my point, yes?
So perhaps, in future games, there could be a certain level of respect that you have to build with that character. This respect value would be determined by how much time you spend with that character. Now have a whole separate variable for like/dislike. You can respect someone without liking them. Conversely, you can like someone, but have no respect for them.
Character that respect you would be more likely to take your thoughts, agreeable or not, to heart and are more likely to question their own beliefs.
In Dragon Age 2, it works differently. Each character has a bar with two different extremes: friend or rival. You can disagree with them, make fun of them, or even be downright hostile towards your party members and they will still like you, albeit for different reasons.
As the course of both games goes on, they start to look at their own lifestyles and think about what they're doing with their actions. Your input will influence their thoughts and morals. Eventually, they might even do exactly the opposite of their beliefs because they trust you enough.
... Yes, I am a rabid Bioware fanboy, thanks for noticing.
So, what if in a game while you still have the questions, but your answer doesn't raise or lower how much the other person likes you? What if, instead, the answers alter the outcome of the relationship more than on a simple "S/he likes me vs S/he likes me not" aspect? Such as, a character who has a philosophy that you, through your answers, disagree with causes her to inspect her own feelings on that philosophy and thus triggers a new scene about it later in the game?
I don't think that would work. If there is someone you don't like or don't trust, you would have practically no reason to take their thoughts on your actions seriously. If you hate someone enough, sometimes that hate would make you disregard even the good things that they have to say.
As for your last question: I think it's possible, but the formula works pretty well as it is. Relationships in real life take effort, time, and commitment. If you're not willing to spend that time and effort, then you don't get the relationship. If someone disagrees with your choices, then they think slightly less of you, but they don't IMMEDIATELY hate you. Like them, hate them, whatever, but you need to spend TIME with them. You can't agree or disagree with them if you don't spend TIME with them.
When I see that relationship meter build up, I take that as a representation of the TIME I've spent with that character. Granted, a lot of game character relationships don't operate the way I do, but you get my point, yes?
So perhaps, in future games, there could be a certain level of respect that you have to build with that character. This respect value would be determined by how much time you spend with that character. Now have a whole separate variable for like/dislike. You can respect someone without liking them. Conversely, you can like someone, but have no respect for them.
Character that respect you would be more likely to take your thoughts, agreeable or not, to heart and are more likely to question their own beliefs.
author=unity
I'm talking about the sort of relationships you find in Bioware games and other games where you can romance one of your allies. The only real version I've seen is the one where there are generally a bunch of multiple choice questions and it pretty much comes down to: If you can guess the answer that the person wants to hear, you can get them to like you more, and eventually move the romance further, until you have another multiple choice question, and then rinse and repeat.
But genuine relationships in real-life don't go that way. People like other people despite their differences, and while they generally don't like people who are mean or disagreeable, that doesn't mean they're going to lose respect for you if your likes and dislikes don't completely match up with theirs.
So, what if in a game while you still have the questions, but your answer doesn't raise or lower how much the other person likes you? What if, instead, the answers alter the outcome of the relationship more than on a simple "S/he likes me vs S/he likes me not" aspect? Such as, a character who has a philosophy that you, through your answers, disagree with causes her to inspect her own feelings on that philosophy and thus triggers a new scene about it later in the game?
I guess what this basically boils down to is: Can someone remove the whole sense of 'winning' or 'losing' from the equation of in-game relationships and still make it fun for players?
The best way of doing this would be some sort of random number algorithm, which adds in past events into the answer. Of course, it also should add in past answers, because you probably can't get away with being completely incompatible or saying stuff she outright hates. But if you've built up alot of goodwill, these variable bonuses will weigh even a wrong answer towards you.
Basically, it looks like this.
