vera
5042
Funnily enough, Diana was the one I was interested in. I don’t mind romancing women - but man, I sure hope a person based enough to name their mech Koschei isn’t actually dead.
2 Likes
vera
5043
Captain has the most adorable gestures, even if I like Seven-Year War’s Warrior conversation more. He stands by your side near light jump, treats you very gently and attentively, and in general makes my heart really mushy.
Also, thus alternative romance path start is my fucking jam. I pick it nearly all the time.
“Is battle all you live for?”
Hawkins nods immediately. “Yes. To live one’s life for battle, is there any worthy alternative?”
“Yes, you could live your life for me.”
7 Likes
apple
5044
Aaaaaaaa people are talking about my game! I’ve made it 
I’d hold back on getting too attached to Diana as a Hawkins type. There’s definitely similarities but she’s… well, her arc goes differently, is all I’ll say.
11 Likes
Well, whenever I write ROs, or even every major named character ever, I have to write them as humanly as possible, flaws included. One can be boisterous, another can be clumsy, but that’s part and parcel of their personalities.
That was one of my shortcomings when I wrote Falrika the Alchemist. Sure, the villains are mostly remnants of the tyrannical Weiliwubisky clan, who have bases in real-life bigots, but Kate told me I went too far in making those villains despicable and unredeemable.
q_riley
5047
The day we get another mecha game will be the day I die happily
3 Likes
I personally do hope it’s possible to not have ROs seem all same-y to the readers without making some of them be horrible people, because I can’t just force myself to make ROs I don’t like, it’s just too unpleasant for me to write.
9 Likes
It’s entirely possible! I believe the problem I mentioned comes up when writers get too worried about making sure their character will be liked by all players. Among other things, this can manifest as an NPC being overly kind/perfect as @Sally_Forth mentioned. It can also manifest as an NPC always being in the right, especially if other characters always being on their side so it feels like the PC can’t argue with them, or if the PC isn’t given the option to do so.
It’s also possible to be samey by having every character be awful, or hostile to the PC in repetitive ways. Just as it’s one-note to have everyone being lovely to the PC in the same way, it’s also one-note when all the characters around a PC are constantly pushing them around in the same way, or get to rattle off witty zingers while the PC stands there looking sad.
As with all this stuff, romanceable characters that writers want to be appealing work best when they’re written from the ground up as fully-rounded-out human beings (or supernatural creatures, eldritch beasts, etc) and then the romance comes along with it. I love being a fan of my characters and showing their appealing sides, but for me their other elements are interwoven with their appeal.
20 Likes
I wish I could do a Dragon Age cheat thing and give this +100 approval. Because this hits on all of my pet peeves when it comes to characterization. None of these things should happen, but they often do.
8 Likes
I think a lot of the “ROs are bland” comes from a number of games feeling like the ROs are just there to tick the checkbox. So they weren’t anything more than whatever archetype the author wanted to sell and the player got the “reward” of one or two fairly generic romance scenes for ticking all the right check boxes.
The ROs weren’t really characters so much as prizes for the player to win if the played well or succeeded certain checks.
There was also the era of the obligatory “childhood friend RO” where a lot of games had a childhood friend that was romancable, but they were also either the mischievous type (that the MC had no say in at least being friends with) or pure and innocent (at least in comparison to the other characters) which got a little boring since the archetype played out the same way in every game.
I think the reason people are more interested in the toxic or awful ROs is because every time they appear, the author tends to have a very different take from other authors who have ROs that may be considered similar, leading to them feeling fresh every time.
TLDR: the “nice” characters tend to be taken in the same direction every time, while more toxic ones seem to have more unique directions
21 Likes
Definitely one thing I don’t really like in any media is… When they often focus too much on the main couple, ignoring all the other possible friendship or platonic relationships.
If it’s a romance, I can turn a blind eye, but if it’s a fantasy or an adventure story then no. Personally I would like more dating stories about complicated platonic parent/child relationships (like I’m doing with the wip I want to do)
Personally I don’t mind if a Ro but slightly advanced opinions for context, but he has to be a character. But if they get an arc after being an asshole, even better
8 Likes
jjc73
5053
I personally dislike elements added and then ignored.
“This direction is self explosive yet I cant kill the MC.”
Yes. Let the reader go that way if they desired to, cause it was already part of that story to begin with.
Dont ignore paths that got written in. Either delete it or allow it to go to that outcome the reader is expecting. The other is to address the element with NPC interactions, but applied naturally, not superficially.
