[Bioware] Comparing DA and SWTOR to KOTOR - Romance
The post that sparked my interest in this topic was Azuriel's "The problem with Romance", which was more concerned with the suspension of disbelief required to roleplay the opposite gender in romance situations, whereas what I thought about when reading it was of the romances themselves and what was lacking in them that was present in KOTOR -- and why.
The topic on romances is related to my previous post of why companions are marginal to the plot, which I summed up as a consequence of structural feedback and disconnection from the main story, which in turn are consequence of the trend towards a sandbox RPG, one which allows many choices, and allegedly profound consequences, but which cannot work as well as a fixed story (or semi-fixed, like KOTOR), as the "do-it-yourself story" requires many more resources, development time and writing competence. Now, these companions which are marginal to the plot are sometimes thought of by some players as optional content -- When, in which piece of literature, has it happened that characters are secondary? Isn't art a reflection of human (universal) emotions? Characters shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.
But the truth is, how can we take them seriously, especially when romance comes into the mix, if they are alienated from our story, interchangeable, and, on top of that, burdened by terrible and troublesome romance "mechanics"? This was precisely what I wanted to discuss, the mechanics of gift-giving and acquiescence.
In the first Dragon Age title there were only two factors you had to keep in mind when wooing your lady, or your lord: you had to agree with him/her on everything, and you had to give him/her gifts. Of course, everybody knows that real life doesn't work that way; how scary would that be. But there is some dangerous reading into this that many people, particularly young men-children, have made: gifts are proper substitutes of real tokens of affection, and, as long as you are nice, you will get the lady. There are many more factors that contribute to the Nice Guy culture, but certainly games add to this.
In Dragon Age II, what we had was a system in which you could approach a character either by friendship or by rivalry, which is a much more neat approach that recognizes that relationships of any kind are not solely based on agreement and sympathy. Still, I would have liked to see a divergent path for those who pursued the rivalry option, instead of a rephrasing of certain lines. They needed to recycle content in order to meet the release date and all. And then, they took a step back and based the SWTOR romances on the DA system, which the same gift-giving deal and forced roleplaying of your actions to conform to your partner.
In KOTOR 1, the best interactions that you had with your crew were grounded on conflicts: Bastila when displeased by your ways was always much more interesting than in meek acquiescence; and disagreeing with her often led to discussing your conflictive points of view, sometimes arriving to an understanding. I wouldn't dare challenge Morrigan in Dragon Age, she would, O the horror, "disapprove -5!" I remember fondly the constant whining of Carth Onassi, and my ability to tell him to shut up, hairless wookie, ungrateful monkey-lizard. Sometimes he played along, sometimes he got genuinely upset, but there were no consequences of a bit of elegant teasing or serious disagreement, it was even more rewarding that drone-like assent: "So, Morrigan, you're a misanthrope? What a coincidence, I am too!"; "Oh, Alistair, you being a virgin at 25 is perfectly fine and adorable"; "No, Zevran, I'm not worried at all that you might assassinate me as you were hired to do."
If there had been a "positive" outcome from your disagreeing with the Dragon Age characters, similar to the DA2 rivalry system, it would have made sense that you would be interested in pissing them off. What is the point of being hated by Morrigan, if her only lines come through friendship, unless you are roleplaying in your head that she is frothing at the mouth in ire whenever she sees you. As it is, it is just a game within the game, and a gateway system that would prevent you from triggering all the conversations at once. Being able to see how high your standing with somebody is, or how they took that line about their mother, is even more damaging to the experience, as it makes the system stand out in its artificiality.
In SWTOR they took the first approach to romances as a convenience. People comment on how they use the gifts system to get their standing up when their companions haven't been taken out in a while. And how they choose their responses (ironic or earnest, light or dark side) according to what their companion might approve. What a horrendously unrealistic system.
With a semi-fixed story like KOTOR we have characters that you might not be able to kick out from your ship (some of them you will), but we have a more stable system that allows the characters to perform as characters, ingrained in the story and sticking to you no matter the petty disputes and name-calling, because that too constitutes affection.
Click to share thisClick to share this
I’m less concerned about men learning/reinforcing bad dating habits via RPG romances (that’s a problem that practically solves itself, right?), but you make a compelling argument about the one-dimensionality of romances themselves.
I almost wonder though, whether that has more to do with the nature of the medium itself than anything else. Ostensively, the players are here to slay dragons (etc) whereas the romance portion of the game is optional. Thus the writers really only have less than a dozen or so “encounters” in which to convey what are typically incredibly complex machinations IRL. While Bioware is making strides in programming body language, I don’t think the more subtle actions like touching the shoulder (or smiling for that matter) come across very well.
And even if they nailed that part of things, as a gamer I expect… well, numbers. Vagueness in game design is something I abhor generally, and these romances exist within the game. As comical as “disapprove -5″ ends up being, hidden variables are worse (if depressingly realistic) IMO.
I absolutely agree that I would like to see more complex relationships in these games, and/or ones that can be initiated (and maintained) without having to farm approval points by agreeing with everything they say or whatever. Then again… I dunno how complex I want them either, you know? If I decide Miranda is the one for me in ME2, I’m going to be very frustrated if it doesn’t work out based on the one dialog choice I made 20 hours ago.
In other words, I don’t know how game designers go about fixing this.