(Right) Answer +(5 to 50)
(Wrong) Answer +0
RandomDecision 1 to 100
+ Love
+Answer
If RandomDecision >= 100
Love + 1 (etc)
Events outside of choices, like getting her flowers, will change the outcome and add/subtract love from the equation (actions speak louder than words, so these add maybe 5 or 10 instead of 1). If Love gets above about 75 (or 75%) you pretty much are set for the romance, unless you do or say a bunch of really cruel things, or cheat on her.
The right answer btw, is random too, and may have less of an impact than you'd think. She may decide you are telling her what she wants to hear. Which brings up something else. You can have another factor in this equation.
RandomDecision 1 to 100
+ Love
+Answer
Distrust 1 to 10
If Distrust is 10
-Indecision (10 to 25)
If RandomDecision >= 100
Love + 1 (etc)
As in, you can lose up to half the bonus from the Answer to the total, effectively sabotaging your score. You could even tweak this a bit, where the more right answers you have, the less she trusts your answer.
Shinan
4314
Having just finished episode 5 of The Walking Dead season 2 all I can think of is how brilliantly Telltale deals with their relationships. Of course their games (I'm thinking Walking Dead and Wolf Among Us) are all about relationships and it'd probably be difficult to implement their style into other games but I think that there's probably something to be learned from the interactions available in that game.
Still in the end it's all multiple choice but they are varied enough to count and it's more about subtle differences in how you say things.
I tend to like the idea that the choices aren't always predictable. So you can't tell at once what someone's reaction will be to a choice and even if they seem to like it they might not at all later on.
Still in the end it's all multiple choice but they are varied enough to count and it's more about subtle differences in how you say things.
I tend to like the idea that the choices aren't always predictable. So you can't tell at once what someone's reaction will be to a choice and even if they seem to like it they might not at all later on.
author=Red_Nova
I don't think that would work. If there is someone you don't like or don't trust, you would have practically no reason to take their thoughts on your actions seriously. If you hate someone enough, sometimes that hate would make you disregard even the good things that they have to say.
So perhaps, in future games, there could be a certain level of respect that you have to build with that character. This respect value would be determined by how much time you spend with that character. Now have a whole separate variable for like/dislike. You can respect someone without liking them. Conversely, you can like someone, but have no respect for them.
Character that respect you would be more likely to take your thoughts, agreeable or not, to heart and are more likely to question their own beliefs.
Now, I see the point you're trying to make - but that way you put respect = time spent together, which is completely bullshit (imho.).
Disagreeing does not make you dislike that person automatically - as long as one just earnestly, honorably states their belief without trying to belittle the other person for "thinking wrong".
In fact, someone who has enough guts to disagree with you and stand by their beliefs will make you respect him more. Someone who won't dare disagree with you even if they think differently is a pushover, to make a long story short. (it's a problem many of the "nice" girls and guys have, lacking respect)
Which is why, while I can see your approach working very well for many games, is not something I find based in real life.
It is also more of a personality flaw to ignore anything a person has to say, just because you don't like him. Although that does happen quite a lot.
It is true that you can like someone without respecting them and vice versa, but that is certainly not a time issue.
If you spend more time with someone not deserving of your respect (not standing for their own beliefs and regards, for example ), the respect will only decline the more time is spent with said person.
Just wanted to point that one out.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
author=Kylaila
Now, I see the point you're trying to make - but that way you put respect = time spent together, which is completely bullshit (imho.).
Depends on the game. I had Dragon Age: Origins in mind when I made that post. If you're not aware, every character except one can leave your party at ANY time if they hate you enough. So the longer they stay around, the more respect I develop for them, even if I don't like them. Although that is a personal thing, and not a game thing.
For different games, like the Tales series, party members come and go depending on what the game does. NOT the player. So in that sense, yes, respect =/= time spent together.
Though perhaps, "respect" was a poor choice of word. Maybe... trust? Camaraderie? Hm...
Disagreeing does not make you dislike that person automatically - as long as one just earnestly, honorably states their belief without trying to belittle the other person for "thinking wrong".