7 Likes
Wish I knew where’s the difference between NPC being overly kind, and the NPC respecting the MC (and trying to avoid setting them off). For some reason, I have way less scruples about making MCs who can be horrible. Go figure.
(Eldritch humans for the win.)
So the main problem with this isn’t the NPC being an old friend, but all the other stuff? Did I finally understood right? This has confused me for so long.
No outcomes the reader wasn’t expecting allowed?
1 Like
JBento
5055
Game over scenarios that come out of the blue aren’t looked fondly upon, generally. Note that @jjc73 was referring to “self-explosive” options, meaning that the author writes “you can do this, but it would be, y’know, terribad if you did”, only to not let you do it by fiat when you try.
I’m reasonably certain they weren’t referring to unexpected surprises during the plot of the game.
12 Likes
It depends on who you’re asking.
I think I’ve seen some complaints, this is more towards mischievous or prankster childhood friends, that the MC is forced to think positively of them, even if they don’t have a personality that the MC they’re playing as would be friends with or if they’re kind of an asshole to the MC but “tehe its a prank”.
With the more “sweet” childhood friends, I think the problem is more that all they are is sweet and they’re portrayed as sweet in the same way in every iteration of the childhood friend trope. If you’ve read one childhood friend romance, you’ve read them all.
Overall, I think theres also discontent in how everytime they’re the “childhood friend” (and not friend turned rival/nemesis or whatever), they’re not show to have grown; they’re always the exact same person that the MC knew as a child.
1 Like
Right, but I was more picturing a “self-explosive” option that ends up destroying something that isn’t the MC’s life (but something else important) which then wouldn’t end up in immediate game over (but could led to a bad ending).
JBento
5058
You can definitely do that for stuff the MC STARTS WITH. Stuff that the MC acquires during the game gets iffier (unless then part of the story is getting it back), because those are things the players have (presumably) worked towards getting, and losing them due to something that FEELS arbitrary to the player leaves a bad taste in their mouths.
Example:
-
The MC starts with superpowers. Then, when making a seemingly unrelated choice, those powers get taken. The story becomes about either getting those powers back or (more fitting to our case) adapting to the new, power-less life.
-
The MC doesn’t start with superpowers, but can acquire them during the course of the story, presumably at the expense of something else (time on the player’s part, if nothing else). Then, when making a seemingly unrelated choice, those powers get taken.
These two, while both being “the MC losing their powers”, are two fundamentally different experiences, because in one you’re (apparently) arbitrarily taking away something the player worked and sacrificed for with no warning.
Contrast, additionally, with a variation of the second example, where the player can CHOOSE to sacrifice their powers to save someone or something, or do that saving knowing that they’re risking their powers. Now you’re still taking away something that the player worked for, but you’re making it their choice and giving them something in return.
4 Likes
I was thinking something along the lines of the game signaling “please don’t go raiding the main villain’s lair without preparation, that is a very very bad idea”, which one might then presumably expect to lead to the MC dying, but would instead then lead to them losing the whatever mcguffin they needed to beat the said villain, or someone else dying. Or something. I’m just going off on wild tangents again.
JBento
5060
That seems fair. You’re ALREADY telling people it’s a bad idea to do it, so if it costs them something if they try it anyway, you gave fair warning.
I think @jjc73 was referring to what is almost the opposite: you telling players it’s a bad idea to go raid the villain’s lair, giving the option to do it, them picking it, but when they’re about to [insert shenanigans] and they not being allowed to go through with it after all.
12 Likes
jjc73
5061
Yes.
Another example is, I hate being this. (Yes its the plot.) Once you give a person the emotions of, I hate being this, let that option ride out to an abrupt ending.
BG3 allows these things. Example, dealing with L’azeal. You can surrender to her slicing you. Or Astorion and drinking all the blood.
There are other examples of deaths that happen. You hate being “this”, here is an out.
It allows the world to be more real than some, whats the word, contrived bs that doesnt really care about the reader and their input while going through choices.
Of course limits happen, the best stories are those that let a reader “live” or “die”.
However, yes, those are true thats been said.
Theoretical and I should of said this to one story creator before that had the element:
I hate myself so I tear myself, unless an NPC steps in at right time, I die. As I expect to happen, again, unless a person steps in of course. ITFO allows you to die near the end, it warns you, and allows you to go back to beginning of chapter. Unless you decide it is going to be canon, 12 chapters after, yeah thats deep in that work.
4 Likes