By comparing it to KotOR, I was proposing that they would go back to make the companions the way they did. But the problem/virtue of KotOR is that it was a more or less fixed story. As it had less options to kill off your companions, or to do this and that minor action that supposedly will have an impact on the plot later, they focused much more in what they were delivering, and less in the choices and their insubstantial outcomes. You could still choose whether you romanced Bastila/Carth/another character, but the conversations with them didn’t involve any approval or gift system, you didn’t have to “seduce” them, just be yourself: sympathetic, peevish, judgemental, socratic…
Of course the complexity of RL cannot be recreated, but that is a problem that novels and films had to tackle too, and they did with more or less success. Blockbuster movies are a failure in that regard, selling an image of romance that has so many problems as the idea of entitlement that these games convey. But books have been working with the topic for a long time, and been successful depicting complex relationships, even if the book is not “about” romance. I would like the same thing for my games. There is not even a need for huge investment, just better writing, and the boldness to create situations beyond the first romantic encounter, and explore the complexities of a fixed relationship. Well, perhaps we’ll be seeing something like this when ME3 comes, with the whole consequences-if-you-cheat-on-your-beloved warning.
“If I decide Miranda is the one for me in ME2, I’m going to be very frustrated if it doesn’t work out based on the one dialog choice I made 20 hours ago.” That actually can happen in any game if you tell your partner that you’re not interested right now. In any case, I don’t think that the system would so as far as barring you from the romance for a little choice. There should be possibility for atonement for almost everything.
The one-dimensionality of romances I think is part of the point; part of *why* they’re one dimensional is because the developer has already decided the player is only there to slay dragons as you say. In other words, romance was never a real possibility, but rather a side intrigue, a device used for immersion. Of course, this becomes a rather shallow device once the player realizes there’s no progress to be made there. There’s nothing to be gained but an interesting, but insignificant, engagement.
But does it add to the experience, despite itself I think I believe it does/did. Going forward I’m in agreement that I’d like to see more exploration of these options.
I think they should stop considering your companions and your relation to them a mere device. They should be participant in the intrigue as much as you do. Perhaps having less characters, better written?
Mass Effect’s story is all right, I guess. Nothing particularly ground-breaking, but interesting to follow to a conclusion. Dragon Age’s… well, it promised dark fantasy and delivered cliché fantasy. I believe that if the games lacked some of the brilliant companions they had, they would have been much less successful. They are not just some device for immersion to many people, including me. I couldn’t care less about the Darkspawn or the Reapers. I already know how the story will unfold, with me victor, pushing them off the galaxy/planet. What I want is to headshot those bastards and high-five with Garrus.
Just take a look at the Bioware Social site, and the amount of posts in each of the character’s threads. Even with that little effort they put into each of them, they’ve turned into the true protagonists of the game.
I think developers are somewhat paralyzed by an unfounded fear of making certain things matter to the player. There’s too much politicization of the game itself, the stakes are unnecessarily raised in order to appeal to cultural norms–norms which *are* problematic. The game would often be better served by *not* conforming to the norms.
For example, romances are funny in DA. I did them all just for a LAUGH. It’s just hilarious the responses and interactions …nothing romantic about them at all. Did I fall in love with Morrigan’s story? Alistair? Zhevran? I thoroughly enjoyed them. But I was also keenly aware that Bioware was avoiding creating certain situations within the game. And this, I believe, is a big part of the reason (other than time and money) that these romances are as much poorly written as they are good. It’s bold in that other games haven’t really even dared, but it’s mediocre in that the timidness of the writting and the acting out of the scenes are just awkward. Someone wasn’t willing to really explore the real issues of homosexuality, or challenge the problems with gender. Those issues are uniformly never discussed or challenged via dialogue in Bioware games.
That’s true.
And besides, is romance something they can really put on the box? “Realistic romances!” I’ve never played Catherine, but from what I hear that was a game entirely revolving around a relationship, but I’m not entire sure we could see more of that sort of thing.
I’ve personally always wondered why we need to have sex/romance in our games at all, since NO ONE seems to handle it well. At the same time, I’m loathe to say companies shouldn’t try even though many get it wrong. It’s territory we really have to conquer to get more compelling games.
“I think developers are somewhat paralyzed by an unfounded fear of making certain things matter to the player. There’s too much politicization of the game itself, the stakes are unnecessarily raised in order to appeal to cultural norms–norms which *are* problematic. ”
That makes sense. Not entirely related to the topic, but it is true that many decisions were made on the basis of not being problematic to certain sectors. For instance, the Asari have been regarded as neither female nor male (when they are so blatantly feminine except for a couple of nominal characters, like the bartender in Illium). Zevran’s homosexuality could also have been a controversial topic, but they made the lore of their game so that it was not “ill-regarded” as it is in real life. But at the same time they didn’t make their game coherent to those norms they just invented, as I wrote on http://hypercriticism.net/2012/dragon-age-ii-equality-at-the-expense-of-credibility/ – Summing up: they made all of them bisexual as a political move, harming the credibility of the setting in the process, as nowhere in the world is bisexuality shown as common.
Thanks for the link. I hadn’t read that article.
I can almost see the developers debating these issues of how to employ romance. “Do we make one companion homosexual? But what if that offends heterosexuals? Do bisexuals offend heterosexuals? If Shep is straight can he romance the homosexual? Best to make everyone bisexual we thinks.”
I can’t draw comparisons to KOTOR because I haven’t played it. What i can say about Dragon Age is that the romance were purposely sterilized. That’s pretty clear to all of us. Next time, it’d be a step toward progress to actually deal with the topic of sexuality. For example, Aveline was a really well done character. She wasn’t a cliched woman. Throughout the tale in DA2 she talks about *real* issues that she deals with as a woman. It’s good stuff that they went there with gender. Next game they ought to go there with sexuality.