Now that reeeeally depends on the game. And specific scenarios within each game. Disagreeing on how much sugar should go into coffee is quite different from disagreeing on whether a thief deserves to be executed if he was stealing from the rich to feed his family. Especially if you're disagreeing with the family of said thief.
In fact, someone who has enough guts to disagree with you and stand by their beliefs will make you respect him more. Someone who won't dare disagree with you even if they think differently is a pushover, to make a long story short. (it's a problem many of the "nice" girls and guys have, lacking respect)
Totally agree with that. With my example, it would increase respect, but decrease the like variable.
Which is why, while I can see your approach working very well for many games, is not something I find based in real life.
It is also more of a personality flaw to ignore anything a person has to say, just because you don't like him. Although that does happen quite a lot.
... Which would make it based in real life, would it not?
unity's relationship idea is great. But having characters that are mortal enemies suddenly put aside their hatred and question their own beliefs just because one character says something is also far from unrealistic, and defeats the whole purpose of having a more natural relationship system.
It is true that you can like someone without respecting them and vice versa, but that is certainly not a time issue.
If you spend more time with someone not deserving of your respect (not standing for their own beliefs and regards, for example ), the respect will only decline the more time is spent with said person.
Yeah, I'm starting to think, "respect" was a poor choice of word on my part.
Here's the thing: the longer time you spend with someone, the more... impression you make on them, and vice versa. Unless you have an antisocial personality disorder, this impression is true universally. It's that impression that I'm trying to capture. So... I'm gonna change my word choice to camaraderie. Hopefully now I make a bit more sense.
EDIT: I should probably mention that when I said, "you" in my first post, I was referring to unity. Lesson learned: Refresh your page before leaving a long post in case someone posts before you. Prevents possible misunderstanding.
Avee
5794
A relationship system can become a pain to design and code real quick because we tend to make them too ambitious.
I think you should first set a general theme that you want the relationships to be about, and stick to it. Would it be plain friendship? Partnership? Romance?
Friendship: these begin when you share common interests.
Partnership: these begin when you share common views, philosophies and goals.
Romance: these begin when the person's looks and general way of being are attractive to you, and then the relationship grows by sharing interests, views, philosophies, goals, etc.
I think you should first set a general theme that you want the relationships to be about, and stick to it. Would it be plain friendship? Partnership? Romance?
Friendship: these begin when you share common interests.
Partnership: these begin when you share common views, philosophies and goals.
Romance: these begin when the person's looks and general way of being are attractive to you, and then the relationship grows by sharing interests, views, philosophies, goals, etc.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=unity
I guess what this basically boils down to is: Can someone remove the whole sense of 'winning' or 'losing' from the equation of in-game relationships and still make it fun for players?
Remember that, most likely, you're not just making a pure simulation with an absolute focus on realism and nothing else, you're making a game. A game has goals, it has win and lose conditions, and the player should know (at least to some degree) how to achieve those conditions. The player is trying to do something.
Now, discovery is a huge part of many games - you discover the world, you discover strategies to beat monsters, you discover the plot, etc. So it's valid to think that discovering the results of different choices might be an exciting type of gameplay for romance game. But the problem is that all the choices are irreversable. If you discover a strategy that doesn't work again a boss in an RPG, you either get a game over and get sent back to the start of the fight, or you heal yourself, recover from your failure, and try the next strategy.
But you're talking about adding realistic failure scenarios, where the game continues despite your failures, and stuff later in the game doesn't work the way the player wants because they messed up at relationships earlier. That's basically just extremely un-fun! Especially when you try to make success and failure in relatioships as unpredictable as they are in real life. It's the equivalent of making all the bosses in an RPG randomly cast permadeath spells on the player's party, and then forcing the player to continue the rest of the game without the characters who died. They can't really do anything to stop it, and it feels like failure and makes the rest of the game less fun. Terrible design!
"Game Over" in a game about fighting happens when you lose a battle. In a game about romance, where you have conversations and dates instead of battles, shouldn't a Game Over happen when you fail at whatever your goal is in that conversation or date? Make sure the player can't screw themselves over, or they won't want to explore the relationship options, for fear of making their situation irreversably worse.
Crystalgate
694
author=unity
I guess what this basically boils down to is: Can someone remove the whole sense of 'winning' or 'losing' from the equation of in-game relationships and still make it fun for players?
That should not be a problem. There's no guarantee that I even want the hero to hook up with the person in question. If nothing else, I'd prefer if not hooking up is a choice rather than a failure state or it means the interaction with the other person simple grinds to a halt.
Choices where one gives me 3 points towards the relationship and the other 4 points are useless, there's no reason to pick the former one. Just make them not matter other than giving different dialogs so I can pick whichever I want. Giving different dialogs has a point, albeit a minor one, letting the player do an obvious suboptimal choice does not. Two choices where one puts an end to the relationship while the other continues it are more meaningful, especially if it's put at a point where a reason to discontinue the relationship has emerged. There's always the chance that I simple don't want the main character to hook up with the person in question.
I don't think however that multiple choices need to necessarily alter the outcome to be meaningful. Even if two choices leads to a romantic relationship, I'd still consider them meaningful if the way the whole forming the relationship plays out changes.
I have two small points that I've come across recently while writing relationship-esque stuff for games:
1) Tying a relationship to a mechanical reward like a weapon upgrade is a bad idea, even if it might make sense in the universe. It inevitably influences the player when they make their decisions. If the character has to make a moral decision, you want the options themselves to be the debate, not an outside factor.
2) Your personal opinion shouldn't always actually influence an NPC's actions. If the NPC is gonna be a believable character, they aren't always going to take your advice and run with it. It might influence them slightly and change the way they perceive you, but shouldn't be enough to make them do something they'd normally totally oppose.
Anyway, rather than a binary, it might make more sense to break your relationship with someone into slightly more intricate metrics. I also think displaying visual bars to the player is a bit too... meta, and kind of ruins the mood. In theory their reaction to you should be an indicator of how much they like you, although obviously that's a little harder to communicate.
1) Tying a relationship to a mechanical reward like a weapon upgrade is a bad idea, even if it might make sense in the universe. It inevitably influences the player when they make their decisions. If the character has to make a moral decision, you want the options themselves to be the debate, not an outside factor.
2) Your personal opinion shouldn't always actually influence an NPC's actions. If the NPC is gonna be a believable character, they aren't always going to take your advice and run with it. It might influence them slightly and change the way they perceive you, but shouldn't be enough to make them do something they'd normally totally oppose.
Anyway, rather than a binary, it might make more sense to break your relationship with someone into slightly more intricate metrics. I also think displaying visual bars to the player is a bit too... meta, and kind of ruins the mood. In theory their reaction to you should be an indicator of how much they like you, although obviously that's a little harder to communicate.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=slashphoenixWhy do you want this? This isn't something I can say I've ever wanted. What's wrong with influencing me with loot? It seems like it adds much a more interesting dimension to the choice, and gives people more incentives to play the game different ways. It also seems like if you completely removed the system from being able to influence the real gameplay, it would become utterly meaningless to anyone who isn't a hardcore RPer.
1) Tying a relationship to a mechanical reward like a weapon upgrade is a bad idea, even if it might make sense in the universe. It inevitably influences the player when they make their decisions. If the character has to make a moral decision, you want the options themselves to be the debate, not an outside factor.
^I'm kinda late for this, but I think Riviera: The Promised Land did a good job with its relationship system. Give it a look-see when you have the time :)
author=LockeZauthor=slashphoenixWhy do you want this? This isn't something I can say I've ever wanted. What's wrong with influencing me with loot? It seems like it adds much a more interesting dimension to the choice, and gives people more incentives to play the game different ways. It also seems like if you completely removed the system from being able to influence the real gameplay, it would become utterly meaningless to anyone who isn't a hardcore RPer.
1) Tying a relationship to a mechanical reward like a weapon upgrade is a bad idea, even if it might make sense in the universe. It inevitably influences the player when they make their decisions. If the character has to make a moral decision, you want the options themselves to be the debate, not an outside factor.
It has to do with how a game tells a story and affects the player, and how rewards affect the player, and what your intentions are with the game.
Quick example: Let's say I have a romantic choice between a tough and silent ex-convict and a caring, naive shepherd, well, I'm going to inevitably make the choices that lead me to be with the one I want to be with. But if the ex-convict has access to a secret rocket launcher and the shepherd has an ancient staff, well... now my choice of who I want to be with is muddled by an unrelated reward and my love for rocket launchers. In theory, your game's story choices should be interesting and compelling without having to bribe the player - unless your game is not particularly story-choice-focused.
There are some cases where the reward is woven into the story in a really clever way, and in those cases it totally makes sense though. IIRC, Dragon Age has a scene where a demon is cursing a small child, and when you hunt it down, it offers you a reward in exchange for letting it go free. You can choose to forgo the reward by killing it and getting revenge. This is a choice that has some deliberate thought behind it - a choice between easy power and doing the right thing.
There's no clear-cut rule for it, of course, but in many games I see relationships and plot choices tied to mechanical rewards really haphazardly, and it ruins the impact of what should already be a really interesting decision.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I guess I just don't find the decision particularly interesting at all unless there's a reward. I'm very obviously not the target demographic for a relationship system in an RPG though. Being able to influence the plot in such a major way actually annoys me - I want the best story, and I would much rather trust the writer to decide what that is than make my own haphazard guesses.
I'm very interested in this topic as a designer specifically because I'm uninterested in it as a player, if that makes sense. It's one aspect of RPGs where I don't really even feel like I know how to tell whether a game did it well or know. I like hearing what you guys think makes a good romance system because you've obviously thought about it way more than I have. I'd rather design an MP consumption system any day, but I need to become better at this.
I remember that scene in Dragon Age. Mostly my choices in dragon age revolved around wanting to please whichever party members I was with, for the stat bonuses you get when they're enamored with you. That was one situation that complicated the issue, and I enjoyed the extra depth added to the decision (instead of the more typical "guess which answer is right and reload if Morrigan disapproves"). What's an example of a tied-in mechanical choice that seemed "haphazard" and how was the impact ruined in that case, if you don't mind answering?
I'm very interested in this topic as a designer specifically because I'm uninterested in it as a player, if that makes sense. It's one aspect of RPGs where I don't really even feel like I know how to tell whether a game did it well or know. I like hearing what you guys think makes a good romance system because you've obviously thought about it way more than I have. I'd rather design an MP consumption system any day, but I need to become better at this.
I remember that scene in Dragon Age. Mostly my choices in dragon age revolved around wanting to please whichever party members I was with, for the stat bonuses you get when they're enamored with you. That was one situation that complicated the issue, and I enjoyed the extra depth added to the decision (instead of the more typical "guess which answer is right and reload if Morrigan disapproves"). What's an example of a tied-in mechanical choice that seemed "haphazard" and how was the impact ruined in that case, if you don't mind answering?
Desertopa
775
author=LockeZ
I guess I just don't find the decision particularly interesting at all unless there's a reward. I'm very obviously not the target demographic for a relationship system in an RPG though. Being able to influence the plot in such a major way actually annoys me - I want the best story, and I would much rather trust the writer to decide what that is than make my own haphazard guesses.
As a player, I don't like it when games are too open-ended, since the writing tends to lose out when the writers have to spread their efforts too thin. But I think that some choice and variability can be a bonus, and as a writer, I tend to like to have some open-endedness to work with, because it lets me explore characters and events from more angles. When it comes to writing romances, the players might have their own opinions on which are best, but if I'm writing multiple possible relationships into a story, I'm going to like all of them, because each relationship is going to be my preferred way of expressing different aspects of the characters or story.
Pages:
1
